ReportWire

Tag: Legislation

  • Here’s what you need to know about the verdict in the ‘NFL Sunday Ticket’ trial and what’s next

    Here’s what you need to know about the verdict in the ‘NFL Sunday Ticket’ trial and what’s next

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — The NFL has been found guilty of breaking antitrust laws in its distribution of out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on the “Sunday Ticket” premium subscription service.

    Even though the jury of five men and three women in a U.S. District Court awarded nearly $4.8 billion in damages Thursday to residential and commercial subscribers of “Sunday Ticket,” don’t expect any settlement checks or the shuttering of the service anytime soon.

    The league broke antitrust laws by selling “Sunday Ticket” only on DirecTV and at an inflated price. By offering the service on only one distributor and with a high price, that limited the subscriber base and satisfied concerns by CBS and Fox about preserving local ratings while the NFL got a lot of money for its broadcast rights.

    Three weeks. It began with opening statements on June 6 and featured 10 days of testimony before closing arguments on Wednesday. The jury deliberated for nearly five hours Wednesday and Thursday before coming to a decision.

    The NFL brought in Commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones to testify, but it didn’t help. The plaintiffs’ mostly used economists and video from pre-trial depositions.

    The class action applied to more than 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses, mostly bars and restaurants, that purchased “NFL Sunday Ticket” from June 17, 2011, to Feb. 7, 2023.

    The jury awarded $4.7 billion to residential subscribers and $96 million to businesses. Because damages are trebled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could end up being liable for $14.39 billion unless it reaches a settlement or it is reduced

    The residential damages were slightly less than the $5.6 billion offered under the plaintiffs’ College Football Model but more than a model where “Sunday Ticket” would have multiple carriers and a 49.7% reduction in the subscription cost ($2.81 billion).

    The business damages were much lower than the plaintiffs presented in any of their three models. The lowest was $332 million under what was called the “NFL Tax” model.

    It would be spread equally among the 32 teams. That means each one could be paying as much as $449.6 million.

    Changes to the “Sunday Ticket” package and/or the ways the NFL carries its Sunday afternoon games would be stayed until all appeals have been concluded. If the league was smart though, it would start offering team-by-team or week-by-week packages along with reducing the price.

    ESPN proposed offering “Sunday Ticket” for $70 per season with team-by-team packages in 2022, but it was turned down by the NFL before it went with YouTube TV.

    If the NFL offered team-by-team packages all along, one of the key class members likely would not have been part of the lawsuit.

    Rob Lippincott — a New Orleans native who moved to California — bought “Sunday Ticket” only for Saints games.

    “He just wanted the Saints. If he had a choice to buy a single-team package and watch the Saints games, he absolutely would have,” plaintiffs attorney Amanda Bonn said during her opening remarks on June 6.

    The landmark college football TV case in 1984 was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was at the U.S. District Court level.

    The NFL said it would appeal the verdict. That appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly the Supreme Court.

    It wouldn’t be the first time the 9th Circuit has seen this case.

    The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco. On June 30, 2017, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell dismissed the lawsuit and ruled for the NFL. Two years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case.

    During his closing remarks, lead attorney Bill Carmody showed an April 2017 NFL memo that showed the league was exploring a world without “Sunday Ticket” in 2017, where cable channels would air Sunday afternoon out-of-market games not shown on Fox or CBS.

    Judge Philip S. Gutierrez voiced his frustration with the plaintiffs’ attorneys midway through the trial, but the closing argument by Carmody was clear and easy to understand.

    The NFL might be the king of American sports and one of the most powerful leagues in the world but it often loses in court, especially in Los Angeles. It was in an LA federal court in 1982 that a jury ruled the league violated antitrust rules by not allowing Al Davis to move the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles.

    All eyes turn to July 31 when Gutierrez is scheduled to hear post-trial motions. That will include the NFL’s request to have him rule in favor of the league because the judge determined the plaintiffs did not prove their case.

    All the major leagues offer out-of-market packages they are keeping an eye on this case because individual teams selling their out-of-market streaming rights, especially in baseball, would further separate the haves from the have nots.

    A major difference though is that MLB, the NBA and the NHL sell their out-of-market packages on multiple distributors and share in the revenue per subscriber instead of receiving an outright rights fee.

    ___

    AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California lawmakers revive debate over bill requiring tech platforms to pay for news

    California lawmakers revive debate over bill requiring tech platforms to pay for news

    [ad_1]

    California lawmakers have revived legislation to charge online platforms for the news articles they publish, a proposal that stalled last year amid divisions within the journalism industry and intense opposition from Google and other tech companies.

    New amendments published Monday to Assembly Bill 886 are meant to address concerns from small publishers and make the plan more similar to the way Canada charges platforms for distributing news content.

    The bill, also known as the “California Journalism Preservation Act,” requires digital advertising giants to pay news outlets a fee when they sell advertising alongside news content. Publishers would have to use 70% of those funds to pay journalists in California.

    The changes call for calculating payments based on the number of journalists a news outlet employs, similar to Canada’s model, rather than on how many impressions an article generates, as originally proposed. And they call for creating a fund that platforms pay into, which would distribute the money to news outlets. Google is paying $74 million annually into a fund for the news industry under the law that took effect last year in Canada.

    “What we learned with the Canada version is that it’s possible, and that news is of value, it’s critical,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland). “And that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that our publishers are compensated for the work that they’re providing.”

    New amendments in Wicks’ bill also would give an additional boost to small publishers by making them eligible for funding beyond the per-journalist payout and allowing them more flexibility in how they spend the money they would receive under the program by dropping the portion they must spend paying journalists to 50%.

    The bill is sponsored by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member. Publishers argue that online search and social media platforms are harming the journalism business by gobbling up advertising revenue while publishing content they don’t pay for.

    The changes to the bill mark a key development since the bill was put on pause last year in the face of massive opposition from Google and other companies. Google argued the legislation would upend its business model and wrote in an April blog post that the bill “undermines news in California.” The search giant flexed its muscle against the bill earlier this year by removing links to California news sites from its search results for some users.

    Google did not respond to an email seeking comment on the latest changes to the bill.

    But the amendments are unlikely to be the final modifications. Lawmakers often ramp up negotiations on difficult issues as they approach the end of the legislative session in August. The bill is scheduled for a hearing on June 25 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, its next big hurdle.

    State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who chairs that committee, said he expects further changes as negotiations continue. He said he would like to see the bill pass but wants to make sure it strikes the right balance between what the news industry needs and what the tech platforms can pay for.

    “I believe that we could screw this up so that we make it so expensive that the platforms don’t carry [journalism] content,” Umberg said. “That would be catastrophic. So I don’t know where we hit that sweet spot.”

    A separate bill seeking to aid the journalism industry would impose a new tax on Amazon, Meta and Google for the data they take from users and pump the money from this “data extraction mitigation fee” into news organizations by giving them a tax credit for employing full-time journalists.

    As a tax measure, Senate Bill 1327 would require approval from two-thirds of the Legislature and presents a political challenge in an election year. Nonetheless, state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda) said his bill is compatible with Wicks’ legislation, and he remains hopeful lawmakers can find a way to help the journalism industry.

    “I continue to have many conversations with her and others about how we have to solve the problem,” Glazer said. “There’s lots of ways to try to go at it.”

