Alabama Politics in
Doc’s Political Parlor
& Home of Lawn Mower Repair

Many veteran politicos predicted that a breakthrough would occur in the State Senate just prior to the end of the session. They proved to be correct. Over 40 bills were passed in the 12 hour legislative day on Wednesday. I would submit that good government does not prevail when bills are passed out with such limited debate.

One bill that failed to receive enough procedural votes to be brought up for final passage was the proposed constitutional amendment to remove the state sales tax on food. With all of the publicity dealing with this amendment, I am amazed that so few people realize that a huge tax increase is included. Maybe the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR STATE. Removing taxpayers ability to deduct federal income taxes from their state taxes cannot be labeled as anything but double taxation.

Contrary to some statistics floating around, an overwhelming majority of taxpayers will be paying more money in taxes. These are the people who pay the most for the government services that help our poorest citizens. Now they are asked to pay more.

The class warfare that is now surrounding this bill is usually found in Washington. Now Alabamians are being pitted against each other. Republican members of the Senate are now receiving phone calls from constituents who have received automative calls from liberal interest groups. When I ask them about what was said in the call, they only mention the removal of the grocery tax. They have no idea about the federal deduction. When I explain the full bill to them, they are angry with those who chose to spend money to manipulate them.

Fortunately, the votes required to pass this constitutional amendment are lacking. Some suggest that the people deserve the right to vote on any referendum. Typically the only referendums that are held are for liberal ideas. Many conservatives could list dozens of great ideas to come up for the people to vote. Hopefully any further referendums will reflect a move for less government rather than more. We shall see.

Share This

Look out! That is a good way to describe the debate over House Bill 350. The House has run relatively smooth over the entire session avoiding some of the major controversies that have overwhelmed the Senate. Last week we finally found a land mine when we began the debate on this bill. House Bill 350 is an extremely complicated bill that in essence creates a retroactive tax for 44 businesses who are based out of state but do have locations in Alabama. Some of the more well known of these businesses include Home Depot and Lowes. In short, the bill says that these companies were supposed to be paying corporate income taxes under a 2001 law but found a legal loophole to avoid this tax and therefore they should be required to pay these supposed back taxes now. There is a lawsuit pending on whether or not these companies should pay for these last seven years or not. Sound confusing? Well that is just a scratch on the surface. There are multiple sides to this argument. The Governor, AEA, the business coalition, the House Republican Caucus and the House Black Caucus all have differing views of this bill and at any one time this past week were all working with or against each other to hammer out some middle ground.. After two days of intense debate it looks like we will pick up again on this issue Tuesday. Higher education now appears to be wading into this debate as well because of House Bill 350 does not pass then there will likely be a $27 million cut in the Education Trust Fund Budget with the bulk coming out of Higher Education.

Just when you think you know what is right around the corner some issue like this will always jump up and surprise you in the legislative process. Stay tuned because this bill could very well determine whether or not several agencies in the Education Budget survive to see another day or suffer major cuts.

Share This

     The Senate is still bogged down on SB 191. Tuesday and Wednesday  are the last days that bills originating in the Senate can pass without unanimous consent. Many suspect that if SB 191 is still around after Wednesday, the session will be dead.  The only way that important legislation could pass this year would then be during a special session.

     It has been said by many that the budgets may need to be delayed so that future revenue reports from the next couple of months can be examined. They may reveal that many noted budget cuts could be avoided. That is if those reports show positive gains.

Share This

The legislative session is now entering its 24th day and with only six more legislative days to go the light is at the end of the tunnel. Of course that could be the light of a very big train coming down the tracks as well. The House is expected to take up the Education Budget on Thursday and I suspect it will pass the House after some, although not much debate that afternoon. You always have less debate on a budget when money is short and there is very little to fight over. After the Education Budget is passed the House will have then sent both budgets to the Senate for consideration. In the closing days of the session the House is expected to finally take up some of the illegal immigration package, the constitutional convention bill, as well as a severance tax bill for off shore oil wells in Alabama. That should just about do it for the rest of the House agenda although there will be several other bills of interest that could pop up in the last 6 days.

