Category Archives: First Amendment

TALKING POINTS Maura Healey and Geoff Diehl clashed over abortion, Donald Trump and who could best combat high costs in their first debate, a mild affair where the candidates served up familiar arguments with a side of one-liners for social media consumption.

Here are five takeaways from the NBC10 Boston/NECN/Telemundo Boston tilt:

Massachusetts Republican Geoff Diehl, left, and Massachusetts Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey, right, speak before their televised debate for governor, Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2022, at NBC10 Boston television studios, in Needham, Mass. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, Pool) | AP

PARTY POLITICS: Diehl said at the top of the hour that the debate should be about Massachusetts not national politics. But he still tried linking Healey to President Joe Biden. And Healey drew heavily from the Democrats national playbook, calling Diehl a Trump loyalist who wants to "ban abortion" and "ban books" in an attempt to tie him to Republicans who've moved to restrict access to both.

Its not about removing books from libraries," Diehl countered. "This is about allowing parents to have a say in their childrens education. While Diehl describes himself as "pro-life," he said he would set aside his personal views and uphold state laws protecting abortion access as governor. And he dismissed Healey's Trump talk with a seasonal retort: "It's Halloween time, and that's her boogeyman."

THE ELEPHANTS NOT IN THE ROOM: Trump wasnt the only Republican who loomed large over last nights debate. As predicted, the candidates were asked to give outgoing Gov. Charlie Baker a letter grade. Diehl gave the man he nearly primaried a B, saying Bakers done the best he could while navigating Democratic supermajorities in the Legislature. Diehl also reminded reporters after the debate that he supported Baker in all three of his runs for governor. Healey wouldnt give Baker a letter grade Im not a teacher but said hes done a really good job. Why such deference? Voters continue to give Baker high marks in polls and say the state is heading in the right direction under his stewardship.

HINDSIGHT IS 2020: Diehl has gone back and forth over baseless theories about whether the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. Last night he seemed to soften that rhetoric: Obviously Joe Biden won the election. Look how bad the economy is right now," Diehl said. But he said he still "had concerns with the election nationally."

AGREE TO AGREE: Healey and Diehl clashed over energy policies and ballot questions. But they generally agree, at least in the broad strokes, on the biggest challenges facing the state: affordability, housing and transportation.

THE ART OF THE DODGE: Diehl still wouldn't say where he stands on a federal abortion ban. Healey didnt answer a question about whether Massachusetts should be a sanctuary state." She wouldnt share her plan for tackling another Covid-19 surge. And she wouldn't grade Baker. She did what shes been doing well, giving limited details and trying to be a Charlie Baker/Democrat mirage, one Democratic consultant texted.

GOOD THURSDAY MORNING, MASSACHUSETTS. Want to relive the action? The Boston Globe, Boston.com and CommonWealth Magazine have your debate recaps.

TODAY Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito participates in a virtual STEM Advisory Council meeting at 9 a.m. and tours Red Hats Fort Point offices at 12:30 p.m. Rep. Jim McGovern and author Bill Browder discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin and human rights at Worcester State University at 4 p.m. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu announces a new community center in Dorchester at 11:30 a.m.

Healey campaigns in western Massachusetts, starting with a downtown Northampton business walk with Democratic auditor nominee state Sen. Diana DiZoglio at 1 p.m. Diehl and MA-03 congressional candidate Dean Tran attend a fundraiser at 7 p.m. in Chelmsford with a performance by Scott Brown and The Diplomats.

Tips? Scoops? Debate post-mortems? Email me: [emailprotected].

Baker pardons four men for decades-old offenses, by Shira Schoenberg, CommonWealth Magazine: As he closes in on the end of his final term, Gov. Charlie Baker on Wednesday issued the first pardons of his nearly 8 years in office, wiping away criminal records of four people on decades-old convictions, most of them for relatively minor charges. The four men are Kenneth Dunn, Steven Joanis, Stephen Polignone, and Michael Picanso. Bakers pardons must be confirmed by the Governors Council before they go into effect.

GOP Leaders Not Drawing Lines On Spending Bills, by Chris Lisinski, State House News Service (paywall): While their caucuses wield newfound power over the fate of a multibillion-dollar spending and tax relief bill, top Republicans in the House and Senate are wary of digging out an entrenched position on what the proposal must include and exclude. Massachusetts lawmakers are in uncharted waters trying to resuscitate the more than $4 billion economic development bill they unanimously approved but never finalized this summer while apparently still grappling with the impact of paying out nearly $3 billion in mandatory tax refunds. Democrats in charge of the negotiations will need to get every single lawmaker on board to revive the bill or else they risk triggering its final collapse as the two-year term draws to a close. And so far, neither House Minority Leader Brad Jones nor Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr want to play hardball.

Some Mass. Democrats seek to cap tax refunds slated to start going out next month, by Matt Stout, Boston Globe: A group of progressive lawmakers is pushing legislation to limit what taxpayers could receive under a round of automatic state tax refunds slated to start going out next month, arguing the disparity between what the states top earners and some of its poorest could receive is unconscionable. The bill, filed by state Representative Mike Connolly, would limit refunds to $6,500 and redistribute any excess someone would have received over that amount equally among other taxpayers. The goal, Connolly said, is to cap what those making $1 million would receive and ensure others receive more, through an unprecedented return of money under a 1980s-era law. Connolly and his colleagues will hold a press conference on the new bill at 10 a.m. outside the State House.

Early data finds telehealth is largely cost neutral, by Shira Schoenberg, CommonWealth Magazine: One of the biggest shifts in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic was the sudden launch of telehealth. As society returns to a new normal, many questions remain about telehealth. How will it be most useful? Will it save the health care system and consumers money, or will it add to costs? A subcommittee of the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission took a first stab at beginning to answer some of these questions Wednesday, at a meeting where commissioners reviewed telehealth data from 2020. While the lag in timely data limits their analysis, early trends show that telehealth does not add costs to the health care system, but also provides very limited cost savings. Telehealth appears most useful for mental health, where visits have continued at high rates even as physical health visits largely returned to doctors offices.

COVID-era rent relief programs are vanishing, and evictions could follow, by Diti Kohli, Boston Globe: The money and legal protections ushered in by the Baker administration to fend off a feared 'tsunami of evictions' during the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic are disappearing in dribs and drabs, making it harder for people such as [Brighton renter Kim] Bertelson to stay in their homes. Many of the changes were triggered after the $846 million Massachusetts received from federal COVID relief funding began to run dry. The state closed applications for that money in April. That leaves a much smaller and less generous state program, called Residential Assistance for Families in Transition, or RAFT, as the main source of housing aid. It has $210 million available for the fiscal year ending next June.

