Mediaboss Marketing

Governor Glenn Youngkin is taking final action this week on a number of bills from the General Assembly. That includes one about power lines.

Earlier this year, members of the General Assembly gave unanimous approval for funding an underground transmission line in Fauquier County and an underground distribution line in Fairfax County. But Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed that bill a shock to Senator Jill Vogel, a Republican from Fauquier County.

"The governor vetoed a bill that was passed unanimously out of the House and unanimously out of the Senate," Vogel says. "And the rub is that the governor took a very strong position on behalf of ratepayers. But the people in my district care very deeply about the impact of this in the community that I represent."

That community is Fauquier County, although the bill also had funding for an underground distribution line in Fairfax County. Here's Senator Scott Surovell, a Democrat from Fairfax County.

"I was really dumbfounded by the fact that he vetoed it," Surovell says. "This was a bill that was carried by the majority whip in the House, Delegate Webert. Senator Vogel in my chamber, a pretty senior Republican senator. And I had worked with both of them on a bipartisan basis to get a bill that we could all agree on that would do good things for all of us."

The governor says hes looking out for ratepayers, but Senator Vogel and Senator Surovell say they are looking out for their constituents.

This report, provided byVirginia Public Radio, was made possible with support from theVirginia Education Association.

Read the original post:
Republicans and Democrats are confused by one Youngkin veto - WVTF

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Texas House Democrats successfully delayed debate Thursday on the Houses version of a bill meant to put guardrails on faculty tenure at public universities, kicking the legislation back to the Higher Education Committee.

Just as Rep. John Kuempel, R-Seguin, started to lay out his version of the legislation, Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, raised a point of order a parliamentary procedure used to delay or kill legislation on a technicality arguing that the analysis of the legislation was misleading.

In their point of order, Democrats argued that the bill analysis says that university governing boards must file a copy of their policies and procedures related to performance reviews of tenured faculty to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. But the new legislation would also require university system leaders to provide their tenure policies on other areas like granting tenure, reasons for dismissal and due-process procedures, which is much broader information than the analysis states.

After the House recessed for the day, the Higher Education Committee voted the bill out of committee again along party lines. The bill now heads to the Calendars Committee to get back on the House floor for a vote. The House has until May 23 to give preliminary approval to Senate bills.

If the legislation goes back to the House floor and is voted out by the full chamber, the House and Senate would have to agree on the version that emerges from closed-door meetings before sending the bill to Gov. Greg Abbott. The two chambers have until May 26 to come to agreement.

The Senate, led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, voted on a version of the bill that would eliminate tenure altogether, arguing that it has allowed woke faculty to spew ideology because they feel they are protected by tenure, which provides continuous employment. The House version, as approved by the Higher Education Committee, instead enshrines tenure policies in state law.

Faculty have largely opposed both versions of the bill, arguing that while the House option is better than the Senate proposal, it includes various provisions that could effectively gut tenure protections, making it difficult to recruit and retain top faculty who help the states universities rise in prestige and national rankings.

A robust system of tenure is the surest means of protecting academic freedom so that truth might be pursued in the classroom, in the archives, and in the lab, leaders of the American Association of University Professors wrote in a news release. The tenure system remains the foundation of academic freedom in the United States, and is as important to students and society at large as it is to the faculty who work under its protection.

Tenure is a nearly century-old practice used by universities across the country that provides professors with continued employment, allowing them to pursue long-term, independent research and teaching free from political or administrative interference. Tenured faculty cannot be fired without good cause, and they must receive due process if they are terminated.

Patrick vowed to ban tenure in Texas last year after a group of University of Texas at Austin faculty issued a resolution in defense of academic freedom, the idea that faculty can teach and speak freely about their fields of study without political or outside influence. Specifically, their resolution was in response to the Legislatures decision in 2021 to ban the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools. Patrick has repeatedly accused the faculty of stoking societal division, claiming the professors felt they were above the law.

Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, carried the Senate legislation, which would eliminate tenure for all professors who have not received the status by Jan. 1, 2024. He described tenure on the Senate floor last month as outdated, saying it allows faculty to ruin the brand of a university.

The House version of the bill approved by the committee replaced the Senate version with a proposal that would instead enshrine tenure in state law.

Kuempel said during the House committee hearing on the bill last week that he believed tenure needs to be offered. His bill defines tenure in state statute as the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty members academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good cause in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted by the institution, which reflects the common definition of tenure in higher education.

Under Kuempels bill, much of how universities currently award tenure would remain intact. University regents would have to clearly lay out how they grant tenure and how they evaluate tenured faculty, and include required reasons to terminate a professor such as professional incompetence, conduct involving moral turpitude or unprofessional conduct that adversely affects the institution.