    [ad_2]

    Laurel Rosenhall

    Source link

  • NC governor’s race: Where Robinson stands on abortion and what the GOP Senate leader says

    NC governor’s race: Where Robinson stands on abortion and what the GOP Senate leader says

    [ad_1]

    Senate Leader Phil Berger, left, talks with Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson during a press conference in this 2021 file photo.

    Senate Leader Phil Berger, left, talks with Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson during a press conference in this 2021 file photo.

    ehyman@newsobserver.com

    Welcome to the governor’s race edition of our Under the Dome politics newsletter. I’m Dawn Vaughan, The News & Observer’s state Capitol bureau chief.

    The first million-dollar ad buy is out in the governor’s race between Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein and Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson.

    Stein’s ad, which came out on Tuesday morning and cost more than $1 million to air across statewide television and digital markets, shows a variety of clips of Robinson talking about abortion.

    Robinson, who chose with his now-wife to end her pregnancy in abortion in 1989, is adamantly anti-abortion now.

    He said on state Rep. Jeff McNeely’s radio show that if he won the election he would sign a “heartbeat” bill, which would ban abortion after cardiac activity is detected around six weeks into gestation. The ad showed a clip from that show, and also played a clip of a newly revealed Facebook Live video Robinson did in 2019, saying that women should “keep your skirt down.”

    I watched the entire Robinson Facebook Live, most of which is about abortion, and wrote about what else he said on that video. More details in that story.

    What the most powerful Republican senator says about abortion

    While Robinson wants to sign a “heartbeat” abortion bill into law, the only way he gets one is if the General Assembly, which is currently completely controlled by Republicans, sends him one.

    The abortion bill that became law in 2023, Senate Bill 20, was a deal brokered among Republicans. They agreed on a 12-week ban, with multiple exceptions, after the first trimester of pregnancy.

    Early in that intraparty debate, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, an Eden Republican, told reporters where he stood on abortion legislation, which was pretty much where the final law landed.

    So I asked him this past week what he thinks legislation from Republicans about abortion could look like next year, if Robinson wins the governor’s race. Berger said he prefers not to change the current abortion law next year. He also said, as he has before, that he doesn’t want abortion legislation passed this legislative session (the House doesn’t, either).

    But there are a few unknowns out there, including the results of the election not just for governor, but for all 170 seats in the General Assembly, as they’re on November ballots, too.

    “I personally would not be in favor of making any changes next year. We will see what happens as far as the election, and what the majorities look like in both the House and the Senate next year. And we’ll just see what happens. I can just speak to where I am,” he said, noting that other senators may think differently.

    Berger said that there are Republican lawmakers who support “heartbeat” legislation. But he also pointed out what polling shows, as he mentioned ahead of the 2023 law as well.

    “One of the things that I’ve looked at is where the vast majority of people in the state of North Carolina are. And I’ve yet to see any polling that shows that prohibiting abortions, or having a six- or eight-week time frame, is something that enjoys support of a majority of people in the state of North Carolina — or a majority of voters in the state of North Carolina. And it’s, I mean, it’s not even close,” Berger said.

    Stein, like other Democrats, opposed North Carolina’s recent change to abortion law as well as the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

    Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein, left, and Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, right, will move on to North Carolina’s general election for governor in 2024.
    Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein, left, and Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, right, will move on to North Carolina’s general election for governor in 2024.

    Stay informed about #ncpol

    Don’t forget to follow our Under the Dome tweets and listen to our Under the Dome podcast to stay up to date. Our new episode posts Monday morning, I’m joined by my legislative politics team colleagues Kyle Ingram and Avi Bajpai. We talk about the Senate Democrats walking out before a vote on a surprise mask/campaign finance bill on Thursday, and how that may play out this week when the bill is in the House. Plus the latest on an abortion lawsuit and early voting.

    You can sign up to receive the Under the Dome newsletter at newsobserver.com/newsletters. Want your friends to get our email, too? Forward them this newsletter so they can sign up.

    Related stories from Raleigh News & Observer

    Dawn Baumgartner Vaughan is the Capitol Bureau Chief for The News & Observer, leading coverage of the legislative and executive branches in North Carolina with a focus on the governor, General Assembly leadership and state budget. She has received the McClatchy President’s Award, N.C. Open Government Coalition Sunshine Award and several North Carolina Press Association awards, including for politics and investigative reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Dawn Baumgartner Vaughan

    Source link

  • Possibility of ranked-choice voting in Colorado faces a hurdle with new law

    Possibility of ranked-choice voting in Colorado faces a hurdle with new law

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — As a Colorado group gathers signatures to put a measure on the ballot installing ranked-choice voting in the state, Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill Thursday that would impose another hurdle for the new system if the measure is passed.

    If ranked voting makes the ballot in Colorado, the voters in the state would join those in Oregon, Alaska and Nevada who will decide on ranked voting in November. If the ballot measure passes, the new law signed by Polis will require that ranked voting be tested first at a municipal level before being used statewide, delaying implementation.

    The group Colorado Voters First, which spearhead the campaign to get ranked voting on the November ballot, had decried the bill’s provision as an attempt to effectively halt ranked voting and asked the governor to veto the bill.

    Polis tried to quell concerns after signing the legislation by saying that if the measure passes they will work quickly to install ranked voting statewide “as soon as practicable and certainly no later than the 2028 election.”

    Curtis Hubbard, a spokesperson for the Colorado Voters First, said in a statement that they are disappointed but will continue to forge ahead “for the rights of any voter to vote in any election.”

    The Colorado County Clerks Association said in a statement that if voters pass the ranked voting ballot initiative, implementation “can be done by 2028.”

    Colorado Voters First’s initiative would open primary elections to all candidates. The top four would advance to a general election, where voters would rank candidates instead of choosing just one. Ranked voting lessens the power of the two major parties, and battles over its use have been driven in part by deep dissatisfaction with hyperpartisan politics.

    Only two states use ranked voting, Maine for state primaries and federal elections and Alaska for state and federal general elections.

    ___

    Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Housing forum with Tarr, Ferrante slated for June 4

    Housing forum with Tarr, Ferrante slated for June 4

    [ad_1]

    ROCKPORT — Advocates for affordable housing on Cape Ann and statewide are sending out a clarion call to lawmakers, urging them to back the state’s Affordable Homes Act, a $4 billion effort that seeks to support a wide array of housing projects across the state.

    Seen as the centerpiece of Gov. Maura Healey’s effort to tackle rising housing prices in the state, the Affordable Homes Act, filed in 2023, includes $4 billion in capital spending authorizations and 28 “substantive” policy changes, three executive orders and two targeted tax credits.

    The measure is the largest of its kind in state history, according to Rabbi Allen Lipson, organizer and development coordinator for the Essex County Community Organization (ECCO).

    “But the real estate lobby is pushing hard against the key funding mechanism and state reps are wavering,” he said. “The bill will be voted on in the next couple of weeks. So, we are organizing to save it before it’s too late.”

    ECCO has organized a meeting with regional lawmakers to try and convince them to back the bill which seeks to increase the amount of money available for affordable housing, reduce barriers to the production and preservation of housing, and give communities the tools to develop more housing where they need it, according to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities.

    “We have an urgent opportunity to save funding for hundreds of millions of dollars in housing across the state,” Lipson said.

    The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday from 6:30-8 p.m. at the Rockport Public Library, 17 School St. in Rockport.