"At 91, Jean McGuire fights off attacker who stabbed her multiple times at Franklin Park," by Emily Sweeney, Danny McDonald and Christopher Huffaker, Boston Globe: "Jean M. McGuire, a trailblazing educational leader in Boston, was walking her dog, Bailey, through Franklin Park Tuesday night when she was attacked by a man who stabbed the 91-year-old woman multiple times, according to police."

MONEY MATTERS: Republican attorney general nominee Jay McMahon has received $78,748 through the states public campaign financing program, and is eligible for up to $312,500, OCPF said Wednesday. Democratic nominee Andrea Campbell has raised more than $2 million since the start of the year, but spent most of it in the primary, leaving her with less than $60,000 in her campaign coffers entering October. McMahon has raised about $135,000 and had about $37,000 in his bank account at the start of the month, per OCPF. GOP governor and lieutenant governor nominees Geoff Diehl and Leah Cole Allen initially opted into the state public financing program to limit outside spending, but have not taken money through it.

Diehl tries to catch up in the money race, by Christian M. Wade, Eagle-Tribune: Republican gubernatorial hopeful Geoff Diehl is ramping up fundraising efforts as he tries to catch up in the money race against his Democratic rival, Maura Healey, who has amassed a sizable campaign kitty in the final stretch to the Nov. 8 election. Diehl and his running mate for lieutenant governor, Leah Allen, have lined up fundraising events every day over the next week, according to the campaign's public schedule. As of Sept. 30, Diehl had about $88,500 left in his campaign account, compared to Healeys $3.5 million, according to filings with the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

This election's most interesting race? Amore vs. DiZoglio for Mass. Auditor, by Adam Reilly, GBH News: Anthony Amore, the Republican candidate for auditor, is his party's best bet to retain a sliver of statewide power but he faces two big obstacles. His opponent, state Senator Diana DiZoglio, is a political dynamo with a proven record of challenging the Democratic establishment from the inside. And Amore's central argument that Massachusetts voters want, and need, a Republican watchdog on Beacon Hill hasn't been tested since the end of the Trump presidency and the Jan. 6 insurrection. Throw in the fact that Amore is the only statewide candidate endorsed by outgoing Governor Charlie Baker in the current election cycle, making his fate a test of Baker's clout, and it's fair to say the oft-overlooked auditor's race is the most interesting statewide contest of 2022. The problem, for Amore, is that DiZoglio already has more of a record of taking on those same Democrats than he does.

Former Attleboro city councilor John Davis says he's running for mayor again, by George W. Rhodes, The Sun Chronicle: Former four-term city councilor and Attleboro businessman John Davis will make another attempt to win the mayors office. Davis, 57, who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 1997 and 2007, said he feels the time is right to give it another go. He said its hard to beat a popular incumbent, but with Mayor Paul Heroux not running for a fourth term and the possibility Heroux could be elected sheriff of Bristol County, there will be an open seat this January or in 2024.

Fitchburg congressional candidate Dean Tran appeals dismissal of lawsuit against Healey, by Marco Cartolano, Telegram & Gazette: Republican congressional candidate and former Fitchburg state Sen. Dean A. Tran is appealing a federal judge's dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation lawsuit against Attorney General Maura T. Healey. The attorney general's office is currently prosecuting Tran in Worcester Superior Court on charges of intimidating an elderly constituent in June 2019. He is accused of coercing her into giving him her late husbands firearms, making her sign a contract and giving her $1,500 in cash. In early July, Tran, 46, was indicted by a Worcester grand jury on charges including larceny of a firearm and misleading a police investigation. Tran pleaded not guilty to all charges July 28.

Dobbs abortion ruling cited in appeal of Salem murders, by Julie Manganis, Salem News: The U.S. Supreme Courts decision in June that the Constitution does not grant the right to an abortion is being cited on behalf of a Marblehead man appealing his 2012 conviction for murdering his pregnant girlfriend and their unborn but full-term son in Salem. Massachusetts courts have, since 1984, recognized that a viable fetus can be considered a person in homicide prosecutions. But Ronchis appellate attorney, Maine lawyer Neil Fishman, argues the court should now reverse that precedent, partly in light of the Supreme Courts decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Womens Health.

Voters in 1st Hampshire, 1st Franklin districts will have say on carbon tax, by Bella Levavi, Daily Hampshire Gazette: Voters in the 1st Hampshire District, the 1st Franklin District and across the state have an opportunity to weigh in on Election Day whether there should be a fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels otherwise known as a carbon tax to compensate for the environmental damage caused by their use. Question 5 on the Nov. 8 general election ballot in these two districts goes on to propose that most of the proceeds from the fee would be returned in equitable ways to individuals as a cashback dividend.

"Plantation Street will remain; Worcester council ends UMass Chan bid for name change," by Cyrus Moulton, Telegram & Gazette: "The City Council effectively killed a petition by UMass Chan Medical School to rename Plantation Street, but not before plenty of comments about the issue. ... [District 3 Councilor George Russell] said that a name change would require the roughly 6,700 residents and 100 businesses on Plantation Street, Plantation Parkway and Plantation Terrace to change legal and identification documents, change official addresses and go through all sorts of other hassles at considerable expense."

Three Mass. residents among 25 winners of this years MacArthur genius grants, by Travis Andersen, Boston Globe: All told, 25 people were awarded $800,000 grants, which are paid out over five years. Among them were Danna Freedman, an MIT inorganic chemist, Melanie Matchett Wood, a Harvard University mathematician, and Loretta J. Ross, a prominent reproductive and human rights activist who teaches at Smith College, the foundation posted on its website.

Gabbard to stump for Trump-aligned New Hampshire Senate candidate, by Caroline Vakil, The Hill: Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), who recently announced she would be leaving the Democratic Party, will be campaigning ahead of midterms with a GOP Senate candidate in New Hampshire aligned with former President Trump. The campaign for retired Army Gen. Don Bolduc, who won the GOP primary to take on Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) in November, announced on Wednesday that Gabbard would be stumping for him.

SPOTTED at the NBC10 studios for Wednesdays gubernatorial debate: Democratic lieutenant governor nominee Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll and former GOP governor hopeful Chris Doughty.

NEW HORSE RACE ALERT: BALLOT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, PART II Brian Monteiro and Doug Rubin walk hosts Jennifer Smith, Steve Koczela and Lisa Kashinsky through the support for and opposition to ballot Question 2 on regulating dental insurance. Subscribe and listen on iTunes and SoundCloud.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Corinne Falotico and Maria Hardiman of Team Healey.

