Alabama Legislative Outtakes
Loretta Nall has started a new blog, Alabama Legislative Outtakes, with audio clips of Alabama House debates. Only one more day is left in the session, so enjoy it while you can.
May 9, 2008
April 30, 2008
Follow-up to Grimes’ Comments
Regarding the post in which Rep. David Grimes recounted an exchange on the House floor with House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard relating to a filibuster over HB350, Rep. Hubbard states that there was no “conversation.” “I [Hubbard] just asked him if his light was on. He said ‘yes’ and I said ‘OK.’”
Alabama GOP Communications Director Philip Bryan is also clear that the state GOP and Mike Hubbard as state party chair will absolutely not support any particular candidate over another in a GOP primary and look forward to supporting enthusiastically their primary winners in the general election.
Check back here for any update as I will offer Rep. Grimes the opportunity to comment.
Related Articles:
April 29, 2008
Grimes on House Filibuster, 2nd Congressional Race
Update: There is a follow-up to this post here.
The House Republican caucus officially ended its filibuster of HB 350 last week, but several Republicans intend to continue the filibuster, Rep. David Grimes (R - Montgomery) has told the Political Parlor. [Proponents of HB350 say the bill makes multi-state corporations pay the Alabama taxes they have owed since 2001. Opponents claim the bill represents a retroactive tax that attempts to tax companies on past earnings.]
[Thursday,] I pressed my ‘Speak’ button along with several others and Mike Hubbard [R - Auburn] says, ‘What are you doing? The filibuster is over. We want to pass a couple of Jay Love’s bills.’
I said, ‘What? So Jay Love can get some headlines?’ He said, ‘No, it’s not just that. The Governor wants them passed.’
I am not going back on my word [to try to stop HB350]. If it was a bad bill yesterday, it’s a bad bill today.
Sounded like he was suggesting that Hubbard and Riley are trying to help Love win the 2nd Congressional District.
That’s exactly what they are doing. That’s exactly what they are doing. Maybe not Riley so much. But they want to allow a retroactive tax so Love can get some headlines. Love didn’t even write those bills. Someone in the Governor’s office did.
But I’m in good shape. The more they help Love, the more it helps me. Love doesn’t understand the district. It’s a rural district. That’s my people. He’s a city guy. Love was born on pillows. I was born on the ground.
He was getting warmed up.
Listen, did you know that I was instrumental in passing the first middle class tax cut in 70 years? I am going to let people know that I was instrumental in passing the first middle class tax cut in 70 years. Ever heard that before? All of Jay Love’s campaign material has that he was instrumental in passing the first middle class tax cut in 70 years. It was John Knight’s plan. Love voted for it, and so did I. Love’s bills died in committee. He gave Knight’s bill one vote. I gave it one vote. Then I guess I was instrumental in passing the first middle class tax cut in 70 years.
I don’t have to beat everybody in the primary. I just have to beat him to make the run-off with Harri Anne Smith. I’ll be in good shape.
Related Articles:
April 28, 2008
On Locking and Unlocking House Machines
I have observed at least two occasions in the press when House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard (R - Auburn) has said that he asked for the voting machines of some absent Republicans to be locked on the day that the House was discussing HB 274, the proposal from John Knight related to removing the state sales tax off grocery purchases, but that to Hubbard’s surprise the machines were unlocked when Rep. Jack Williams withdrew the request to invoke Rule 32. (I can’t find a news link at the moment with Hubbard’s comments. Rep. Mike Ball mentioned it here, and a commenter mentioned it here.)
I asked the Clerk of the House, Greg Pappas, for some explanation on how and when legislators’ machines are locked to prevent others from voting on them.
Pappas said that when a legislator asks that his or her own machine be locked, that machine is not unlocked until that legislator personally requests it.
Regarding Rule 32 (which says in part, “No member shall vote for another member, except by unanimous consent; nor shall any person not a member cast a vote for a member.”), Mr. Pappas explained that “unanimous consent” is assumed unless someone objects. If there is no objection, members may cast votes on others’ machines, though not on one locked by the legislator who uses it.