    Event organizers said Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, and Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, D-Gloucester, will attend.

    “We’ll be asking for their support for key provisions of the bill currently under attack,” Lipson said.

    “Non-Cape Ann residents are also welcome since this issue impacts everyone in the state.”

    Those interested in more information or attending may contact Lipson at allen@eccoaction.org.

    Stephen Hagan can be reached at 978-675-2708 or at shagan@northofboston.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Times Staff

    Source link

  • Louisiana law that could limit filming of police hampers key tool for racial justice, attorneys say

    Louisiana law that could limit filming of police hampers key tool for racial justice, attorneys say

    [ad_1]

    A new Louisiana law that makes it a crime to approach within 25 feet (7.6 meters) of a police officer under certain circumstances is an affront to the movement for racial justice and violates the First Amendment, civil rights attorneys say.

    Critics have said the law — signed this week by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry — could hinder the public’s ability to film officers. Bystander cellphone videos are largely credited with revealing police misconduct such as the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a white Minneapolis police officer.

    “When you enact a law that prevents people from seeing for themselves whether injustice is being done, that is the biggest thing against civil rights you can ever do,” said Shean Williams, an attorney with The Cochran Firm in Atlanta.

    Williams said images of police attacking demonstrators during the civil rights movement were instrumental to its success in advancing racial justice.

    Proponents argue the new law will create a buffer zone to help ensure the safety of officers and that bystanders would still be close enough to film police interactions. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, signed a similar measure into law in April, saying it would help ensure law enforcement officers in his state can “do their jobs without the threat of harassment.”

    In a statement at the time, DeSantis drew a distinction with “blue states,” saying Florida would continue to be “the friendliest state in the nation towards our law enforcement community.”

    The Louisiana measure’s author, state Rep. Bryan Fontenot, said the legislation was drafted to provide officers “peace of mind and safe distance to do their job.”

    “At 25 feet, that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest,” Fontenot said while presenting his bill in a committee earlier this year. “The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet — it sure is a lot more difficult than if he’s sitting right here.”

    But attorneys say states, including Florida and Louisiana, already have laws that criminalize efforts to obstruct police.

    “The key in every other state is, ‘Are you disrupting the conduct of the officer? ’ ” said Gerry Weber, a constitutional law expert in Atlanta who has represented numerous people in lawsuits over filming police misconduct. “One of the problems with the Louisiana law is it creates a presumption that one is interfering if they’re within 25 feet and they have been given a warning.”

    Weber helped reach a settlement more than a decade ago that required Atlanta police to stop interfering with people who record officers performing their duties in public.

    At least one other state created a law similar to the ones in Louisiana and Florida. In 2022, Arizona made it illegal to knowingly film a police officer from 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer if the officer told the person to stop.

    U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi in Phoenix last year blocked enforcement of that statute, saying it “prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect.”

    The Louisiana law does not specifically mention filming. It prohibits “knowingly or intentionally” approaching an officer who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties” after being ordered to “stop approaching or retreat.” Violators face up to a $500 fine, up to 60 days in jail, or both. It goes into effect on Aug. 1.

    But even without an explicit reference to filming, the First Amendment concerns remain, said Susan Meyers, a senior staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Courts have been clear that people have a right to observe and film police doing their jobs in public, she said.

    “What are they saying? How are they conducting themselves?” she said. “There are in fact very few ways for the public to hold these public servants accountable for their actions.”

    Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said she experienced the importance of filming police first-hand last year when she and some colleagues were pulled over by an officer who said he suspected the vehicle they were in was stolen.

    The car wasn’t stolen, and Odoms, who has denounced the new Louisiana law, said she believes the justification was pretextual. On a dark, deserted road, she said filming the encounter gave her comfort.

    “I’m probably within 8 to 10 feet of the officer and then two or three feet,” she recalled. “I would not be able to do any of that.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong court convicts 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case

    Hong Kong court convicts 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — A Hong Kong court Thursday convicted 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case under a law imposed by Beijing that has all but wiped out public dissent.

    Those found guilty included former lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung, Lam Cheuk-ting, Helena Wong and Raymond Chan. But the three judges approved by the government to oversee the case acquitted former district councilors Lee Yue-shun and Lawrence Lau. Those convicted could face up to life in prison.

    They were among 47 democracy advocates who were prosecuted in 2021 for their involvement in an unofficial primary election. Prosecutors had accused them of attempting to paralyze Hong Kong’s government and topple the city’s leader by securing the legislative majority necessary to indiscriminately veto budgets.

    In a summary of the verdict distributed to media, the court said the election participants had declared that they would “either actively use or use the power conferred on the (Legislative Council) by the (Basic Law) to veto the budgets.”

    Under the Basic Law, the chief executive would be compelled to dissolve the legislature and eventually step down if major bills such as the budget were vetoed.

    The court said that if the defendants had reached their aims, it would amount to “a serious interfering in, disrupting or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law” by the Hong Kong government.

    The court was adjourned until later Thursday, and Judge Andrew Chan did not give further details on the court’s reasoning.

    Observers said the subversion case illustrates how the security law is being used to crush the political opposition following huge anti-government protests in 2019. But the Beijing and Hong Kong governments insist the law has helped bring back stability to the city and that judicial independence is being protected.

    When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Beijing promised to retain the city’s Western-style civil liberties for 50 years. However, since the introduction of the 2020 law, Hong Kong authorities have severely limited free speech and assembly under the rubric of maintaining national security. Many activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile. Dozens of civil society groups disbanded.

    The activists prosecuted in the main case included legal scholar Benny Tai, former student leader Joshua Wong and a dozen former lawmakers including Leung Kwok-hung and Claudia Mo.

    Thirty-one of them, including Tai, Wong and Mo, pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit subversion. They have a better chance at shorter jail terms and will be sentenced at a later date.

    Sixteen others, including Leung, pleaded not guilty and underwent a non-jury trial. After Thursday’s verdicts, mitigation hearings will be scheduled to determine the sentences of those convicted.

    Dozens of residents had lined up outside the police-guarded court building before 6 a.m. Thursday to secure a seat in the public gallery for the verdicts. Some supporters who were among the first in the line came as early as Wednesday evening.

    Social worker Stanley Chang, a friend of one of the 16 defendants, said he arrived the site at 4 a.m. because he feared he could not get a seat. Chang said there were very few things supporters could do for them and that attending the hearing is a kind of company.

    “I want to give some support for my friend and the faces I saw in news reports,” he said, who is in his 30s.

    SL Chiu, who only gave his initials due to fear of government retribution, said the hearing marked a historic moment. To show his support, he said he had collected messages for the 47 activists from others in a sketchbook and planned to mail them if possible.

    “Hong Kongers are still here. We haven’t given up. We are still with you all,” he said.

    On Wednesday night, Lee Yue-shun, one of the accused, said on Facebook that Thursday was like a special graduation ceremony for him, though graduation is usually about sharing happiness with families and friends,

    “This perhaps best reflects the common helplessness of our generation,” he said.

    The July 2020 primary was meant to shortlist pro-democracy candidates who would then run in the official election. It drew an unexpectedly high turnout of 610,000 voters, representing over 13% of the city’s registered electorate.

    The pro-democracy camp at that time hoped they could secure a legislative majority, which would allow them to press for the 2019 protest demands, including greater police accountability and democratic elections for the city leader.