Want to make an impact? POLITICO Massachusetts has a variety of solutions available for partners looking to reach and activate the most influential people in the Bay State. Have a petition you want signed? A cause youre promoting? Seeking to increase brand awareness among this key audience? Share your message with our influential readers to foster engagement and drive action. Contact Jesse Shapiro to find out how: [emailprotected].

More:
The 5 takeaways from the gov debate - POLITICO - POLITICO

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan newsroom powered by The Philadelphia Inquirer in partnership with PennLive/The Patriot-News, TribLIVE/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and WITF Public Media. Sign up for our free newsletters.

YORK Information on criminal cases will be available faster and with fewer redactions under a settlement agreement between the York County Clerk of Courts and five newsrooms including Spotlight PA that had sued alleging First Amendment violations.

The settlement will bring York County in line with First Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution requirements when granting access to criminal court records, said Sasha Dudding, a legal fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Thats important for both members of the media who are reporting on criminal cases in York County and also members of the public who are entitled to know whats happening in their community, said Dudding, whose organization provides free legal resources to journalists.

Earlier this year, Spotlight PA joined four other state newsrooms to sue York County Clerk of Courts Daniel J. Byrnes after he shut down free, easy access to criminal court records and instituted practices and policies that slowed the release of documents, according to the federal lawsuit filed in March.

Byrnes office also improperly withheld documents and redacted nonconfidential information, obscuring public access that is critical to reporting on the details of a case, the lawsuit alleged.

Dudding and attorney Paula Knudsen Burke both represented Spotlight PA, the York Daily Record, The York Dispatch, LNP Media Group, and public media organization WITF in the lawsuit. Byrnes, an elected Republican who took office in 2020, was the sole defendant.

Byrnes initially called the lawsuit frivolous and said his office has actually expanded free public access to the public, especially to those facing a financial barrier to information.

The Plaintiffs are essentially disgruntled by not having unfettered and immediate access to all records within the Clerk of Courts Office, an attorney for Byrnes wrote in a March 2022 court filing.

In an email Tuesday, Byrnes said his office will continue to reflect our adherence to professional practices that serve the media and general public as accorded by law.

Attorneys for the news organizations pointed to numerous instances where they say the office delayed access to, improperly restricted, and overcharged for judicial records.

During a three-week period in September 2021, journalists from the five news organizations requested access to 42 judicial records. The office provided six the same day, denied access to another six, and redacted information in 32, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said the office improperly redacted details in several cases, including the name of an adult victim of an alleged property crime and the address of a shooting.

In court filings, attorneys for Byrnes wrote that the office complied with the requirements of the statewide court system and Pennsylvania law, but acknowledged a few isolated errors.

As part of the settlement, Byrnes agreed to provide the news organizations with a copy of a policy notifying the public how to access judicial records, and a fee schedule that aligns with statewide court policies.

The agreement also addresses the timeline for obtaining records. Byrnes office will make all reasonable attempts to respond to requests on the same business day on which the request is made, and when not practicable, on the next business day, excepting inconsequential deviations and extraordinary circumstances which may delay access.

The office must also adopt a written policy outlining how it will respond to requests for judicial records made in person and by email.

Byrnes also agreed to pay $6,796.52 for costs and expenses incurred by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Both sides agreed that the clerks office will provide redacted versions of documents in order to protect the identities of victims of human trafficking and minor victims of physical or sexual abuse. But the office agreed to not withhold those documents entirely.

Byrnes on Tuesday said his office is pleased that the lawsuit has been resolved with all parties supporting and acknowledging that the Clerk of Courts has a legal and ethical duty to protect the identity of crime victims, particularly minors as specified in the laws of the Commonwealth of PA.

Byrnes office and the newsrooms agreed to have employees who make or fulfill requests for court records participate in training within 30 days.

Hopefully that will sort of bring everybody to the same understanding, Dudding said.

WHILE YOURE HERE… If you learned something from this story, pay it forward and become a member of Spotlight PA so someone else can in the future at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.

Read more from the original source:
York County agrees to improve public access to criminal court records in response to suit by Spotlight PA, others Spotlight PA - Spotlight PA

Sahan Journal received the Rising Star Award Tuesday evening from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which recognizes leaders in the news media and legal fields whose work embodies the values of the First Amendment.

The committee handed out several awards at a banquet in New York City:

Stephen J. Adler, chair of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, spoke about each recipient in June when the honorees were revealed.

This years honorees are exceptional leaders in their fields, and their impressive bodies of work represent the best of our free press and those who defend it, Adler said at the time. Were thrilled to recognize their dedication to standing up for the newsgathering rights of journalists and producing investigative and accountability reporting to inform communities across the country.

The 2022 Freedom of the Press Awards was held on October 11, 2022, at the Ziegfeld Ballroom in New York City. The awards dinner was co-chaired by Chairman and Publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger and CEO of the Americas and U.S. Senior Partner at Brunswick Group Nikhil Deogun.

The dedication, tenacity and perseverance of this years Freedom of the Press Award winners are what make them stand out as leaders in journalism and media law, Bruce D. Brown, executive director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in June. From their courageous reporting that challenges the status quo and better informs communities, to their decades-long dedication to bringing people the news they need and protecting journalists legal rights, each of our honorees embodies the First Amendment in their own way. Were so proud to celebrate them and their accomplishments.

The Reporters Committee introduced several new award designations during this years Freedom of the Press Awards celebration.

Sahan Journal was recognized with the Reporters Committees fourth Rising Star Award, which honors an up-and-coming journalist, media lawyer, or organization that has already made great strides in defending freedom of the press or who has conquered significant roadblocks in the course of telling an important story.

The nonprofit online news organization is dedicated to covering Minnesota immigrants and communities of color, and to chronicling how these communities are changing and redefining what it means to be a Minnesotan. Mukhtar M. Ibrahim, the founding publisher and CEO, is among the first trained journalists of Somali background in Minnesota and in the country. Before launching Sahan Journal, he worked as a staff writer for The Star Tribune and Minnesota Public Radio News. In 2021, he was recognized as the Institute for Nonprofit News Emerging Leader.

Thomas was recognized with the Freedom of the Press Local Champion Award, which honors a journalist, attorney or organization whose work has had a significant impact locally. She is the founding editor and publisher of MLK50: Justice Through Journalism, an award-winning nonprofit newsroom in Memphis focused on poverty, power and public policy.

A 2016 fellow at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, Thomas has worked for The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal, The Charlotte Observer, The Tennessean and The Indianapolis Star. As part of ProPublicas 2019 Local Reporting Network, she investigated the rapacious debt collection practices of a nonprofit hospital, which led the hospital to raise the pay of its lowest-paid workers to $15 an hour and erase nearly $12 million in hospital debt for more than 5,300 defendants. Her honors include the 2020 Selden Ring Award, the 2019 National Association of Black Journalists Best Practices Award and being named the 2018 Journalism and Women Symposiums Journalist of the Year.