The question everyone wants to know is will the Senate get past their current log jam and pass the budgets as well as several other bills pending before them or will the impasse continue? I don’t know enough about the current dynamics of the debate that is currently holding things up in the Senate to get into that discussion. There are several sides to the current issue being debated up there and several of the members from both parties are desperately trying to figure out a way to get past it. One thing is for certain though if the budgets do not pass the senate by May 19th by law we have to come back into a special session. This would be a train wreck to the tone of around $400,000 just to hold the session. This is not even mentioning the various other legislation that would die if the session were to end in its current holding pattern. A flurry activity is always a strong possibility in the last few days of the session and I have heard several senators from both parties say they are hoping for just that. Lets all hope so because if not that light at the end of the tunnel could turn into a legislative train wreck real quick.

Share This

The debates over the budget always seem to be shorter when there is a shortfall. The only fight is between who will get cut the most this year. Below is the Special Order Calendar for Tuesday. The first bill on the calendar will amount to a new tax on business in Alabama so it should create quite a stir when it comes up for debate. With higher education and K-12 schools battling over a much smaller budget it could be a longer debate than expected in the House.

Share This

This will be the busiest week of the session so far for the House. We have a three day legislative work week which means we are in session for three days as opposed to two and a committee day.

Every hot topic imaginable is on the plate this week. Rep. John Knight’s bill to reduce sales taxes while increasing income taxes is up today. The Jefferson County financial crisis looks likely to spill over into the House Rules Committee this morning. Both of these bills mean that there is a real chance for some sparks to fly today because the votes on these issues are very close in my opinion.

Tomorrow I have a bill in committee to reduce the requirement necessary for third parties or independents to gain ballot access while at the same time the House Judiciary Committee has a host of hot button topics. Legislation to extend the hate crimes law to homosexuals, mandatory registration for stun guns, and a bill to eliminate Alabama’s ban on sex toys all await the committee members for Judiciary. That committee alone will give the reporters enough print to keep them busy for the week.

On top of all of this it sounds like the “Bingo for Medicaid” legislation is finally going to take a shot at getting a vote on maybe Wednesday or Thursday. This guarantees a hard fought showdown that will pretty much prevent anything else from coming up for debate that day should that bill be brought up.

One thing is for sure, there will be plenty to blog about at the end of the week.

Share This

When I was first elected to the House I asked to be put on the Judiciary Committee. Several of my closest friends in the legislature had previously served on the committee and laughed at me when I made the request. There is a reason for their laughter, the Judiciary Committee is one of the hardest working committees in the House. While many committees meet for about 30 minutes to an hour on Wednesdays it is not uncommon for the Judiciary committee to go on for a few hours. Many people beg to stay off Judiciary because of this work load and tedious nature of the issues we face but I have to say it is one of my favorite committees. There is never a dull moment in Judiciary and if you have a bill in front of the committee you better be prepared for a pretty thorough grilling that the committee has a reputation of giving to everyone who comes before it. In the last few weeks alone the committee has handled controversial topics like illegal immigration, gun control, and this week hate crimes. These topics have provided some hot debate between the members. On immigration my good friend Rep. Yusaaf Salaam and I had a pretty good back and forth on the merits of this issue. Rep. Salaam is one of the smarter members of the House and if you think you are going to pull one over on him in a debate you better think again. This guy knows his stuff. On the issues of crime legislation, if you think you can just come into Judiciary and pass whatever “tough on crime” bill you want you will find a hard nose questioner like Rep. Laura Hall waiting for you. While Rep. Hall and I agree on very few political issues I cannot help but respect her doggedness in standing her ground in this committee where “tough on crime” sound bites often prevails over common sense. The chairman of the committee, Rep. Marcel Black has to be the ringmaster of this show. He is a no nonsense politician who detests grandstanding. I know because I have attempted to score some cheap political points in the past and was quickly called down by Rep. Black and rightfully so. Rep. Black is an attorney he knows the law better than anyone else in the legislature and he likes an orderly committee and his reputation as a fair chairman is unchallenged. You add to all of this Rep. Paul DeMarco, and Reps. Jamie Ison, Tammy Irons, and Marc Keahy you have a very active committee that is not afraid to mix it up on some of the thorniest legal issues facing our state. No this is not an easy committee to serve on but it is never dull for sure.

Share This

There is not much to report this week from the Senate. Some initial speculation that SB 191 would be carried over in an effort to move to other business failed to materialize. Several hundred bills have been introduced in both houses and none will see the Senate floor while the gambling bill is at center stage.