    But the government postponed the legislative election that would have followed the primary, citing public health risks during the coronavirus pandemic. The electoral laws were later overhauled, drastically reducing the public’s ability to vote and increasing the number of pro-Beijing lawmakers making decisions for the city in the legislature.

    Beijing also had criticized the vote as a challenge to the security law, which criminalizes secession, subversion and collusion with foreign forces to intervene in the city’s affairs as well as terrorism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

    California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

    [ad_1]

    A bill that would allow Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes in California passed the state Assembly Monday afternoon on a 49-4 vote and is headed to the Senate. But even if the Legislature’s upper chamber approves AB 1775, legalization remains far from a sure thing.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a prior iteration of the bill in October, citing the state’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.

    The bill would authorize local jurisdictions to allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell non-cannabis food and nonalcoholic beverages. The bill would also allow the cafes to host live music and other performances.

    Under current state law, consumers can consume cannabis at a dispensary, but dispensaries can’t legally sell non-cannabis products like coffee and food, as is legal in Amsterdam.

    California’s symbolic position at the apex of weed culture has long been rivaled by the Dutch capital, where cannabis cafes have been legal since the 1970s.

    Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation, has framed it as a matter of fairness. He argues that the cafes would level the playing field for the state’s highly taxed and regulated legal weed industry, allowing legitimate businesses to compete with black-market sellers who don’t operate under the same constraints.

    “This is a bill that supports our legal small businesses that just want to diversify their businesses and do the right thing,” Haney said Monday on the Assembly floor. “The illicit illegal market is continuing to grow and thrive, while our legal cannabis market is struggling.”

    Haney cited the governor’s prior veto, saying he had been working to address Newsom’s concerns through amendments to the bill. The new version would prohibit cannabis smoking or vaping in “back of house” of lounges, where food is being prepared or stored, creating separation between where people are consuming cannabis and other work areas.

    Rather than taking a blunt statewide approach, the bill would put the decision to allow cannabis cafes in the hands of local jurisdictions. Should a jurisdiction decide to greenlight the lounges, it would have to hash out its own permitting process and regulations.

    West Hollywood put a licensing system in place several years ago, and a handful of cannabis lounges operate within the city’s 1.89 square miles. The West Hollywood businesses operate with workarounds that separate the food businesses, The Times has previously reported.

    No such licensing system exists in the city of Los Angeles.

    The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Assn. and the American Lung Assn. have all opposed the bill, raising concerns about the health effects of secondhand marijuana smoke. They argue that the bill would undo hard-fought workplace protections “by re-creating the harmful work environments of the past.”

    Marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access has argued that patrons and employees would face no health risks because of the highly regulated nature of such establishments.

    A Newsom spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation.

    Staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Noncitizen voting becomes a centerpiece of 2024 GOP messaging

    Noncitizen voting becomes a centerpiece of 2024 GOP messaging

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — One political party is holding urgent news conferences and congressional hearings over the topic. The other says it’s a dangerous distraction meant to seed doubts before this year’s presidential election.

    In recent months, the specter of immigrants voting illegally in the U.S. has erupted into a leading election-year talking point for Republicans. They argue that legislation is necessary to protect the sanctity of the vote as the country faces unprecedented levels of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Voting by people who are not U.S. citizens already is illegal in federal elections and there is no indication it’s happening anywhere in significant numbers. Yet Republican lawmakers at the federal and state levels are throwing their energy behind the issue, introducing legislation and fall ballot measures. The activity ensures the issue will remain at the forefront of voters’ minds in the months ahead.

    Republicans in Congress are pushing a bill called the SAVE (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) Act that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Meanwhile, Republican legislatures in at least six states have placed noncitizen voting measures on the Nov. 5 ballot, while at least two more are debating whether to do so.

    “American elections are for American citizens, and we intend to keep it that way,” House Administration Committee Chairman Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin said during a hearing he hosted on the topic this past week.

    Democrats on the committee lambasted their Republican colleagues for focusing on what they called a “nonissue,” arguing it was part of a strategy with former President Donald Trump to lay the groundwork for election challenges this fall.

    “It appears the lesson Republicans learned from the fiasco that the former president caused in 2020 was not ‘Don’t steal an election’ — it was just ‘Start earlier,’” said New York Rep. Joe Morelle, the committee’s top Democrat. “The coup starts here. This is where it begins.”

    The concern that immigrants who are not eligible to vote are illegally casting ballots has prevailed on the right for years. But it gained renewed attention earlier this year when Trump began suggesting without evidence that Democrats were encouraging illegal migration to the U.S. so they could register the newcomers to vote.

    Republicans who have been vocal about voting by those who are not citizens have demurred when asked for evidence that it’s a problem. Last week, during a news conference on his federal legislation to require proof of citizenship during voter registration, House Speaker Mike Johnson couldn’t provide examples of the crime happening.

    “The answer is that it’s unanswerable,” the Louisiana Republican said in response to a question about whether such people were illegally voting. “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but it’s not been something that is easily provable.”

    Election administration experts say it’s not only provable, but it’s been demonstrated that the number of noncitizens voting in federal elections is infinitesimal.

    To be clear, there have been cases over the years of noncitizens illegally registering and even casting ballots. But states have mechanisms to catch that. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose recently found 137 suspected noncitizens on the state’s rolls — out of roughly 8 million voters — and is taking action to confirm and remove them, he announced this past week.

    In 2022, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, conducted an audit of his state’s voter rolls specifically looking for noncitizens. His office found that 1,634 had attempted to register to vote over a period of 25 years, but election officials had caught all the applications and none had been able to register.

    In North Carolina in 2016, an audit of elections found that 41 legal immigrants who had not yet become citizens cast ballots, out of 4.8 million total ballots cast. The votes didn’t make a difference in any of the state’s elections.

    Voters must confirm under penalty of perjury that they are citizens when they register to vote. If they lie, they can face fines, imprisonment or deportation, said David Becker, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research.

    On top of that, anyone registering provides their Social Security number, driver’s license or state ID, Becker said. That means they already have shown the government proof of citizenship to receive those documents, or if they are a noncitizen with a state ID or Social Security number, they have been clearly classified that way in the state’s records.

    “What they’re asking for is additional proof,” Becker said of Republicans pushing Johnson’s bill. “Why should people have to go to multiple government agencies and have them ask, ’Show us your papers,’ when they’ve already shown them?”

    Democrats fear adding more ID requirements could disenfranchise eligible voters who don’t have their birth certificates or Social Security cards on hand. Republicans counter that the extra step could provide another layer of security and boost voter confidence in an imperfect system in which noncitizen voters have slipped through in the past.

    The national focus on noncitizen voting also has brought attention to a related, but different phenomenon: how a small number of local jurisdictions, among them San Francisco and the District of Columbia, have begun allowing immigrants who aren’t citizens to vote in some local contests, such as for school board and city council.

    The number of noncitizen voters casting ballots in the towns and cities where they are allowed to do so has been minimal so far. In Winooski, Vermont, where 1,345 people cast ballots in a recent local election, just 11 were not citizens, the clerk told The Associated Press. Still, the gradually growing phenomenon has prompted some state lawmakers to introduce ballot measures that seek to stop cities from trying this in the future.