But faculty have raised concerns about a portion of the bill that they worry might gut the long-term job security that tenure provides. Under the 14th Amendment, Americans are entitled to due process if the government tries to take away their property. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a tenured faculty members right to continued employment qualifies as property interest, meaning it cant be taken away without a documented reason for the termination, a hearing and an opportunity to appeal.

But the House version of Senate Bill 18 includes a provision that says tenure creates a property interest equivalent only to one years salary. Faculty and Constitution experts worry that would mean a university could fire a professor without due process if they paid them a years salary, which faculty and constitutional experts have flagged as a potential erosion of their rights.

[T]he protection provided by the committee substitute for SB 18 would be tenure in name only; and could have the same consequences as the elimination of tenure itself, leaders of the Texas Conference of the AAUP wrote in a news release.

Faculty from across the state warned lawmakers in committee hearings in the House and Senate that universities already have rigorous systems in place to grant and revoke tenure. They also expressed concern that the acceptable reasons listed in the House version to terminate a professor are vague and could be easily weaponized to fire faculty who say or do something state or university leaders disagree with a situation that tenure is supposed to protect faculty from.

SB 18 is one of a few of Patricks legislative priorities that was watered down by the House. The lower chamber also made changes to Senate Bill 17, which would ban diversity, equity and inclusion offices in state colleges and universities. Kuempels version of that bill would allow for such programs when they are required by a private or federal grant or an accrediting agency. The House is expected to take a vote Friday on the version of SB 17 that the Higher Education Committee approved.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribunes journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 21-23. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

Link:
With clock ticking on legislative session, Texas Democrats delay ... - The Texas Tribune

Democrats in the General Assembly this week lined up to push a measure that would allow state courts to award punitive damages in wrongful death lawsuits a departure from the status quo for more than a century in Illinois.

Illinois is one of 16 states that does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death cases, though the state does allow for plaintiffs in personal injury cases to seek punitive damages.

It's only when the plaintiff has died from his or her injuries that punitive damages are precluded, Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, said Thursday during a brief debate on House Bill 219. The awarding of punitive damages should not turn on whether the injuries were severe enough to kill the plaintiff.

HB 219 would take the standards for seeking punitive damages in personal injury cases and apply them to Illinois Wrongful Death Act. The bill is an initiative of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, which has historically been an ally to Democrats.

The states business community mounted a swift but ultimately ineffective opposition campaign against the bill after it popped up earlier this week, citing increased liability costs. The bill passed with only Democratic votes in both the Senate and House this week and will soon be sent to Gov. JB Pritzker for his approval.

ITLA President Pat Salvi Jr., a managing partner at prominent Chicago-based personal injury law firm Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, told a Senate panel this week that allowing punitive damages only when a victim survives is a defect in the law.

We believe it is time to fix what the Illinois Supreme Court noted is the often-repeated adage that it is cheaper to kill your victim than to leave him maimed, Salvi said, quoting from a 1983 opinion from the states high court that affirmed punitive damages are not allowed in wrongful death cases. That cannot be.

Punitive damages exceedingly rare

While compensatory damages are meant to compensate a victim or victims family for anything from lost wages and hospital bills to pain and suffering, punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant and deter the type of reckless action that led to injury or death.

Punitive damages are rarely asked for and even more rarely granted. According to ITLA, in the last decade, Illinois juries have awarded punitive damages of more than $10,000 in only 18 personal injury cases.

The most recent nationwide study on the matter from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2005 found that, among successful cases, punitive damages were awarded in just 3 percent of the most common types of personal injury cases.

Punitive damages for product or premises liability and car crashes were awarded in 1 percent or fewer cases according to the DOJs report. The study was based on a survey of courts in the nations 75 most populous counties, including Illinois Cook and DuPage counties.

At the time of the DOJ report 18 years ago, the median punitive damage award in all successful tort cases was $55,000; adjusted for inflation, that figure would be just under $85,000 now.

Still, business groups said increasing opportunities for punitive damages could deter companies from moving to or expanding in Illinois due to increased liability. The insurance lobby also registered its opposition to the bill, and Republicans repeated the groups concerns during House and Senate debates this week.

We could end up shutting down a business because of one or two bad actors, Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, said during debate in the House. And Im not defending the bad actors at all. Im just saying theres other people to consider here.

Ugaste went on to imagine the ripple effects of shuttered businesses on workers and their families. But he also lamented that HB 219 didnt contain any caps on punitive damages.

The Supreme Court in Illinois has ruled that theyre unconstitutional, Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Swansea, told Ugaste, saying the legislatures hands were tied as to including hard caps in the bill.

