Conclusions:
HB 31: SUPPORT Rating: 10
HB 32: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 33: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 34: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 35: SUPPORT Rating: 9
HB 36: OPPOSE Rating: 2
HB 37: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 38: OPPOSE Rating: 3
HB 39: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 40: SUPPORT Rating: 9
Commentary:
HB 31 appears to repeal the law allowing red-light cameras. Nothing is added in this bill, and only the law relating to red-light cameras appears to be removed. Because individual privacy would thus be better sustained, I fully SUPPORT this bill.
HB 31: SUPPORT
Rating: 10
HB 32 appears to loosen the restrictions on when capital punishment or life without parole may be imposed by a small degree. Basically, under this bill a jury would have to find at least one ‘statutoy aggravating circumstance’ to impose a sentence of either death or life without parole. I’ll leave it to a lawyer to explain what ‘statutory aggravating circumstance’ means, as honestly I’m not sure. If such circumstance is found, this bill allows the judge a couple of new options: 1) if a majority of the jury voted for life without parole, the judge can impose that sentence or 2) if at least 10 jurors voted for death, the judge can impose that sentence under this bill. Note that to my (extremely limited) knowledge of current law, the jury must currently be unanimous in either decision before a judge is allowed to impose that sentence. Again, this is one of those issues where I break with Libertarian Party orthodoxy. I actually think this move is a very good one, as some people are absolutely opposed to capital punishment for any reason, and having such a person on a jury should not mean that a genuinely dangerous or violent person will eventually be let back out on the streets. That said, even I do have SOME reservations about the death penalty, so I can’t rank this bill a 10. Because of these reasons, I SUPPORT this bill.
HB 32: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 33 is called the ‘Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act’ and is essentially pandering to the christian right. It codifies First Amendment protections of religious Free Speech – but only for “student council officers, class officers of the highest grade level in the school, captains of various sports teams, and other students holding positions of honor as the school system may designate”. In some sections of the bill, valedictorians and homecoming/prom king and queen are also named. While ultimately I’ll SUPPORT this bill, I have severe reservations about the limited scope of the people allowed to exercise their Free Speech rights. Indeed, this selection of who is allowed to speak in most schools denies members of minority viewpoints the opportunity to speak. I also think that political viewpoints should be addressed in a bill such as this one, not just religious viewpoints. So I do SUPPORT this measure due to its making certain rights explicit, I just wish it was drastically opened up to allow these rights to apply to ALL, as they should.
HB 33: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 34 would eliminate members of the General Assembly from having to file campaign disclosure reports in the county they live in. They would thus only have to file these reports with the State Ethics Commission. I SUPPORT this on the grounds that it increases efficiency in government by reducing duplicative data.
HB 34: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 35 requires that all bonds specify the projects that will be completed and that all interest and dividends of the bonds be used exclusively for the stated purpose and projects or to pay off the bonds. Because this increases transparency in government by forcing bond requests to list the specific projects the bonds are needed for, I SUPPORT this measure.
HB 35: SUPPORT
Rating: 9
HB 36 would create a ‘Blue Alert’ for when a suspect involved in the death or serious injury of a law enforcement officer. I OPPOSE this on the grounds that a) it is unncessary and b) we already have too many of these ‘alerts’ and ‘calls’ and that adding another one further dilutes the effectiveness of all of them.
HB 36: OPPOSE
Rating: 2
HB 37 would force employers to allow parents time off work to attend school meetings. Many of these meetings are required by federal law, and rather than reject that federal law (since the US Constitition does not give the federal government the power to regulate education) the authors of this bill would have us blindly accept that the federal government has a right to be involved in education. I most strenuously OPPOSE this bill due to a variety of reasons: 1) the aforementioned unconstitutional federal laws 2) it violates the right of private contract between employer and employee and 3) it fails to provide equal protection for childless couples.
HB 37: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 38 is known as the ‘Microchip Consent Act of 2009′ and is a bill in search of a problem. While I could SUPPORT this bill on privacy concerns, I’m going to OPPOSE it on the grounds that it interferes with private contract and that even if it WERE needed, it should have no statute of limitations on it and not the two year limitation it has.
HB 38: OPPOSE
Rating: 3
HB 39 is a straightforward tax increase on tobacco – a $1 increase on a pack of cigarettes, and a 15% increase on loose or smokeless tobacco. While I applaud its sponsors’ honesty, I OPPOSE this blatant tax increase.
HB 39: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 40 forces anyone who buys an real property to file a deed under power within 45 days of the purchase. A fine of the lesser of $50/day or $1K will be imposed after 45 days, payable to the clerk of the superior court where the deed under power is recorded. I was considering OPPOSING this on the grounds that no one should be forced to file a purchase of property with the government, but instead I will SUPPORT this because this is one of those cases where SOMEBODY has to have proof that this contract was executed, and the local superior court is the best place to handle such records. 45 days seems like a reasonable time to get to the local courthouse – indeed, even if you live far away from the property, you could file a copy of the deed the same day as you close on it. Because the local superior court seems to be the most logical place to handle these records and 45 days seems like a reasonable time, I SUPPORT this measure.