Khan was recognized with the Freedom of the Press Catalyst Award, which honors a journalist or organization whose reporting has had a significant impact. Her investigations for The New York Times Magazine, the PBS series FRONTLINE, and BuzzFeeds investigations team have exposed major myths of war, prompting widespread policy impact from Washington to Kabul, and winning nearly a dozen awards. Most recently, her groundbreaking investigation examining civilian deaths resulting from U.S. airstrikes in the Middle East since 2014 for The New York Times, The Civilian Casualty Files, received the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.

Khan is the Patti Cadby Birch Assistant Professor at Columbia Journalism School, where she is also the inaugural Director of the Simon and June Li Center for Global Journalism, and co-founder of The Gumshoe Group. She also serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Pulitzer Center and the Board of Governors of the Overseas Press Club of America.

Baine and Woodruff were each recognized with the Freedom of the Press Career Achievement Award, which honors an individual with a long history of upholding the value of freedom of the press throughout their career.

As one of the nations leading First Amendment attorneys, Baine has defended freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion in state and federal courts throughout the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In his more than four decades at Williams & Connolly, he has represented The Washington Post and other major news organizations and entertainment companies, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, HBO, Sony Pictures and others in a variety of cases involving First Amendment issues. Baine has been recognized repeatedly by Chambers USA as one of two Star Individuals (Nationwide) in First Amendment Litigation.

Woodruffs career as an award-winning broadcast journalist has spanned more than four decades at NBC, CNN and PBS. She served as White House correspondent for NBC News from 1977 to 1982, followed by one year as chief Washington correspondent for NBCs Today Show. She first joined PBS in 1983 as chief Washington correspondent, and later anchored PBS award-winning documentary series, Frontline with Judy Woodruff.

After moving to CNN in 1993, she served for 12 years as an anchor and senior correspondent, before returning to the NewsHour in 2007. In 2013, she and the late Gwen Ifill were named the first two women to co-anchor a national news broadcast. She is also a founding co-chair of the International Womens Media Foundation and has served as a longtime Steering Committee member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

More:
recognized by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Sahan Journal

Restrictions under the pandemic caused an absence of ceremony comparable only to one other period of time since officials in Washington State first allowed them at least 50 years ago: In 2010, the Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) sharply curtailed the Indigenous faith practices it allowed. At issue were budget cuts and a dispute over whether to allow children to attend powwows.

But the religious rights of Indigenous prisoners are protected under the First Amendment, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, including the 1979 case Bell v. Wolfish, which found that prisoners "do not forfeit all Constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison.

Ten tribes petitioned the governor for a reversal of the 2010 policies, but it took over two years for the WDOC to restore Native prisoners religious rights.

In the spring of 2010, Galanda helped a Tulalip tribal member regain his job as Native chaplain when the WDOC fired him for trying to bring in tobacco for use during a change-of-seasons ceremony.

At the September powwow, Galanda said his own father had been imprisoned in Washington when his mother was pregnant with him.

Because of that history, Galanda said, the 2010 phone call from a Tulalip tribal attorney asking him to help the fired Native chaplain changed his life and spurred him to form Huy.

At the time, Galanda said, my wife was pregnant with my daughters and I had just started a law firm. We took on this work because it was what Creator asked me to do.

In the Coast Salish Lushootseed language, Huy means See you again/We never say goodbye.

Since then, Huy has worked as a watchdog for Indigenous prisoners, winning court battles and appeals across the country and delivering intercessions to the United Nations.

Sometimes, like when heightened COVID restrictions prevented Indigenous sweat lodges, Huy used a softer approach.

Through diplomacy we were able to work through those things, Galanda said.

Children were able to attend the event in September because of an agreement Huy forged with prison officials. Huy donated money to cover the cost of additional security needed to hold the event and to pay for the feast.

In general, Indigenous religious and cultural opportunity is a proven way to allow our relatives to heal and obtain redemption, Galanda said. It is also a proven way to reduce infraction and recidivism. So its a win-win for everyone involved in corrections to allow our relatives to do what theyve always done religiously and spiritually."

Read the original post:
Incarcerated Natives gather for first powwow in three years - Crosscut

In a Supreme Court brief it filed this week, The Onion claims it was founded in 1756 and has a daily readership of 4.3 trillion. The brief describes The Onion as the single most powerful and influential organization in human history, with interests in shipping, strip mining, deforestation and animal testing as well as journalism.

The case that prompted The Onions brief is no less ridiculous than the satirical websites patently preposterous puffery. Last April, a federal appeals court said a man could not sue police officers who had arrested him for making fun of them because they could have reasonably thought their petty vendetta was consistent with the First Amendment.

The spoof of the Parma, Ohio, police departments Facebook page that Anthony Novak created in 2016 was not subtle. It included a job notice that said the department is strongly encouraging minorities to not apply, a post advertising a police abortion van for teenagers, a warning that Parma had made giving homeless people food a crime so they would leave our city due to starvation and an announcement of our official stay inside and catch up with the family day, during which anyone venturing outside between noon and 9 p.m. would be arrested.

People are also reading

Novaks parody, which was online for just 12 hours, prompted 11 calls to the police departments nonemergency line. Based on that reaction, Novak was arrested and prosecuted for violating a broadly worded state law against using a computer to disrupt, interrupt, or impair police services a felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison.

A jury promptly acquitted Novak, perhaps recognizing that the logic underlying the charge against him would justify prosecuting anyone whose online criticism provoked phone calls or protests that incommoded the police in any way. But after Novak sued seven police officers for violating his First Amendment rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, which shields cops from liability unless their alleged misconduct violated clearly established law.

The 6th Circuit cited two reasons why police might have reasonably believed that Novaks spoof did not qualify as constitutionally protected speech. Novak had deleted comments describing the page as fake, which he thought ruined the joke, and he had reposted a police department warning about the ersatz account, which he thought made the joke funnier.

When the case against Novak was presented to a grand jury, Detective Thomas Connor claimed the people who called about the parody honest to God believed it was the departments official Facebook page. But after Novak sued Connor, the detective admitted that was not true.

Even if a few especially credulous or inattentive people were fooled, the Institute for Justice notes in its petition asking the Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuits decision, that would not matter under the First Amendment. As the appeals court itself noted at an earlier stage of the case, the law requires a reasonable reader standard, not a most gullible person on Facebook standard.