    In South Carolina, voters in November will decide on a constitutional amendment that supporters say will shut the door on any noncitizens voting. The state’s constitution currently says every citizen aged 18 and over who qualifies to vote can. The amendment changes the phrasing to say “only citizens.”

    Republican state Sen. Chip Campsen called it a safeguard to prevent future problems. California has similar wording to South Carolina’s current provision, and Campsen cited a California Supreme Court decision that ruled “every” didn’t prevent noncitizens from voting.

    Democratic state Sen. Darrell Jackson asked Campsen during the debate last month, “Do we have that problem here in South Carolina?”

    “You don’t have the problem until the problem arises,” Campsen replied.

    On Friday, legislative Republicans in Missouri passed a ballot measure for November that would ban both noncitizen voting and ranked-choice voting.

    “I know that scary hypotheticals have been thrown out there: ‘Well, what about St. Louis? What about Kansas City?’” said Democratic state Sen. Lauren Arthur of Kansas City. “It is not a real threat because this is already outlawed. It’s already illegal in Missouri.”

    Asked by a Democrat on Thursday about instances of noncitizens voting in Missouri, Republican Rep. Alex Riley said he didn’t have “specific data or a scenario that it has happened,” but wanted to “address the concern that it could happen in the future.”

    In Wisconsin, an important presidential swing state where the Republican-controlled Legislature also put a noncitizen voting measure on the ballot this fall, Democratic state Rep. Lee Snodgrass said during a hearing earlier this week that she couldn’t understand why someone who is not a legal citizen would vote.

    “I’m trying to wrap my brain around what people think the motivation would be for a noncitizen to go through an enormous amount of hassle to actively commit a felony to vote in an election that’s going to end up putting them in prison or be deported,” she said.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Summer Ballentine in Jefferson City, Missouri, Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, South Carolina, and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, contributed to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Safety net hospital fund shortfall widening

    Safety net hospital fund shortfall widening

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Lawmakers are seeking more support for the state’s safety net hospitals amid rising concerns about the fiscal health of a fund that helps cover medical costs for large numbers of uninsured and low-income patients.

    Hospitals and health insurers pay into the so-called safety net fund – a pool of money that helps fund care for hundreds of thousands of low-income residents who are uninsured or underinsured – with the state chipping in additional funding. But if the fund runs low, hospitals are on the hook for the shortfall.

    The fund is projected to have a shortfall of more than $220 million in the upcoming fiscal year, hospitals say, rising to the highest level in nearly two decades.

    Without additional funding, financially challenged hospitals will be forced to cover the deficit, leaving less money to provide medical care for low-income and uninsured patients, they say.

    An amendment to the Senate’s version of the $57.9 billion state budget filed by Sen. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, would require commercial health insurance companies to cover 50% of any revenue shortfalls in the safety net fund.

    “We need to do something to help our local hospitals,” Finegold said. “This is part of a long-term problem with funding for hospitals that serve the state’s most vulnerable residents. We need to fix it.”

    Many earmarks

    Finegold’s proposal is one of more than 1,000 amendments to the Senate’s budget, many of them local earmarks seeking to divert more state money to local governments, schools, cash-strapped community groups and nonprofits. Only a handful will likely make it into the Senate’s final spending package.

    The plan faces pushback from the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, which represents commercial insurers who would be impacted by the proposed changes to the hospital safety net program.

    Lora Pellegrini, the group’s president and CEO, said requiring insurers to cover the fund’s shortfalls would jeopardize negotiations between the state Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that seek to reduce assessments paid by medical insurance carriers.

    “This really came out of nowhere, and would be counterproductive to those efforts,” she said. “We have a committee process for a reason and that’s where these kinds of special interest issues should be vetted, not in the budget.”

    But the move is backed by the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, which says requiring insurers to cover the shortfall would help alleviate an “unmanageable financial burden” on the health care system “by broadening funding support for the program.”

    “The Health Safety Net is a vital component of Massachusetts’ healthcare infrastructure and its ability to cover the costs of care for low-income and uninsured patients,” Daniel McHale, MHP’s vice president for Healthcare Finance & Policy, said in a statement.

    “At this increasingly fragile time for the entire health care system, it is imperative that we take the steps needed to stabilize the safety net for the people and providers who rely on it each day.”

    Local hospitals affected

    The state’s safety net hospitals and community health centers – which include Lawrence Hospital, Salem Hospital, Holy Family Hospital in Methuen and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport – serve a disproportionate percentage of low-income patients.

    Many are heavily dependent on Medicaid reimbursements, which are typically less than commercial insurance payouts.

    Nearly 30% of Lawrence General’s gross revenue is for care provided to Medicaid, or MassHealth, patients. The state average is 18%.

    Many community hospitals are collecting from low-paying government insurance programs, and getting below-average reimbursements from commercial insurers, advocates say.

    Lawmakers also swept money from the hospital safety net fund to help cover the costs of new Medicare savings programs that pay some or all of eligible senior citizen’s premiums and other health care costs, including prescriptions.

    Hospitals are also seeing increased demand from uninsured patients as hundreds of thousands of Medicaid recipients see their state-sponsored health care coverage dropped following the end of federal pandemic-related programs, which is driving up costs. Claims processing problems are another factor adding to hospital costs, they say.

    Those and other factors have widened the fund’s shortfall from $68 million in fiscal 2022 to more than $210 million in the previous fiscal year, according to the hospital association. Combined, the shortfall could reach $600 million for the three fiscal years, the association said.

    Biggest expense

    The House, which approved its $58.2 billion version of the state budget two weeks ago, proposed $17.3 million in state funding for the hospital safety net fund. The Senate, which begins debate on its version of the budget next week, has proposed a similar amount.

    In the current budget, the state allocated $91.4 million for the safety net fund.

    But the House budget didn’t include an amendment requiring insurers to help hospitals pay the shortfall. That means even if the Senate approves Finegold’s amendment, it would still need to be negotiated as part of the final budget before landing on Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for consideration.

    Health care coverage, in the meantime, is one of the state’s biggest expenses. Medicaid costs have doubled in the past decade and now account for nearly 40% of state spending.

    MassHealth serves more than 2 million people – roughly one-third of the state’s population – despite federal Medicaid redeterminations that have reduced its rolls over the past year.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Wonderful Co. sues California over law aimed at making it easier for farmworkers to unionize

    Wonderful Co. sues California over law aimed at making it easier for farmworkers to unionize

    [ad_1]

    SAN DIEGO — One of California’s most influential agricultural companies filed a lawsuit Monday against the state to stop a contentious law to help farmworkers unionize that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom reluctantly signed two years ago after pressure from the White House.

    The action by the Wonderful Co. comes as it battles the United Farm Workers over a newly formed UFW local of 640 workers at one of its businesses. The $6 billion company founded by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, who have donated to President Joe Biden and Newsom, makes a host of products recognizable to most grocery store shoppers, including Halos mandarin oranges, Wonderful Pistachios, POM Wonderful pomegranate juice and Fiji Water brands.

    Farmworkers aren’t covered by federal rules for labor organizing in the United States. But California, which harvests much of the country’s produce, enacted a law and created a special board in 1975 to protect their right to unionize. That came after the storied work of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta to organize farmworkers across California under what later became the United Farm Workers.

    But farmworker unionization has dropped precipitously in the years since, and today few such workers are organized in California.