What about Rep. Hubbard’s request to lock machines of some of the Republican legislators who were not there, I asked.
Pappas said that he is willing to lock machines at the request of other legislators because such a request is in keeping with Rule 32. The act of asking indicates that there is not unanimous consent to allow members to vote for other members.
Why were they unlocked then? Pappas explained that because the machines were locked in keeping with Rule 32, they were unlocked when Rep. Williams withdrew the request to invoke Rule 32. He added that any legislator could have then stepped forward to invoke Rule 32, but none did. And, for example, Merika Coleman’s machine was not unlocked because she personally had requested that it be locked.
What is the consequence for voting another machines when Rule 32 is in place? According to Pappas, there is no consequence for violating Rule 32, though any member of the House may challenge the vote before the outcome is announced. If a representative looks at the board where votes are recorded next to legislators’ names and believes a vote is unfair or not accurate, that is his or her best option.
Pappas added that a video showing Texas legislators voting others’ machines had caused a public uproar there. Texas may be moving toward using voting machines with fingerprint readers that would allow only the proper legislator to vote the machine. Pappas believed that we might be moving toward that here in Alabama also.
From my perspective that sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Judging from conversations I have had with legislators here, many of them like having someone they trust who will vote their machines. A legislator told me that there are so many votes, and occasionally you need to step outside to greet a constituent or to go to the bathroom. One doesn’t want to give an opponent the opportunity to say, “Rep. So-and-So did not vote 20% of the time,” though the legislator concluded, “if you are going to do what Hinshaw did then it might be best to just stop people from voting other people’s machines altogether.”
I believe it more likely that if legislators wanted to prevent a repeat of Duwayne Bridges’ machine being voted while he was in South Korea, they would address it without involving fingerprint readers. And if a legislator doesn’t want anyone to vote on his or her machine, the solution is already there: lock your own machine.
Tuesday the 22nd, Rep. Duwayne Bridges addressed the House.
I said, ‘No one better not ever touch my machine again. It’s not your machine, so keep your little grimy hands off of it.’ I think I made a strong enough point, and other members applauded me.
The odd thing there is that tough talk is not necessary. The solution, same as before, is to lock his machine.
Related Articles:
Considering the Vote on HB 274
Some thoughts and observations on the House vote for HB 274 in which Randy Hinshaw (D - Meridianville) has been criticized for voting other legislators’ machines… Duwayne Bridges (R - Valley) has filed a complaint saying that Hinshaw voted Bridges’ machine as ‘yes’ on HB274, contrary to the way Bridges would have voted. Even Speaker Seth Hammett (D - Andalusia) recognized that Hinshaw was wrong on this one, according to Bridges.
Voting a legislator’s machine contrary to the way that legislator would want is particularly repugnant. The several legislators I talked to about this all agreed that it is common for other members’ machines to be voted the way the members who are away would have wanted, but I could not find even one on either side of the aisle that would defend Hinshaw.
As odious as voting a legislator’s machine contrary to that legislator’s wishes is, Hammett could say that House rules were enforced fairly - because Rule 32 was not invoked. Voting others’ machines is permitted unless Rule 32 is invoked. Early in the process, Jack Williams (R - Birmingham) had requested that Rule 32 be invoked but withdrew his request prior to the final vote. As an aside, why didn’t any other House member ask that it be invoked?
-
FWIW, Greg Wren (R - Montgomery) also voted another’s machine that morning - even when Rule 32 was in force and contrary to the absent legislator’s wishes. David Grimes (R - Montgomery) had stepped out of the chamber (he was “frustrated,” he told the Parlor), when a vote for the BIR on HB 274 came up. (The BIR vote determines if the bill has enough votes to be brought to the floor before the budget is passed. Failing to pass the BIR vote typically kills a bill.) According to Grimes, Greg Wren tried to help Grimes by voting Grimes’ machine ‘No’ even though Grimes actually intended to vote ‘Yes’ on the BIR.