The court initially recognized that the First Amendment does not depend on whether everyone is in on the joke. The Onion amplifies that point in its brief supporting Novaks petition, saying, a reasonable reader does not need a disclaimer to know that parody is parody.

That approach, The Onion explains, would rob parody of its rhetorical power. The technique relies on first tricking people into thinking its real, then revealing the joke by piling absurdity on absurdity.

Because parody mimics the real thing, the brief notes, it has the unique capacity to critique the real thing. Hence it should be obvious that parodists cannot be prosecuted for telling a joke with a straight face.

Whats obvious to most (but not all) Onion readers is not obvious enough under the 6th Circuits understanding of qualified immunity. That would be funny if the implications for freedom of speech were not so serious.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Syndicated by Creators.com.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the rest here:
Jacob Sullum: Mocking the police is not a crime: A first amendment case prompts The Onion to explain how parody works - Times-News

University of Florida (UF) has a particularly troubling history of sexism and racial exclusion. In 1905, the Florida legislature adopted the Buckman Act to ensure that UF shall admit no person other than white male studentslong after other state flagships were admitting women. In 1949, UFs law school refused to admit Virgil Hawkins, a Black man, despite several U.S. Supreme Court decisions by this time paving the way for the desegregation of graduate and professional education. Even after the Supreme Court overturned separate but equal education in Brown v. Board of Education, Florida continued to insist Hawkins attend a separate law school.Dr. Frank Fernandez

Over nine-years, Hawkins took his case before the Florida Supreme Court five times and the U.S. Supreme Court four times. UF and Florida courts ignored, then flat-out violated, Supreme Court rulings ordering the campus to admit Hawkins. During 1956, the states Governor vowed that Florida was just as determined as any Southern state to maintain segregation. It was 1958 before UF admitted a Black law student (not Hawkins). The first Black graduate of UF came from the law school in 1962, and the first Black UF student to earn a baccalaureate degree graduated in 1965.

Fast forward to today. Florida uses a financial aid scheme that disproportionately directs money to white students. Around 21% of the school-aged population is Black, but only about 6% of students who receive Bright Futures scholarships are Black. The legacies of exclusion persist, and progress cannot be made without acknowledging the troubled history of the institution. To ignore the sins of the pastand prevent current activismFlorida lawmakers have sought to outlaw Floridas students and professors from talking about how legacies of racism and sexism continue to impact society.

Last week, the governing board for Floridas public colleges and universities, defended the states Stop WOKE Act, which bans critical race theory and similar perspectives from classrooms. The board contended that Floridas faculty do not have First Amendment rights to speak and that Floridas students do not have First Amendment rights to learn. The board rejected the idea that a public university should be a marketplace of ideas. Instead, it argued that curriculum in public universities should be set in accordance with the strictures and guidance of the States elected officials. That any classroom instruction is government speech.

The board, looked to turn First Amendment precedent on its head when it comes to student and faculty speech in higher education. The board argued that Florida can exclude ideas from the classroom simply because it offends elected officials like the Florida governor. Perhaps most disturbingly, the board relied on several Supreme Court rulings focused on how K-12 administrators can control student speech. In essence, the board argued that states should control higher education, just as they control K-12 schools. After years of financial investment, hiring world-class faculty, and recruiting talented students, so UF would be ranked as one of the top public universities in the country, UFs board believes the next step is to run the university like an elementary school. The state has already limited learning about racism and sexism in primary and secondary schools. Banning critical perspectives from higher education will ensure that Floridas children can move from preschool to graduate degrees without ever learning anything that contradicts a state-sanctioned version of historyDr. Neal Hutchens.

The boards argument violates professors First Amendment rights, as well as UFs institutional policy on Academic Affairs; Academic Freedom and Responsibility. The board, made up of political donors to the current Governor, argued that university curriculum should be set by the state and its elected officials, in direct contrast to the policy delivered to faculty. UF policy acknowledges professors must have freedom in the classroom in discussing academic subjects [and] selecting instructional materials. Further, the faculty and student body must be free to cultivate a spirit of inquiry and scholarly criticism and to examine ideas in an atmosphere of freedom.

Historically, UF policy has recognized that both instructors and students requireand benefit fromacademic freedom: The university student must likewise have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment. We argue that the governing boards recent position that the state and its elected officials should control the curriculum limits students First Amendment rights to learn and discuss. By treating students as children in primary schools, rather than adults enrolled in a university, UF students will pay the high cost of a college education and not learn as much as their peers in states like California, Illinois, and New York. How can UF students receive a world-class education when the curriculum is so parochial?

UF does not stand alone. We, along with Dr. Vanessa Miller, recently completed a study that showed that legislators in a majority of states around the country have introduced legislation to ban CRT and similarly divisive concepts from being taught in higher education. At present, 8 states have adopted anti-CRT legislation. In two more states, elected officials sought to limit CRT without going through their respective legislatures.

Politicians have historically used claims of 'state rights to repress individual rights. When courts consider citizen challenges to state efforts to control speech and curricula, they should consider the long, troubled histories underpinning arguments for state rights. The desire of a few men to control a curriculum cannot outweigh the First Amendment rights of students to learn and discuss in public universities.

Dr. Frank Fernandez is an assistant professor of higher education at University of Florida

Dr. Neal Hutchens is a professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies & Evaluation at University of Kentucky.

Read the original post:
Florida: State Rights Over Individual Rights - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

New legislation has been introduced that would expand access to school libraries and codify student First Amendment Rights. The Right to Read Act (S. 5064 andH.R. 9056), introduced by Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed and Arizona Representative Ral Grijalva, would put a certified school librarian in every public school library across the country.

Among the Right to Read Act provisions:

The final piece is a direct response to the increase in book challenges and bans across the United States. These bans specifically target books by and about queer people and people of color, and it aims to help protect professionals experiencing these assaults on student First Amendment Rights, their own professional knowledge, and local legislation threatening outrageous fines and jail time for providing such materials.

Literacy is the cornerstone of a high-quality education in every society, yet today we are seeing our nations children subjected to politically led efforts to block access to books. Censoring our education system based on bias is national travesty.said Rep. Grijalva in the press release for the Right to Read Act.We must ensure that our school libraries are equipped to empower and engage students from every background which is why I am proud to introduce the Right to Read Act with Senator Reed. This legislation will support the development of effective school libraries, including recruitment and retention of librarians, and provide federal funding for literacy resources in high need communities. This bill will also help protect the right to access diverse, inclusive school library collections. Together, we will build and develop effective school libraries with diverse and robust resources to deliver positive and formative opportunities for students.

Today In Books Newsletter

Sign up to Today In Books to receive daily news and miscellany from the world of books.