Share This

In this era of post-9/11 security concerns the federal government has introduced several measures to help protect the American citizens from foreign security threats. While I agree with some of these new laws there is a line where I believe we as a country need to be very careful in crossing. The question in this debate is always virtually the same- do we extend the protection of government at the sacrifice of constitutional protections such as privacy and freedom of speech? This is a question that has been debated over and over in Washington, DC and in our state capitols. This is not an easy question to answer because both sides make very good arguments. There is no black and white decision here because like most real political debates there is a great deal of gray when debating the rights of the people versus the role of national security. I do believe the federal government is going in the wrong direction with the continuing development of the Real ID Act.

The Real ID Act is an attempt to create one national, uniform identification system. While this may sound harmless on its face, the implications are far reaching. Debates in congress have included the discussion of a huge expansion of personal information being included on the card data strip. While there are many urban legends about what Real ID will and will not do, one thing is for certain, before each state just blindly walks into the compliance of this Act because of the financial temptations the federal government has offered we should at least have a public discussion on the ramifications this new ID could have. Nearly half the states around the country have passed resolutions rejecting the Real ID Act for their respective states. I have introduced a House Joint Resolution to require any future implementation of the Real ID Act to be approved by the legislature first. While Alabama has already implemented some of the requirements under Real ID which were primarily cosmetic I believe before we continue down this road of gathering personal information on our citizens we should at least have more public debate on the issue. What harm would it do to have this process out in the open for more people to understand and see what is going on with their government?

Some in the media have stated that there is no legitimate threat with the Real ID Act. In the end, they could be right but as those who valiantly protect the 1st Amendment would agree, what is the harm in having the sunshine let in on this chipping away of personal liberties?

Share This

Local legislation is a quirky part of the Alabama legislative process. Due to some of the arcane provisions of the Alabama Constitution, bills that impact only one county are considered local bills. Of course by law the entire legislature must vote on these bills but there is an unspoken rule that you never get involved in someone else’s local legislation. When Jefferson County for example is having a big fight over local legislation the rest of us step back and let them vote on their own issue. It is just a common courtesy and the way things operate. Now a rule change is being proposed by Rep. Newton, who is also the Speaker Pro-Tempore about the composition of local legislative delegations. Under the current rules (Rule 65) if you represent any part of a county then you are a part of that local legislative delegation. Jefferson County has historically been evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans in their legislative delegation. This is something that began to evolve long before my time but has just become a fact since the districts have been redrawn over the years. It is sort of like a maintaining of the balance of power in that delegation. While I am not in that delegation apparently there have been a couple of legislative disagreements over the past couple of years that have led to some possible gridlock. In response to this Rep. Newton has come with a proposed Rule change that says a legislative district must have at least a third of its members in a county before it can serve on that local legislative delegation. What this means is that Rep. Thomas, and McClurkin will no longer serve in the Jefferson County Legislative Delegation. Normally this would be an issue that is just between the members of that delegation except for two problems. First, in order for the Rule to pass it must have a majority of the House membership vote for the change which means 53 members will have to vote to change the rule and therefore some people from outside the Jefferson County Delegation will have to vote for this change. The second problem, and this is a big one, is that the rule change would effect every local legislative delegation. So in Shelby County, Rep. Jimmy Martin, Rep. Jim McClendon, and Rep. Greg Canfield would all likely be kicked out of our delegation despite the fact that their combined population is 30% of Shelby County. So in essence 30% of Shelby County would no longer have a voice in local legislative issues that impacted them. This rule change could create havoc when it comes up or it could just provide for some interesting political dialogue to get the week started.

Share This

Anyone who has read some of my blogs in the past know that I autism awareness is a big personal cause of mine. Most legislators in Montgomery have a cause that they are passionate about. Rep. Laura Hall is a strong advocate for AIDS Awareness and Rep. Duwayne Bridges hosts a rally every year for his cause, Alabama Retarded Citizens. Thursday was my “cause” day. Over 270 people from throughout the state came to Montgomery to meet with the legislators and rally for autism awareness and the need for increased services in our state. Several legislators took the time to come over and meet with their constituents and talk about the lack of services for autism in Alabama.

I always enjoy when a group of citizen activists come to Montgomery and get attention regardless of their cause. It is a good reminder that at the end of the day a large and determined group of activist citizens is still the most powerful lobbying group around.