- Could the bill have passed without the vote from Bridges’ machine? Was the will of the legislative body subverted? Merika Coleman (D - Birmingham) didn’t vote on the bill and she would almost certainly have supported it. Laura Hall (D - Huntsville) had stepped away, did not vote and has gone on the record saying she wanted to vote for the bill. A better question might be the one proposed to me by a House opponent of the bill who wondered why proponents weren’t counting better since they had the votes. Rep. Grimes volunteered to me his opinion that if the bill came up in the House again (for example, if the Senate sent back a slightly different version) that he felt sure it would pass. (63 House votes are necessary for a bill involving a constitutional amendment; HB 274 passed 63-38.)
Related Articles:
April 15, 2008
HB 274 Passes
The House bill on grocery sales tax that was mentioned in this morning’s post passed 63-38 this afternoon. If it passes the Senate, it will go to a vote of the people in November.
Related Articles:
Removing Sales Tax on Groceries on House Floor Today
A bill to remove the state portion (4%) of sales tax on groceries is coming before the House today. It could also come before the Senate as early as today.
The Birmingham News calls it a “a much-needed plan to make Alabama’s tax system more fair” that “can take a significant step toward making our tax system less of an embarrassment and less of a drain on our state’s poorest people.”
Studies have found the poorest 20 percent of Alabamians (who made under $13,000 a year) paid 10.6 percent of their incomes in state taxes, compared to 3.8 percent for the top 1 percent of taxpayers (whose annual earnings approached $700,000).
That’s not fair. Somebody needs to be paying less, and yes, somebody needs to be paying more.
Alabama has the lowest taxes in the nation and still shifts a disproportionate burden onto those in poverty.
The House is expected to debate a proposal from state Rep. John Knight, D-Montgomery, that would flat out remove the state sales tax on groceries and cut state income taxes for poorer Alabamians. To make up for the state’s lost income, Knight’s plan would end Alabama taxpayers’ deduction for federal income taxes, increasing the amount paid by the wealthier among us.
By Knight’s estimation, 80 percent of Alabamians will either save money or break even under his plan. Even families with incomes as high as $125,000 will come out to the good, according to the Legislative Fiscal Office.
The bill would ultimately require a statewide vote of the people for passage.
Earlier in the session, the Press-Register called our high taxes on the poor “morally indefensible.”
ALABAMA is a low-tax state that imposes some of the highest taxes in the nation on the poor.
State lawmakers are content to live with this morally indefensible dichotomy. It’s either that or they’re too cowardly to risk any political capital trying to overhaul the state’s wildly unbalanced and wholly unreliable tax system.
The Huntsville Times called this bill “perhaps the most important proposal to come before it in many years,” and has noted that Alabama is “the only state with a sales tax so harsh on a family’s weekly food bill.”
Even the University of Alabama paper The Crimson White gets in on the act and writes, “we cannot ask, due to fundamental principles of fairness and equity, for the poorest in our state to continue to bear this weight on the necessities of life.”
FWIW, other papers are talking about it: Montgomery Advertiser, Decatur Daily, Tuscaloosa News, Daily Home, Anniston Star, Gadsden Times, and Times Daily.
April 3, 2008
House Bill on Wet-Dry Referendums Passes
A reader pointed out in email that HB393 passed the House without much fanfare this week. The bill would allow communities with fewer than 7000 residents to have a referendum to go from wet to dry or dry to wet.
We can imagine without difficulty which of the two options (changing from wet to dry or from dry to wet) will be featured in more elections. The economic incentive and deep pockets are on the side of going wet, and available campaign money will have larger influence in smaller communities. Even conservative Wal-Mart has financed elections to change communities from dry to wet.