    The new law lets farmworkers unionize by collecting a majority of signatures without holding an election at a polling place — a condition proponents say protects workers from employers applying pressure or trying to retaliate against employees who vote to unionize. A union is formed if more than half of workers sign an authorization card.

    Wonderful argues the law is unconstitutional by going too far in cutting employers out of the process.

    Newsom’s office said it was reviewing the lawsuit before responding and included his statement from when he signed the legislation that “California’s farmworkers are the lifeblood of our state, and they have the fundamental right to unionize and advocate for themselves in the workplace.”

    Farm industry leaders have argued the lack of a secret ballot under the law makes workers vulnerable to coercion by unions and the elections susceptible to fraud. Wonderful said under the prior system, employers and union representatives were present at polling places to ensure a transparent process.

    So far, four unions have formed under the new law. No other company has taken any legal action. Wonderful said it is best equipped to spearhead the battle since other companies are much smaller.

    The law does not require union authorization cards to be dated or that an employee identify his or her employer, Wonderful said in its lawsuit.

    Wonderful said under the law there is no independent verification process to prove majority support for a union, violating due process rights.

    Wonderful said it also is asking Kern County Superior Court to issue an injunction to stop the law from being enforced until the court rules on its claim that it’s unconstitutional.

    Wonderful is up against the clock.

    Under the law, once a union is certified, employers must enter into collective bargaining within 90 days, Wonderful said in its lawsuit. That would be June 3 for the newly formed union at Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco, Calif., that was certified by the state’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

    Wonderful filed a complaint with the board, saying its workers didn’t want a union. The company says many employees thought the cards they signed were to access $600 payments under a federal pandemic relief program administered by the UFW, the largest farmworker union in the U.S. The UFW denied the allegation.

    The UFW called the lawsuit “unfortunate but not surprising.” The union said that on April 22 the Agricultural Labor Relations Board filed an unfair labor practice charge against Wonderful, accusing it of obligating workers to attend a meeting to discuss revoking their signatures on the authorization cards they used to form the union.

    “Wonderful Nurseries now wants to get rid of the law that protects farm workers,” said UFW spokesperson Elizabeth Strater.

    The case is being played out before an administrative law judge who is taking testimony from workers during a weekslong hearing.

    Wonderful Nurseries contends the board has failed to ensure an honest process for the unit’s 60 permanent employees and as many as 1,500 seasonal workers. The company’s only workers to unionize are at Wonderful Nurseries, which grows table grapes and wine grape vines as well as other plants. The company has roughly 10,000 employees, according to its website.

    Wonderful said its employees are paid well and the 1975 protections have worked.

    Before Newsom in 2022 signed the new law, he and his two predecessors had vetoed similar legislation over concerns about the voting process. The Democratic governor had announced plans to veto it again in 2022, but he reversed course after Biden announced support for the change. He signed it on condition that another method of forming a union, through mail-in ballots, was later removed.

    Biden, who keeps a bust of Chavez in the Oval Office, said in a statement in 2022 that “in the state with the largest population of farmworkers, the least we owe them is an easier path to make a free and fair choice to organize a union.”

    _____

    Taxin reported from Orange County, Calif.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Schools turn to artificial intelligence to spot guns as companies press lawmakers for state funds

    Schools turn to artificial intelligence to spot guns as companies press lawmakers for state funds

    [ad_1]

    TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas could soon offer up to $5 million in grants for schools to outfit surveillance cameras with artificial intelligence systems that can spot people carrying guns. But the governor needs to approve the expenditures and the schools must meet some very specific criteria.

    The AI software must be patented, “designated as qualified anti-terrorism technology,” in compliance with certain security industry standards, already in use in at least 30 states and capable of detecting “three broad firearm classifications with a minimum of 300 subclassifications” and “at least 2,000 permutations,” among other things.

    Only one company currently meets all those criteria: the same organization that touted them to Kansas lawmakers crafting the state budget. That company, ZeroEyes, is a rapidly growing firm founded by military veterans after the fatal shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida.

    The legislation pending before Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly highlights two things. After numerous high-profile shootings, school security has become a multibillion-dollar industry. And in state capitols, some companies are successfully persuading policymakers to write their particular corporate solutions into state law.

    ZeroEyes also appears to be the only firm qualified for state firearms detection programs under laws enacted last year in Michigan and Utah, bills passed earlier this year in Florida and Iowa and legislation proposed in Colorado, Louisiana and Wisconsin.

    On Friday, Missouri became the latest state to pass legislation geared toward ZeroEyes, offering $2.5 million in matching grants for schools to buy firearms detection software designated as “qualified anti-terrorism technology.”

    “We’re not paying legislators to write us into their bills,” ZeroEyes co-founder and Chief Revenue Officer Sam Alaimo said. But “if they’re doing that, it means I think they’re doing their homework, and they’re making sure they’re getting a vetted technology.”

    ZeroEyes uses artificial intelligence with surveillance cameras to identify visible guns, then flashes an alert to an operations center staffed around the clock by former law enforcement officers and military veterans. If verified as a legitimate threat by ZeroEyes personnel, an alert is sent to school officials and local authorities.

    The goal is to “get that gun before that trigger’s squeezed, or before that gun gets to the door,” Alaimo said.

    Few question the technology. But some do question the legislative tactics.

    The super-specific Kansas bill — particularly the requirement that a company have its product in at least 30 states — is “probably the most egregious thing that I have ever read” in legislation, said Jason Stoddard, director of school safety and security for Charles County Public Schools in Maryland.

    Stoddard is chairperson of the newly launched National Council of School Safety Directors, which formed to set standards for school safety officials and push back against vendors who are increasingly pitching particular products to lawmakers.

    When states allot millions of dollars for certain products, it often leaves less money for other important school safety efforts, such as electronic door locks, shatter-resistant windows, communication systems and security staff, he said.

    “The artificial-intelligence-driven weapons detection is absolutely wonderful,” Stoddard said. “But it’s probably not the priority that 95% of the schools in the United States need right now.”

    The technology also can be costly, which is why some states are establishing grant programs. In Florida, legislation to implement ZeroEyes technology in schools in just two counties cost a total of about $929,000.

    ZeroEyes is not the only company using surveillance systems with artificial intelligence to spot guns. One competitor, Omnilert, pivoted from emergency alert systems to firearms detection several years ago and also offers around-the-clock monitoring centers to quickly review AI-detected guns and pass alerts onto local officials.

    But Omnilert does not yet have a patent for its technology. And it has not yet been designated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an anti-terrorism technology under a 2002 federal law providing liability protections for companies. It has applied for both.

    Though Omnilert is in hundreds of schools, its products aren’t in 30 states, said Mark Franken, Omnilert’s vice president of marketing. But he said that shouldn’t disqualify his company from state grants.

    Franken has contacted the Kansas governor’s office in hopes she will line-item veto the specific criteria, which he said “create a kind of anti-competitive environment.”

    In Iowa, legislation requiring schools to install firearms detection software was amended to give companies providing the technology until July 1, 2025, to receive federal designation as an anti-terrorism technology. But Democratic state Rep. Ross Wilburn said that designation was originally intended as an incentive for companies to develop technology.

    “It was not put in place to provide, promote any type of advantage to one particular company or another,” Wilburn said during House debate.