For those who want to learn more about autism advocacy in Alabama please visit with the web site of the Autism Society of Alabama at: www.autism-alabama.org/

Share This

Those wishing to see bills passed in the Senate should have visited the State House on Tuesday as several local bills were passed. Following an active committee day on Wednesday, legislation grinded to a halt as SB 191 came up for discussion. Sen. Myron Penn (D-Union Springs), sponsor of the local bill for Macon County, led the filibuster in order to keep control of the discussion and perhaps buy enough time to persuade enough members to invoke cloture (a special vote to end a filibuster) on those who wish to see the bill not come up for a vote. I know this sounds complicated.

I can understand how our constituents would be angry over the gridlock that goes on in Montgomery. The gambling issue has led to a huge tug-of-war that seems set in stalemate. I hope that my colleagues who are so passionate about expanding gambling will display the same intensity toward passing legislation that the citizens of our state are demanding, such as insurance and immigration reform, along with four year reapraisals.

Share This

I know I will make some people unhappy by saying this but I really think Sunset legislation is the most boring thing we deal with in the Alabama Legislature. I have never heard of an agency being sunset before and there is never a discussion to do so. While I am not advocating the abolishment of any particular agency I do find the debate on these topics to be a little dry to put it mildly. Below is the special order calendar to be debated in the House tomorrow:

Share This

Last year during one of my posts I had a spirited discussion with a folks about ballot access. I used to work for the Secretary of State’s office so I was at least somewhat familiar with the issues. However, I had no idea how bad our ballot access laws are compared to other states.

Governing magazine recently ranked Alabama has having the most strict ballot access law in the country. Under existing law to have your name placed on the ballot, independent candidates must present a written petition signed by at least 3 percent of the qualified electors who cast ballots for Governor in the last general election. I did the math and this comes out to being around 40,000 signatures. By the time a candidate gets all of their signatures together they have already wasted half of their campaign just to qualify to run.

I recently introduced House Bill 738 that will require an independent candidate to only get 1.5% of the qualified electors to be placed on the ballot. While this is still a higher standard than in some other places this would get Alabama closer to national average for ballot access.

I do not want to create a law where the ballot is overwhelming and cluttered. To do that would just make the process more hectic and confusing.

I know a lot of people will not like the fact that this threshold is too high and many of my friends in both major political parties will say it is too low. If that is the case then maybe this bill is just right. The biggest reason for opposition to this bill will likely be the one party district legislators. That is a district where only one party is viable. In those cases an independent candidates is more likely to challenge someone in the general election. My district would fall into this category.

In the end I think having a healthy debate outweighs the concerns people will have with this bill regarding an overcrowded ballot. For those you wanting no signature requirements all I can say is this is a first step in making the qualification process easier.

I expect the bill to be brought up in the House Constitution and Elections Committee in the next couple of weeks.

Share This

After over 3 weeks of dealing with sunset bills, the Senate completed work today and is ready to take up unfinished business. There is much speculation that in the next couple of weeks we will see gambling, immigration, and other high profile bills brought to the Senate floor for debate. What comes up for debate will be determined by the decisions of the Rules Committee. Without support from this body, no bill, regardless of how popular it may be with the people of Alabama, will come up for a vote.

On Tuesday the Senate set aside the sunset bills briefly in order for Senators to introduce bills. I dropped in SB500. This bill, which makes it a felony to recklessly elude the police in a high speed chase, has been introduced several times over the years. As a member of the House, I twice co-sponsored this bill with Jeff McLaughlin (D-Guntersville). You may recall, Rep. McLaughlin is the guy who has repeatedly sponsored the Pac-to-Pac bill that actually does something good.

For many years, there has been much concern over the number of deadly automobile accidents involving people running from persuing police cars. Many times the victims of these deadly crashes are innocent bystanders. Police officers will tell you that crimminals are aware of the lack of serious penalties for such eluding and that by making this action a felony would save lives in the future.

As previously mentioned, this bill has been repeatedly introduced but has never had a floor vote. Apparently some legislators have assumed that possible abuse by prosecutors takes precedent over curtailing the killing of the innocent. I know that the numerous tragedies that are reported in the Mobile area are not unique to the state. I hope that victims groups and law enforcement organizations will someday successfully lobby their lawmakers to pass this potential life-saving bill. We shall see.

Share This