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

Introduced October 6, the bill has been praised by groups like the American Library Association and the American Association of School Librarians. The Right to Read Act addresses the inequities to information and information professionals across the country. A reported 2.5 million students are currently in public schools without a certified school librarian, while 30% of all public school students do not have access to a full-time school librarian. According to the press release for the Right to Read Act, access to a school librarian results in 73% higher literacy rates for students, and the impact is even greater for low income, minority, and disabled students.

Quality teaching and effective school libraries go hand-in-hand with securing the right to read for our students. We know that literacy is key to unlocking opportunity and success,said Senator Reed in the Right to Read Act press release.The Right to Read Act is about making sure that low-income, minority, children with disabilities, and English language learners have equal access to that opportunity through high quality, appropriately staffed school libraries and diverse and inclusive reading materials both at school and at home.

Although the bill is a positive step in the right direction for building more equitable access to public education and a positive step toward curtailing our current book banning climate, the reality is the bill will likely see no action through the end of the year. The midterm elections and a lame duck Congress mean it will likely wait until 2023 to see any action on the floor.

That said, the Right to Read Act should be impetus for electing pro-education, pro-library, anti-censorship advocates into positions of federal, state, and local positions in this upcoming vote. This bill would be a boon for public education and First Amendment Right protections.

Read the original:
New Right to Read Bill Expands School Library Access, Students Rights to Read - Book Riot

Im always amused when the Arguments Against Passage section makes a better argument for a ballot question than the actual argument for the ballot question.

Question 1 seeks to amend the Nevada Constitution to guarantee equal rights regardless of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin. Most of these guarantees are already in place in some form or another elsewhere, either at the federal level or in state statute somewhere. For example, NRS 613.330 was amended in 2011 to prohibit discriminatory employment practices based upon the gender identity or expression of a person.

According to the Arguments Against Passage section on Question 1, however, if there are new constitutional protections to classifications such as sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, it will be impossible to protect the religious liberties of individuals who hold traditional views on marriage and gender and want to live according to those values. This is a curious argument, as many Nevadans have religious beliefs which oppose the consumption of alcohol or cannabis and yet, despite Nevadas famously convenient access to both, many religious Nevadans simply dont buy those products, thus exercising their religious freedom without restricting the freedom of others to do otherwise. Why cant these same people simply marry each other and live according to their traditional gender roles while those who choose to live otherwise live in peace and legal equality?

Being religious does not or, at least, should not grant one the right to use the power of the state (or any of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions) to treat others unequally according to whatever precepts are shared amongst your brethren. You can personally treat others unequally if thats your wish doing so is rude but you always have the right to be a jerk. If youre doing so while working for or serving as an agent of the government, however, the government exists to serve everyone, not just those youre personally comfortable working with. If you have a problem with that, go work for someone else preferably somewhere else.

Im going to vote in favor of Question 1 for three reasons.

On a technical basis, rights are properly protected in constitutions because they are considerably more difficult to amend than statutes. Article 1 of our state constitution enumerates the inalienable rights all Nevadans enjoy by virtue of living within our states borders. These rights even include rights which are also protected under the U.S. Constitution Sections 4, 9 and 10, for example, protect freedom of religion, speech and assembly, which are also protected under the First Amendment. Leaving the equal protection of Nevadans under the law scattered around various federal and state statutes is both inefficient and prone to error federal and state statutes, after all, get amended, which means the legal equality of Nevadans could be amended out from underneath them.

On a historical basis, the reason Question 1 inventories classes such as race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin is because Nevada (and our nation more generally) has, in fact, denied equality of the law to each of those groups in the past. Upon statehood, for example, Nevada explicitly only granted white men the ability to vote (the word white wasnt removed from Article 2, Section 1 until 1880; womens suffrage didnt come to Nevada until 1914). Its wise to put into writing that our state will stop doing that.

Finally, its a little disingenuous for Nevada, which has a historically libertine reputation, to legally treat those who dont hold traditional views on gender or marriage differently from those who do. Nearly a century ago, Reno served as a sanctuary from those who needed to escape the confines of the traditional view that a marriage is only divisible by death and made a pretty penny doing so. Nevada is frankly at its best when it serves as a sanctuary for those who dont fit into traditional society as a place where people are people regardless of how they look, how they dress, or who they love.

David Colborne ran for office twice and served on the executive committees for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now an IT manager, a registered nonpartisan voter, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

Excerpt from:
Question 1: These rights weren't guaranteed in the first place? The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

A podcast series on shocking abuse at Utahs homes for troubled teens produced by a multiple-media team of journalists, and the Minnesota Star Tribunes revelations of court-aided exploitation of accident victims, have taken top honors in the 16th Annual Barlett and Steele Awards for the Best in Investigative Business Journalism.

The inaugural award for Outstanding Young Journalist was claimed by Neil Bedi of ProPublica for an investigation into faulty mechanical heart pumps.

In addition to the first-ever Young Journalist award, this year marks the first time the Barlett and Steele Awards have recognized publications across two categories, Global/National and Regional/Local, to honor more of the outstanding business journalism being produced throughout the U.S. Each category features a Gold, Silver, and Bronze award. These awards come with cash prizes of US$3,000, US$2,000, and US$1,000 respectively. The Young Journalist award features a cash prize of US$3,000.

The Gold award in the Global/National category was won by a collaboration among American Public Media, Salt Lake Tribune, and KUER public radio, for their tenacious investigative work into the Utah governments lackluster oversight of facilities housing troubled teenagers, resulting in widespread abuse. Their work resulted in a seven-part podcast series titled Sent Away.

Rounding out the Global/National category, the Silver award went to The Wall Street Journal for its investigation into federal judges hidden conflicts of interest. The Bronze was awarded to a team of reporters from Bloomberg for their revelations about questionable practices at a telemedicine startup.

In the Regional/Local category, the StarTribune won the Gold award for documenting how accident victims in several states were convinced to transfer their court-ordered compensation to other parties for a fraction of its value. In one case, StarTribune said, a mentally impaired car accident victim sold more than half a million dollars in future payments for $12,001.

The Silver award in the Regional/Local category went to a duo from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for a series on dangerous dwellings, while a team of reporters from The Palm Beach Post and ProPublica won the Bronze award for documenting harmful pollution by the sugar industry.

The Barlett & Steele Awards are administered by the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State Universitys Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. The awards are named for the illustrious investigative business journalist team of Don Barlett & Jim Steele, who have worked together for more than four decades, receiving two Pulitzer Prizes, two National Magazine awards, and a long list of other journalism awards.