Related Articles:
March 28, 2008
Oden Passes on PSC, Eyes Treasurer Spot
Rep. Jeremy Oden (R - Eva) had considered running for President of the Public Service Commission this year but tells the Parlor that he is going to sit out that race to focus on his greater interest, a run for State Treasurer in 2010. Current work commitments and a desire to be best prepared for the Treasurer’s race lead him to pass on the PSC race, despite the encouragement he says he has received toward his interest in the PSC position. Terms limits will prevent incumbent Treasurer Kay Ivey (R) from running again in 2010.
Former Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley will run for the PSC presidency on the Democratic side, and former state GOP chair Twinkle Cavanaugh has announced her candidacy.
Related Articles:
March 13, 2008
Attorney Speaks about Subpoenas
A lawyer close to the subpoenaed legislators visited with the Parlor and talked a bit about the situation.
It’s a little odd how this grand jury is being conducted.
They didn’t interview anybody. Like you said in your blog, they didn’t ask anybody to come in. They served them with subpoenas.
They subpoenaed everybody in the legislature that had had any economic interest in the two-year system. But they don’t appear to have an evidentiary trail on any of them. Their bosses are represented by Post Secondary Education. Post Secondary Education would have the contracts, the information about hiring, but the Justice Department doesn’t appear to have any of that. If I were doing it, I would not have subpoenaed legislators to the grand jury without an evidentiary trail.
It looks like a fishing expedition, and they could gather information without embarrassing people. There are substantive concerns they should be investigating. I want to draw a distinction between their legitimate interest in gathering information and the way in which it’s conducted. It has appeared to be about maximum public damage. The media was tipped off so they could be there [when the subpoenas were served]. Most of the time with something like this, you call somebody’s lawyer, set it up, and they arrange a time to come in. These people would have come in.
There are two agendas at work. Some in the Justice office are badly partisan, and believe that anything you can do to embarrass someone gives you an advantage. Others in the division of labor are working the case, trying to do a good job, but they appear to lack both history and first-hand and documentary information.
I asked why four senators were released from their subpoenas. Since the conversation, other legislators have been excused from subpoenas.
| “I want to draw a distinction between their legitimate interest in gathering information and the way in which it’s conducted.” |
I presume they had to release them. The senators wanted more time. They wanted to buy 30 days to get individual legal representation, to figure out what their exposure was, to get up to speed on what the government was looking at. If they couldn’t get 30 days, you have to presume they said they would plead the 5th Amendment, and once they plead the 5th, you have to release them because you can’t bring somebody and make them plead the 5th on the stand just to embarrass them.
The questions that I understand they want to ask are how did the person get the job, what are their qualifications for it, what do they do, who is their supervisor, and what proof do they have that they did it. But they don’t seem interested in the background info or evidentiary trail that they could have access to.
Related Articles:
March 7, 2008
State Legislators Subpoenaed
A travel day for me, and I miss hearing news in timely fashion…
Turns out that the federal government has compelling interest in the testimony of at least nine past or present legislators, according to Associated Press:
Four state senators — President Pro Tem Hinton Mitchem, D-Union Grove; Rules Chairman Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe; Judiciary Committee Chairman Rodger Smitherman of Birmingham; and Dean of the Senate Bobby Denton, D-Muscle Shoals — received subpoenas, their attorney, Michel Nicrosi, said Thursday.
In the same article, the Department of Postsecondary Education confirms that four system employees received subpoenas to talk to investigators:
The four are Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Gadsden; Rep. Jack Page, D-Gadsden; Rep. Randy Hinshaw, D-Meridianville, and former Democratic Rep. Neal Morrison of Cullman.
Lessee… the Birmingham News Breaking News site identifies Rep. Merika Coleman, D - Midfield, as the ninth to receive a subpoena.
Related Articles:
February 21, 2008
More on Greeson and 2-Year College Investigation
If you are interested in the investigation of Rep. Todd Greeson (R - Ider) don’t miss this article from yesterday’s Times Journal in DeKalb County:
[Two-year college system Chancellor Bradley] Byrne said both investigators with the state attorney general’s office and federal agents are working together on the two-year college system investigation. He could not say whether the request for Greeson’s hard drive came from the state or federal level.