But Hoffman did note that the states high court has ruled that any punitive damages exceeding 10 times the amount of compensatory damages would be considered a violation of due process, in essence putting a soft limit on punitive damages.

According to ITLA, caps are in place in only nine of the 34 states that already allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases.

Grisly mathematics

Even if placing caps on punitive damages was constitutionally feasible, Harmon maintained that writing caps into state law would set up a perverse incentive system for companies to do the grisly mathematics of a cost-benefit analysis. He cited the legal debacle over the Ford Pinto in the 1970s, when the company delayed recalling 1.5 million cars despite knowing about a dangerous design defect that caused gas tanks to explode even in low-speed crashes.

The companys apparent cost-benefit analysis found it would be less expensive for the company to settle cases with victims than to recall the cars and prevent the deadly explosions they were causing.

Imagine someone sitting in a corporate boardroom saying we can kill 127 drivers before it's more expensive to recall the car than it is to simply pay the capped punitive damages, Harmon said.

In September, a Cook County jury granted $325 million in punitive damages on top of $38 million in compensatory damages to Sue Kamuda, who developed breast cancer in 2007 after living near the Willowbrook Sterigenics medical supply sterilization plant for years. It was the states largest punitive damage award in recent history.

The jury found the Oak Brook-based company did not invest in emissions-curbing technology, which would have reduced the amount of carcinogenic gas emitted from its Willowbrook plant, despite knowing the cancer risk ethylene oxide posed to neighbors.

Kamuda is one of hundreds of nearby residents whove filed similar claims since 2018, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published research that found people who lived in the area around the facility faced some of the highest cancer risks in the U.S. The state of Illinois ordered the plant to close temporarily in early 2019, and Sterigenics later voluntarily shuttered the plant permanently.

Salvi represented Kamuda in the case, and in an interview with Capitol News Illinois this week, he said despite the eye-popping figure his client was awarded in punitive damages, her case was one of only five or six times in his 16-year legal career that hes filed for punitive damages.

And if punitive damages had been an option in wrongful death cases over that same time period, Salvi said hed likely only have sought punitive damages in less than five additional cases, nearly all in suits involving deaths due to drunk drivers.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of print and broadcast outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.

Original post:
Democrats move to allow punitive damage awards in wrongful death ... - WGLT

One of President Bidens judicial nominees is withdrew his nomination on Thursday because he was unable to earn the votes to advance out of the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee.

Michael Delaney, who was nominated to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, withdrew his nomination in a letter to Biden obtained by Fox News Digital.

"I am honored that you nominated me for judicial service. I am also deeply indebted to Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan for their continued support of my pending nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Delaney wrote.

"I am most respectful of the Senate's constitutional role in considering my nomination. At this time, I believe it is appropriate for me to withdraw my name from consideration for this position to advance the important work of the federal judiciary."

PREP SCHOOL RAPE CASE FROM 2014 COMES BACK TO HAUNT BIDEN'S LATEST TROUBLED NOMINEE

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Delaney was originally scheduled to be considered for a vote at a committee business meeting Thursdaymorning but was removed from the agenda, signaling that he wouldn't have the votes to move forward.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., remarked in the meeting that "making sure that people are fit for the bench and fit for public office is something that we should do.

"And there is hypocrisy in some of these nominations and these votes. And I appreciate that he was removed from consideration today.

"We have members of this committee who ask everybody that comes before us, have you committed sexual harassment and sexual assault? And yet theyre willing to vote for a judge who used hardball tactics against a girl to cover up that a private, elite school was guilty of pushing and participating and removing anonymity from a student at that school," Blackburn stated.

WHITE HOUSE HITS BACK AFTER MANCHIN SINKS BIDEN NOMINEE PICKED TO OVERSEE GAS STOVE CRACKDOWN

Blackburn was likely referring to her committee colleague, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who asks every nominee of their sexual assault history.

She was also referring to Delaney's role in a 2014 case defending St. Pauls School in Concord, New Hampshire, in a case against student Owen Lambrie. When he was 18, Lambrie was accused of raping a 15-year-old student, Chessy Prout.

Sen. Lindsey Graham. R-S.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The contention in the hearing stemmed from a motion that Delaney filed during the 2014 court proceedings that could have required Prout, who was a minor at the time, to have her anonymity lifted.

Its unclear which Democrat or Democrats on the committee opposed Delaney, or why. But Blackburn said, in her view, Delaney's actions in that case should have disqualified him.

"As we talk about people that are unfit for public service, Michael Delaney is one of those individuals," Blackburn said Thursday.