This years winners are in the finest tradition of what these awards have come to represent great reporting, fine writing and expert data analysis, Steele said. The winners are a testament to the value of in-depth reporting and how it benefits the public.

Reynolds Center Director Dr. Jeffrey Timmermans said: This addition of more awards this year has allowed us to recognize more ground-breaking investigative business journalism in the U.S. While the industry continues to face many challenges, the fact that there is so much outstanding work being done at news organizations throughout the country from Utah to Florida is cause for optimism.

About the winners

Gold Global/National Category

In their seven-part podcast series Sent Away, reporters from American Public Media, Salt Lake Tribune, and KUER public radio teamed up to expose the limitations of government oversight within the troubled-teen treatment industry. In the last six years, 20,000 kids from all over the country have been sent to more than 100 privately run treatment programs in Utah. This investigation found that the state took a hands-off approach to regulating these facilities, which enabled rampant abuse.

During the investigation, reporters hit a wall: Utah asked for thousands of dollars in fees to turn over inspection and investigation reports. Journalists turned to crowd-funding to cover the cost. The state eventually turned over 10,000 pages of records that showed reports of alleged sexual abuse, exploitation, and other atrocities. Even the death of a resident didnt spur the government to step in or implement more rigid regulations, reporters found.

As a direct result of their reporting, the Utah government has taken a stronger approach to enforcing regulations, including revoking the license of one program named in the podcast. Additionally, the state is creating an online database to allow free public access to inspection reports the same documents the reporters had to pay for.

As noted by the judges, this is an extraordinary piece of investigative reporting that demonstrates the power of podcast journalism at its best.

Silver Global/National Category

The Wall Street Journal investigation Hidden Interests examines how more than 130 federal judges broke a 1974 law. The law requires federal judges to recuse or excuse themselves from a case involving parties in which they or their family members have legal or equitable interest. WSJ examined 700 judges who held stocks with large companies and tens of thousands of cases from 2010 to 2018 and found 129 federal district judges and two other federal plaintiff judges to be in violation of the law.

Their investigation found that oftentimes, the judges were ruling in favor of their financial and familial ties. Sixty-one of the total judges accused were found to be trading the stocks while they were on the affiliated case.

There arent any laws or rules that ban judges from owning stocks, they just must recuse the cases when they are presented with them. These violations are not often seen by the public and judges financial information is only available upon request.

This WSJ investigation dives into the specific cases judges accepted and how their intentions may or may not have been financially motivated.

Bronze Global/National Category

Questionable Practices brings the first important revelations about the largest medical mental-health startup, Cerebral, and its effort to bring telemedicine techniques to mental healthcare. With the demand for mental health services increasing, companies are finding ways to provide patients with quick solutions to their problems. Cerebral was one of the companies to start prescribing controlled substances online during relaxed rules that came out of the pandemic.

Bloomberg reporters found a lack of delicate consideration assessment from the million-dollar business when prescribing medication to their patients. Their piece dives into how Cerebral continued to use strong marketing techniques to bring in patients, despite the number of clients who have been negatively impacted by their practices.

Gold Regional/Local Category

Star Tribune reporters Jeff Meitrodt and Nicole Norfleet exposed the inhumane practices performed on car accident victims in their series Unsettled: Cashing in on Accident Victims. The investigation found that companies pay to take peoples future settlement checks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for immediate and much smaller payments.

The reporting duo searched through thousands of pages of court documents to examine deals implemented from 2000 to 2020. They found a trend in places such as Minnesota that show how much money victims receive versus what the agreement was and the types of victims that suffer from yet another catastrophe. This investigative piece highlights not only the insurance companies involvement but also the effects on mental health.

The Unsettled series is an exemplary work of reporting and does a superb job in shedding a light into the little-known settlements purchasing industry, said the judges. The findings are astonishing and the thoroughness of the reporting examining from the lens of all those involved from the victims, to the judges and the companies is impressive.

Silver Regional/Local Category

Dangerous Dwellings, a year-long Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation, examines the squalid living conditions in some of the citys worst apartments. The reporters found that the housing shortage and government inaction enabled absentee landlords to squeeze the properties for higher profits while putting tenants safety in peril.

Through a three-part series with character-driven stories, extensive data analysis, damning photos, and investigating more than 1,000 apartment complexes across five counties, the AJCs story found that much of the regions affordable housing is nearly uninhabitable. In many cases, landlords didnt provide the bare minimum: functional plumbing, security cameras, gates that properly lock and close. Not only are those properties barely habitable but the public is footing the bill for landlords tax breaks while their tenants perish.

Dangerous Dwellings underscores how these dangerous conditions are part and parcel of a lucrative business model, smartly juxtaposing the living conditions of tenants and owners, said the judges. Its spherical reporting that doesnt simply describe a problem but goes deeper into finding out whos to blame and why.

In response to the AJCs investigation, Georgia district attorneys announced they intended to start cracking down on negligent apartment complex landlords.

Bronze Regional/Local Category

The joint investigation between The Palm Beach Post and ProPublica follows Thelma Freedman and her two grandsons who were hospitalized in 2019 for upper respiratory infections. They live in the Glades, an area in Florida that is home to growing half of the countrys cane sugar. Each year, growers will burn their fields as a harvesting technique that covers the town in ash which the locals have named Black Snow.

State officials have found the sugar industry in violation of the Clean Air Act of 1970. But the investigation found that residents were exposed to pollutants in ways that monitoring systems had missed. Spending a year speaking with various community members, the reporters were able to see how the smoke was affecting them.

Additionally, the reporters used a unique investigative tool, automated text messages, to communicate with the community and gather information in real-time. They found that the community was staying indoors to avoid the harmful effects of the smoke and that it was only affecting communities of color and those in poverty.

This in-depth investigation is driven by human stories backed with actual data that shows how the sugar industry and state organizations have not properly addressed the pollution residents in lower-income areas of Florida are experiencing.

Outstanding Young Journalist

In his reporting, Neil Bedi of ProPublica went beyond identifying the harm caused by malfunctioning HeartWare devices. Through investigative analysis, Bedi identified the countless missteps taken by the FDA that showed that the government long knew of the problems that patients were never informed of.

This investigation revealed how easily companies can slip through major systemic gaps in the government systems that are intended to protect the most vulnerable. Bedi rigourously worked to connect with people who were harmed by the devices to continue telling their stories even after the initial story was published. Bedis reporting prompted Congress to investigate the FDAs regulation of the HeartWare device and pushed the manufacturer, Medtronic, to expand financial assistance to consumers.

Neil Bedis investigative analysis of the missteps in the FDAs work with HeartWare are nicely juxtaposed with real testimonials, said the judges. You can tell Bedi went to great lengths to research and report this story.