HB 40: SUPPORT
Rating: 9
Powered by FireStats
State House Bills I Find Interesting (HB 31- HB 40)
Conclusions:
HB 31: SUPPORT Rating: 10
HB 32: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 33: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 34: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 35: SUPPORT Rating: 9
HB 36: OPPOSE Rating: 2
HB 37: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 38: OPPOSE Rating: 3
HB 39: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 40: SUPPORT Rating: 9
Commentary:
HB 31 appears to repeal the law allowing red-light cameras. Nothing is added in this bill, and only the law relating to red-light cameras appears to be removed. Because individual privacy would thus be better sustained, I fully SUPPORT this bill.
HB 31: SUPPORT
Rating: 10
HB 32 appears to loosen the restrictions on when capital punishment or life without parole may be imposed by a small degree. Basically, under this bill a jury would have to find at least one ‘statutoy aggravating circumstance’ to impose a sentence of either death or life without parole. I’ll leave it to a lawyer to explain what ‘statutory aggravating circumstance’ means, as honestly I’m not sure. If such circumstance is found, this bill allows the judge a couple of new options: 1) if a majority of the jury voted for life without parole, the judge can impose that sentence or 2) if at least 10 jurors voted for death, the judge can impose that sentence under this bill. Note that to my (extremely limited) knowledge of current law, the jury must currently be unanimous in either decision before a judge is allowed to impose that sentence. Again, this is one of those issues where I break with Libertarian Party orthodoxy. I actually think this move is a very good one, as some people are absolutely opposed to capital punishment for any reason, and having such a person on a jury should not mean that a genuinely dangerous or violent person will eventually be let back out on the streets. That said, even I do have SOME reservations about the death penalty, so I can’t rank this bill a 10. Because of these reasons, I SUPPORT this bill.
HB 32: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 33 is called the ‘Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act’ and is essentially pandering to the christian right. It codifies First Amendment protections of religious Free Speech – but only for “student council officers, class officers of the highest grade level in the school, captains of various sports teams, and other students holding positions of honor as the school system may designate”. In some sections of the bill, valedictorians and homecoming/prom king and queen are also named. While ultimately I’ll SUPPORT this bill, I have severe reservations about the limited scope of the people allowed to exercise their Free Speech rights. Indeed, this selection of who is allowed to speak in most schools denies members of minority viewpoints the opportunity to speak. I also think that political viewpoints should be addressed in a bill such as this one, not just religious viewpoints. So I do SUPPORT this measure due to its making certain rights explicit, I just wish it was drastically opened up to allow these rights to apply to ALL, as they should.
HB 33: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 34 would eliminate members of the General Assembly from having to file campaign disclosure reports in the county they live in. They would thus only have to file these reports with the State Ethics Commission. I SUPPORT this on the grounds that it increases efficiency in government by reducing duplicative data.
HB 34: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 35 requires that all bonds specify the projects that will be completed and that all interest and dividends of the bonds be used exclusively for the stated purpose and projects or to pay off the bonds. Because this increases transparency in government by forcing bond requests to list the specific projects the bonds are needed for, I SUPPORT this measure.
HB 35: SUPPORT
Rating: 9
HB 36 would create a ‘Blue Alert’ for when a suspect involved in the death or serious injury of a law enforcement officer. I OPPOSE this on the grounds that a) it is unncessary and b) we already have too many of these ‘alerts’ and ‘calls’ and that adding another one further dilutes the effectiveness of all of them.
HB 36: OPPOSE
Rating: 2
HB 37 would force employers to allow parents time off work to attend school meetings. Many of these meetings are required by federal law, and rather than reject that federal law (since the US Constitition does not give the federal government the power to regulate education) the authors of this bill would have us blindly accept that the federal government has a right to be involved in education. I most strenuously OPPOSE this bill due to a variety of reasons: 1) the aforementioned unconstitutional federal laws 2) it violates the right of private contract between employer and employee and 3) it fails to provide equal protection for childless couples.
HB 37: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 38 is known as the ‘Microchip Consent Act of 2009′ and is a bill in search of a problem. While I could SUPPORT this bill on privacy concerns, I’m going to OPPOSE it on the grounds that it interferes with private contract and that even if it WERE needed, it should have no statute of limitations on it and not the two year limitation it has.
HB 38: OPPOSE
Rating: 3
HB 39 is a straightforward tax increase on tobacco – a $1 increase on a pack of cigarettes, and a 15% increase on loose or smokeless tobacco. While I applaud its sponsors’ honesty, I OPPOSE this blatant tax increase.
HB 39: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 40 forces anyone who buys an real property to file a deed under power within 45 days of the purchase. A fine of the lesser of $50/day or $1K will be imposed after 45 days, payable to the clerk of the superior court where the deed under power is recorded. I was considering OPPOSING this on the grounds that no one should be forced to file a purchase of property with the government, but instead I will SUPPORT this because this is one of those cases where SOMEBODY has to have proof that this contract was executed, and the local superior court is the best place to handle such records. 45 days seems like a reasonable time to get to the local courthouse – indeed, even if you live far away from the property, you could file a copy of the deed the same day as you close on it. Because the local superior court seems to be the most logical place to handle these records and 45 days seems like a reasonable time, I SUPPORT this measure.
HB 40: SUPPORT
Rating: 9