"And as we reviewed his record when he came before this committee, we brought forward and he did not deny, his use of hardball tactics against a 15-year-old girl," she said.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement to Fox News Digital, "President Biden put forward a deeply qualified nominee, with a long and distinguished career in public service. The White House will consult with New Hampshires Senators to identify a new nominee."

"The President looks forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to build on his historic record of nominating and confirming men and women who are dedicated to the rule of law and who continue to break barriers by representing the diversity of our country," he said.

Ranking committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., warned Thursday in the meeting that having a majority in the committee means the majority party can "tend to pick people that are being pushed by the most partisan folks on either side of the aisle."

Michael Delaney, a Biden administration nominee to serve on the First Circuit Court, is grilled by GOP senators in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feb. 15, 2023. (Fox News/screenshot)

"And I will continue to support my colleagues' discretion, collaborating with the White House to pick people but it cant be without bounds. So, Mr. Chairman, this is sort of a wake-up call for all of us," he said.

Graham said that while he was initially inclined to support Delaney's nomination, the confirmation hearing changed his mind.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Through the process of the hearing and I want to compliment my colleagues for asking hard questions you proved, I think, that Mr. Delaney was not ready for primetime. I think the questions you asked he couldnt give a coherent answer to," Graham said.

"I think it would be good for the committee not just to ask have you ever done anything wrong. But when somebody can't give a coherent answer, to do something about it."

See the original post here:
Biden judge withdraws nomination after Democrats fail to find the votes: 'Wake-up call' - Fox News

A six-week abortion ban in South Carolina is inches away from becoming a reality. However, does South Carolina have resources ready if this happens?After submitting 1,000 amendments to the South Carolina fetal heartbeat bill.State representatives passed the bill 82 to 32.However, House Democrats called on their colleagues that if this bill is signed, the work is just beginning. Before they closed for the night, House Democrats voiced the need to improve other resources across the state. This includes improving DSS, health care, and education.State Rep. Chandra Dillard said resources across are not where they need to be."If we're serious about supporting women and supporting children, then all of that has to change," Dillard said.There are currently 4,610 DSS investigations open. Greenville has the most with 466.As for foster care, there were almost 7,000 young people served in the foster care system in 2022. There were also 556 finalized adoptions and more than 1500 kids reunited with their parents."We're going to add more numbers to that. That's what's going to happen with unwanted pregnancies. We're going to find those numbers increasing if we don't get to the root cause of a good healthy family," Dillard said.On the health care side, Medicaid pays for about 60% of all births across the state. Funding for state health and human services has gone down each year since 2017.The question is, are state leaders ready to address the cracks in the system?"Well, I certainly hope so because if you want to change behavior of people's choices, you need to help them support the choice or the only option that they have at this point," Dillard said, "I am hoping that you just won't get the child here. That the objective from the other side and abandon the child once it is here."Under this new version of the heartbeat bill, an amendment was added that would require the biological father to pay child support at soon as a child is conceived. This was done to hold men accountable for their actions.This version of the bill will go back to the Senate Tuesday to be voted on.

A six-week abortion ban in South Carolina is inches away from becoming a reality. However, does South Carolina have resources ready if this happens?

After submitting 1,000 amendments to the South Carolina fetal heartbeat bill.

State representatives passed the bill 82 to 32.

However, House Democrats called on their colleagues that if this bill is signed, the work is just beginning. Before they closed for the night, House Democrats voiced the need to improve other resources across the state. This includes improving DSS, health care, and education.

State Rep. Chandra Dillard said resources across are not where they need to be.

"If we're serious about supporting women and supporting children, then all of that has to change," Dillard said.

There are currently 4,610 DSS investigations open. Greenville has the most with 466.

As for foster care, there were almost 7,000 young people served in the foster care system in 2022. There were also 556 finalized adoptions and more than 1500 kids reunited with their parents.

"We're going to add more numbers to that. That's what's going to happen with unwanted pregnancies. We're going to find those numbers increasing if we don't get to the root cause of a good healthy family," Dillard said.

On the health care side, Medicaid pays for about 60% of all births across the state. Funding for state health and human services has gone down each year since 2017.

The question is, are state leaders ready to address the cracks in the system?

"Well, I certainly hope so because if you want to change behavior of people's choices, you need to help them support the choice or the only option that they have at this point," Dillard said, "I am hoping that you just won't get the child here. That the objective from the other side and abandon the child once it is here."

Under this new version of the heartbeat bill, an amendment was added that would require the biological father to pay child support at soon as a child is conceived. This was done to hold men accountable for their actions.

This version of the bill will go back to the Senate Tuesday to be voted on.

Excerpt from:
'Is SC ready for a fetal heartbeat bill?': SC House Democrats voice need to improve state resources - WYFF4 Greenville