The Reynolds Center will spotlight the recipients of the top prizes at an event on Nov. 9 at 6 p.m. Arizona time in the First Amendment Forum at the Cronkite School in Downtown Phoenix. Tune in to the Reynolds Center event page for updates on the live event.

Read this article:
Winners of the 16th Annual Barlett & Steele Awards announced - Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication

LSU football, Brian Kelly press conference before Tennessee game

Recapping LSU football, Brian Kelly's opening week press conference ahead of Saturday's matchup against Tennessee.

Koki Riley, Lafayette Daily Advertiser

To say that the Louisiana Constitution is fluid is an understatement. Since it was ratified in 1974, voters have approved 203 amendments.

And they'll have to decide whether to approve or reject eight more changes to the state Constitution in the Nov. 8 election.

The proposed list of amendments addresses everything from taxes to a clarification on slavery and "involuntary servitude."

Following is an abridged and edited explanation of the amendments from the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, which provides a guide without taking a position. For PAR's full guide to the proposed amendments with detailed explanations go to http://parlouisiana.org/:

A vote for would: Let the state increase to 65% the maximum amount of money in seven different trust funds that can be invested in equities on the stock market.

A vote against would: Keep tighter limits in place on the percentage of the trust funds money that can be invested in the stock market, with some unable to be invested in equities at all.

Argument for: Increasing the trust funds investments in the stock market could generate more earnings over the long term to benefit health, education, wildlife and other programs that receive the money.

Argument against: The stock market is volatile and exposes the trust funds to greater risk and loss possibilities in the short term.

A vote for would: Increase the property tax exemption available to veterans with service-related disabilities and to their surviving spouses after the veterans death to up to $150,000.

A vote against would: Maintain the current level of property tax exemption available to veterans with service-related disabilities and to their surviving spouses.

Argument for: Louisiana veterans and their spouses may have a difficult time supporting their households after losing a substantial portion of their annual income and the veterans ability to maintain a job.

Argument against: Special property tax breaks that have been granted over the years erode the tax revenue available to local government agencies that provide services.

A vote for would: Allow most of Louisianas civil service employees to support certain campaign activities of a candidate for public office when that candidate is an immediate family member.

A vote against would: Continue the current prohibition on Louisianas civil service employees participating in campaign activities or supporting candidates for public office.

Argument for: People, no matter their jobs, should be able to support family members if they are running for political office. Limits on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech should be as narrowly tailored as possible.

Argument against: The prohibitions on political activity for civil service workers were enacted to protect taxpayersfinancing the salaries of the employees, to curb inappropriate acts by employees who are supposed to do their work in a nonpartisan fashion and to protect the workers from political retaliation and undue influence.

A vote for would: Let local water districts, municipalities or other political subdivisions reduce customer bills for water use if the charges stem from water lost due to damage outside a customers control.

A vote against would: Keep local water districts, municipalities and other political subdivisions from lowering bills or waiving customer charges for water use in almost all circumstances.

Argument for: Water system administrators should have flexibility to help customers if bills were improperly increased by damage out of the control of a customer, such as infrastructure problems caused during an ice storm, flood or other disaster.

Argument against: Allowing widespread waivers of customer charges undermines system sustainability, taking awaymuch-needed money from systems already struggling with outdated infrastructure. Changing theprohibition makes system administrators more vulnerable to outside political pressure.

A vote for would: Give local taxing bodies more time to decide if they want to roll forward millages that increase property taxes paid by businesses and homeowners.

A vote against would: Keep the rules governing millage roll forwards the same, giving local taxing bodies until the next property reappraisals to make the decision.

Argument for: Many taxing districts automatically choose to roll forward their millage rates to the maximum allowable because they fear losing the decision-making ability in the future after another property reassessment. The use-it-or-lose-it aspect of a millage rate means homeowners and businesses pay higher property taxes in the short-term than they might otherwise pay if the taxing bodies had more time to make those financial decisions. Taxing authorities should have more time to decide if theyll need the increased tax revenue.

Argument against: Taxing districts have enough time under the current system to make budgetary decisions about whether they need the full millage rate authorized for them. They shouldnt be allowed to roll forward millage rates for years on end, a situation that would increase property tax payment uncertainty for homeowners and businesses.

A vote for would: Limit increases in the property tax liability of homes subject to homestead exemption in Orleans Parish, capping the reassessment increase to 10% of the residential propertys assessed value in the previous year.

A vote against would: Continue the current system, which requires a four-year phase-in of tax liability for homes subject to the homestead exemption when a reappraisal increases assessments by more than 50%.

Argument for: The annual 10% cap on reassessed value gives homeowners the time to adjust to higher payments and eases the sticker shock of large reassessments as property value skyrockets in Orleans.

Argument against: Special property tax breaks that have been granted over the years erode the tax revenue availableto local government agencies that provide services. This could lower revenue collections in Orleans Parish, which already is struggling to maintain services.

Editor's note: Amendment No. 7 was rewritten after the bill was introduced. The rewritten language has been interpreted in different ways, with varying implications. Those conflicting interpretations have raised concerns from the bill sponsor, who said his intent was to restrict the use of involuntary servitude, not broaden it, and who said he intends to oppose the amendment.

A vote for would: Rework the state constitutional ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, allowing their use only for the lawful administration of criminal justice.

A vote against would: Keep the states current constitutional language banning slavery and involuntary servitude, but allowing involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime.

Argument for: The current provision is antiquated and tied to Louisianas history of slavery, segregation and convictleasing. The new language creates a set of circumstances when involuntary servitude is allowed. Many other states dont have the language in their constitutions at all and have found ways to allow prison labor.

Argument against: The new language is ambiguous and doesnt change anything about prison conditions and allowance of prison labor. The revisions could be interpreted to broaden the allowed uses of slavery and involuntary servitude in the criminal justice system. The rewrite is unnecessary because the U.S. Constitution already outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude except for those convicted of crimes.

A vote for would: Remove the requirement that certain property owners with disabilities annually certify their income to receive a property tax rate freeze.

A vote against would: Continue the annual income certification required for certain property owners with disabilities to receive a property tax rate freeze.

Argument for: People with permanent and total disabilities deserve the same treatment as those who are 65 andolder for the property tax rate freeze.

Argument against: Requiring people who receive special assessment levels to recertify their income serves as an important check and balance to ensure they continue to meet the criteria.

GregHilburncovers state politics for the USA TODAY Network of Louisiana. Follow him on Twitter @GregHilburn1.

Read more from the original source:
Explaining eight amendments to Louisiana Constitution for voters - Daily Advertiser