Postsecondary officials, not federal agents, took Greeson’s hard drive so that federal agents would not need to obtain a search warrant, according to the article.
Related Articles:
February 20, 2008
Representative Speaks After Co-Workers Subpoenaed
In a story first broken at Doc’s Political Parlor, federal agents came to Rep. Todd Greeson’s workplace at Northeast Alabama Community College while he was in Montgomery last week, took his computer’s hard drive and served subpoenas to several of his co-workers.
Rep. Greeson (R - Ider) took a few minutes to talk with the Parlor about the incident. “I need some files [off the hard drive]. I have a project I was trying to get done. I’m going to be spending time trying to get programs and files I need.”
“A lot of co-workers got subpoenaed. They even subpoenaed some business leaders. I was trying to get letters of support from people in the community for a grant application, and they subpoenaed 2 or 3 of them.
“Most of my co-workers took about 15 minutes [giving testimony in answer to questions]. My supervisor took about 3 hours. Most of it was about whether I come to work.
“I was glad to fax my work log, all my documentation.
“All the rumors I hear are that with 60 Minutes coming out about Don Siegelman and all, there is talk that they want to throw a Republican under the bus to make it look better.”
A capital city Democrat weighed in with the Parlor this weekend:
Related Articles:
February 16, 2008
State Representative’s Office Raided
In the latest chapter of the 2-year college saga, federal agents raided Rep. Todd Greeson’s office at Northeast Alabama Community College this week while he was in Montgomery, according to legislative insiders. According to the circulating story, his hard drive was taken, and co-workers were served with subpoenas.
He has not been arrested which leads to the speculation that he has not been indicted.
Some Republicans had heard from the highest levels that the investigation into the 2-year college program would touch at least one of the two Republican legislators employed by two year colleges. Greeson (of Ider) is one, the other is Rep. Blaine Galliher who is employed by Gadsden State Community College.
Eleven Democrats are employed by 2-year colleges. The observation accompanying every version of the story heard here is that the investigation had to touch a Republican to appear bi-partisan.
More as it becomes available.
Related Articles:
February 13, 2008
Rep. Oden Considers Future Races
Rep. Jeremy Oden (R - Vinemont) spent a few minutes in the Parlor to address rumors heard here, the first one being that he may run for Public Service Commission President this year. Republican Jim Sullivan will step down after serving in the position for 25 years.
Yes, he said, he was considering it. He would say that there was about a 50-50 chance that he would run for PSC President.
What about the rumor that he might run for State Treasurer in 2010? He brightened up as he quickly indicated that he was considering it. The likelihood of running for Treasurer is “more than 50-50.” He added that he could not now say that he would, and that he would “have to factor in” what happens in the party on the matter. Incumbent Kay Ivey is serving her last term because of term limits.
“I’ve given more thought to State Treasurer. The PSC race I only started considering 2 or 3 weeks ago. I am not saying I wouldn’t. Again, I want to see how the party lines up.”
“You may know that I’m not the most favored among Republicans, but as far as a statewide race, I’d be strong.”
I’ll concede his point about not being the most favored among Republicans. For example, ALFA, who is often quite supportive of Republican candidates, supported Oden’s Republican primary opponent in 2006 and then also his Democratic opponent in the general election. The Business Council of Alabama also supported his primary opponent. Despite that and a fundraising disadvantage in both elections, Oden was re-elected to a third term by 8 percentage points.
Remembering that, I asked if he had considered changing parties. “No, I’ll run as a Republican. That’s where my base is.”
Related Articles:
(R) Jeff Sessions (1-19)
(D) Vivian Figures (33-1)
(D) Artur Davis (1-49)
(R) Mike Hubbard (13-1)
(?) David Bronner (OFF)