    In Kansas, ZeroEyes’ chief strategy officer presented an overview of its technology in February to the House K-12 Education Budget Committee. It included a live demonstration of its AI gun detection and numerous actual surveillance photos spotting guns at schools, parking lots and transit stations. The presentation also noted authorities arrested about a dozen people last year directly as a result of ZeroEyes alerts.

    Kansas state Rep. Adam Thomas, a Republican, initially proposed to specifically name ZeroEyes in the funding legislation. The final version removed the company’s name but kept the criteria that essentially limits it to ZeroEyes.

    House K-12 Budget Committee Chair Kristey Williams, a Republican, vigorously defended that provision. She argued during a negotiating meeting with senators that because of student safety, the state couldn’t afford the delays of a standard bidding process. She also touted the company’s technology as unique.

    ”We do not feel that there was another alternative,” Williams said last month.

    The $5 million appropriation won’t cover every school, but Thomas said the amount could later increase once people see how well ZeroEyes technology works.

    “I’m hopeful that it does exactly what we saw it do and prevents gun violence in the schools,” Thomas told The Associated Press, “and we can eventually get it in every school.”

    ___

    Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri. Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed from Des Moines, Iowa.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Schools turn to artificial intelligence to spot guns as companies press lawmakers for state funds

    Schools turn to artificial intelligence to spot guns as companies press lawmakers for state funds

    [ad_1]

    TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas could soon offer up to $5 million in grants for schools to outfit surveillance cameras with artificial intelligence systems that can spot people carrying guns. But the governor needs to approve the expenditures and the schools must meet some very specific criteria.

    The AI software must be patented, “designated as qualified anti-terrorism technology,” in compliance with certain security industry standards, already in use in at least 30 states and capable of detecting “three broad firearm classifications with a minimum of 300 subclassifications” and “at least 2,000 permutations,” among other things.

    Only one company currently meets all those criteria: the same organization that touted them to Kansas lawmakers crafting the state budget. That company, ZeroEyes, is a rapidly growing firm founded by military veterans after the fatal shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida.

    The legislation pending before Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly highlights two things. After numerous high-profile shootings, school security has become a multibillion-dollar industry. And in state capitols, some companies are successfully persuading policymakers to write their particular corporate solutions into state law.

    ZeroEyes also appears to be the only firm qualified for state firearms detection programs under laws enacted last year in Michigan and Utah, bills passed earlier this year in Florida and Iowa and legislation proposed in Colorado, Louisiana and Wisconsin.

    On Friday, Missouri became the latest state to pass legislation geared toward ZeroEyes, offering $2.5 million in matching grants for schools to buy firearms detection software designated as “qualified anti-terrorism technology.”

    “We’re not paying legislators to write us into their bills,” ZeroEyes co-founder and Chief Revenue Officer Sam Alaimo said. But “if they’re doing that, it means I think they’re doing their homework, and they’re making sure they’re getting a vetted technology.”

    ZeroEyes uses artificial intelligence with surveillance cameras to identify visible guns, then flashes an alert to an operations center staffed around the clock by former law enforcement officers and military veterans. If verified as a legitimate threat by ZeroEyes personnel, an alert is sent to school officials and local authorities.

    The goal is to “get that gun before that trigger’s squeezed, or before that gun gets to the door,” Alaimo said.

    Few question the technology. But some do question the legislative tactics.

    The super-specific Kansas bill — particularly the requirement that a company have its product in at least 30 states — is “probably the most egregious thing that I have ever read” in legislation, said Jason Stoddard, director of school safety and security for Charles County Public Schools in Maryland.

    Stoddard is chairperson of the newly launched National Council of School Safety Directors, which formed to set standards for school safety officials and push back against vendors who are increasingly pitching particular products to lawmakers.

    When states allot millions of dollars for certain products, it often leaves less money for other important school safety efforts, such as electronic door locks, shatter-resistant windows, communication systems and security staff, he said.

    “The artificial-intelligence-driven weapons detection is absolutely wonderful,” Stoddard said. “But it’s probably not the priority that 95% of the schools in the United States need right now.”

    The technology also can be costly, which is why some states are establishing grant programs. In Florida, legislation to implement ZeroEyes technology in schools in just two counties cost a total of about $929,000.

    ZeroEyes is not the only company using surveillance systems with artificial intelligence to spot guns. One competitor, Omnilert, pivoted from emergency alert systems to firearms detection several years ago and also offers around-the-clock monitoring centers to quickly review AI-detected guns and pass alerts onto local officials.

    But Omnilert does not yet have a patent for its technology. And it has not yet been designated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an anti-terrorism technology under a 2002 federal law providing liability protections for companies. It has applied for both.

    Though Omnilert is in hundreds of schools, its products aren’t in 30 states, said Mark Franken, Omnilert’s vice president of marketing. But he said that shouldn’t disqualify his company from state grants.

    Franken has contacted the Kansas governor’s office in hopes she will line-item veto the specific criteria, which he said “create a kind of anti-competitive environment.”

    In Iowa, legislation requiring schools to install firearms detection software was amended to give companies providing the technology until July 1, 2025, to receive federal designation as an anti-terrorism technology. But Democratic state Rep. Ross Wilburn said that designation was originally intended as an incentive for companies to develop technology.

    “It was not put in place to provide, promote any type of advantage to one particular company or another,” Wilburn said during House debate.

    In Kansas, ZeroEyes’ chief strategy officer presented an overview of its technology in February to the House K-12 Education Budget Committee. It included a live demonstration of its AI gun detection and numerous actual surveillance photos spotting guns at schools, parking lots and transit stations. The presentation also noted authorities arrested about a dozen people last year directly as a result of ZeroEyes alerts.

    Kansas state Rep. Adam Thomas, a Republican, initially proposed to specifically name ZeroEyes in the funding legislation. The final version removed the company’s name but kept the criteria that essentially limits it to ZeroEyes.

    House K-12 Budget Committee Chair Kristey Williams, a Republican, vigorously defended that provision. She argued during a negotiating meeting with senators that because of student safety, the state couldn’t afford the delays of a standard bidding process. She also touted the company’s technology as unique.

    ”We do not feel that there was another alternative,” Williams said last month.

    The $5 million appropriation won’t cover every school, but Thomas said the amount could later increase once people see how well ZeroEyes technology works.

    “I’m hopeful that it does exactly what we saw it do and prevents gun violence in the schools,” Thomas told The Associated Press, “and we can eventually get it in every school.”

    ___

    Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri. Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed from Des Moines, Iowa.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate unveils $59.7B  budget

    Senate unveils $59.7B budget

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Money for free community college, regional transportation and increased spending on housing and child care are among the highlights of the Senate’s version of next year’s budget, which was rolled out Tuesday.

    The $59.7 billion Senate budget is slightly more than a spending plan approved by the House of Representatives about two weeks ago, and boosts local aid to communities in the next fiscal year by $38.1 million to nearly $1.3 billion.

    Meanwhile, it increases Chapter 70 funding for schools by $316 million to more than $6.9 billion. That would fully fund the third year of the Student Opportunity Act, which was approved by the Legislature in 2019. The law calls for diverting $1.5 billion to schools over seven years.

    The plan also proposes spending $1.3 billion in proceeds from the newly enacted “millionaires tax” by divvying up the money for a range of education and transportation programs and new initiatives.

    The voter-approved law, which went into effect last year, set a 4% surtax on incomes above $1 million.

    Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues said the plan makes targeted investments in higher education, transportation, and reflects the upper chamber’s efforts to make the state “more affordable, equitable and competitive.”

    “It maximizes and continues to build on the progress we’ve made in key sectors of the state economy,” the Westport Democrat told reporters at a briefing Tuesday.

    The Senate’s budget doesn’t call for raising taxes or new fees, and pumps more money into the state’s reserves or rainy day fund, which would bring the total to more than $9 billion by the end of the fiscal year.

    A key provision of the Senate budget calls for spending $117.5 million to offer free community college for all Massachusetts residents, and another $28 million for stipends for low-income community college students to cover the cost of books, transportation and child care, among other expenses.

    The plan would earmark $214 million for the state’s 15 regional transit authorities – including $40 million to provide bus service free of charge to passengers. Several RTAs, including the Merrimack Valley Transit Authority, have been offering free and discounted bus service under pilot programs.

    Increased funding for expanding child care, health care, housing and mental health services also are part of the Senate’s proposal.

    The House approved a nearly $58 billion budget that includes new spending on public transportation, public safety, environmental protection, health care and housing. Healey unveiled a $56.1 billion budget in January that calls for capping spending increases at 2.9% across the board, citing the state’s declining revenue collections.

    Lawmakers are debating the spending plan amid concerns about the state’s finances, with taxes and other revenue coming in below benchmarks in recent months, and with federal pandemic aid drying up.

    Healey wielded her executive powers in February to slash $375 million from the current fiscal year budget to close a gap between spending and revenue.

    Senate President Karen Spilka said the spending plan calls for making “key investments,” but shows fiscal restraint as “prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

    “Revenues rise and fall, but this is not the time to take our foot off the pedal when it comes to making investments in our residents that will improve quality of life, build a world-class workforce and keep people in Massachusetts so they can live, work and raise a family,” the Ashland Democrat told reporters on Tuesday.

    Senators are expected to file hundreds of proposed amendments to the budget ahead of debate on the spending bill next week, which could drive up the bill’s final price tag. The fiscal year begins July 1.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Senate passes bill improving air safety and service for travelers, a day before FAA law expires

    Senate passes bill improving air safety and service for travelers, a day before FAA law expires

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Senate has passed a $105 billion bill designed to improve air safety and customer service for air travelers, a day before the law governing the Federal Aviation Administration expires.

    The bipartisan bill, which comes after a series of close calls between planes at the nation’s airports, would boost the number of air traffic controllers, improve safety standards and make it easier for customers to get refunds after flights are delayed or canceled.

    It passed the Senate 88-4. The legislation now goes to the House, which is out of session until next week. The Senate also passed a one-week extension that would give the House time to pass the bill while ensuring the FAA isn’t forced to furlough around 3,600 employees.

    The bill stalled for several days this week after senators from Virginia and Maryland objected to a provision that would allow an additional 10 flights a day to and from the heavily trafficked Reagan Washington National Airport. Other senators have tried to add unrelated provisions, as well, seeing it as a prime chance to enact their legislative priorities.

    But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called a vote Thursday evening after it became clear that senators would not be able to agree on amendments to the bill before it expired. After the bill passed, leaders in both parties worked out how to pass an extension and ensure the law does not expire Friday. The House passed a one-week extension earlier this week.

    The FAA has been under scrutiny since it approved Boeing jets that were involved in two deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019. The Senate legislation would govern FAA operations for the next five years and put several new safety standards in place.

    The bill would increase the number of air traffic controllers and require the FAA to use new technology designed to prevent collisions between planes on runways. It would require new airline planes to have cockpit voice recorders capable of saving 25 hours of audio, up from the current two hours, to help investigators.

    It would also try to improve customer service for flyers by requiring airlines to pay a refund to customers for flight delays — three hours for a domestic flight and six for an international one. Lawmakers tweaked the bill this week to make it even easier for customers to receive refunds, revising language that would have put most of the onus on the customer to request them. The change put the Senate bill more in line with new regulations issued by President Joe Biden’s administration last week.

    In addition, the bill would prohibit airlines from charging extra for families to sit together and triple the maximum fines for airlines that violate consumer laws. And it would require the Transportation Department to create a “dashboard” so consumers can compare seat sizes on different airlines.

    The FAA says that if the law expires Friday, the 3,600 employees would be furloughed without a guarantee of back pay starting at midnight. The agency would also be unable to collect daily airport fees that help pay for operations, and ongoing airport improvements would come to a halt.

    No one in “safety critical” positions — like air traffic controllers — would be affected if the deadline is missed, the FAA says, and the safety of the flying public would not be at risk.

    Still, failure to pass the popular bipartisan bill by May 10 would be the latest setback after months of delays on the measure, and another example of Congress struggling to pass major legislation, even when it has broad support.

    Opening the Senate on Thursday, Schumer urged senators to come to an agreement soon. “Absolutely nobody should want us to slip past the deadline because that would needlessly increase risks for so many travelers and so many federal workers,” he said.

    Virginia Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, both Democrats, had pushed for a vote on their amendment to block the additional long-haul flights at Virginia’s Reagan National. They say the airport is restricted in size and too busy already, pointing to a close call there between two planes earlier in April that they said is a “flashing red warning light.”

    Several Western lawmakers have argued for more flights at the airport, saying it is unfair to consumers that there is a restriction on long-haul flights. The provision’s chief proponent is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, who has argued that San Antonio should have a direct flight from the airport. Cruz blocked a vote on Kaine and Warner’s amendment when Schumer tried to bring it up shortly before final passage.

    Airlines are also split on the idea of additional flights at Reagan National. Delta Airlines has argued for more flights, while United Airlines, with a major operation at farther-out Dulles Airport, has lobbied against the increase.

    The House last year passed its own version of the FAA legislation without additional Reagan National flights after intense, last-minute lobbying from the Virginia delegation — a bipartisan vote on an amendment to the FAA bill that saw members aligning not by party but geographic location. Lawmakers use the airport frequently as it’s the closest Washington airport to the Capitol, and Congress has long tried to have a say in which routes have service there.

    “Some of our colleagues were too afraid to let the experts make the call,” Kaine and Warner said in a statement Thursday evening. “They didn’t want to show the American people that they care more about a few lawmakers’ desire for direct flights than they care about the safety and convenience of the traveling public. That is shameful and an embarrassment.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok sues US to block law that could ban the social media platform

    TikTok sues US to block law that could ban the social media platform

    [ad_1]

    TikTok and its Chinese parent company filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new American law that would ban the popular video-sharing app in the U.S. unless it’s sold to an approved buyer, saying it unfairly singles out the platform and is an unprecedented attack on free speech.

    In its lawsuit, ByteDance says the new law vaguely paints its ownership of TikTok as a national security threat in order to circumvent the First Amendment, despite no evidence that the company poses a threat. It also says the law is so “obviously unconstitutional” that its sponsors are instead portraying it as a way to regulate TikTok’s ownership.

    “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide,” ByteDance asserts in the lawsuit filed in a Washington appeals court.

    The law, which President Joe Biden signed as part of a larger foreign aid package, marks the first time the U.S. has singled out a social media company for a potential ban, which free speech advocates say is what would be expected from repressive regimes such as those in Iran and China.

    The lawsuit is the latest turn in what’s shaping up to be a protracted legal fight over TikTok’s future in the United States — and one that could end up before the Supreme Court. If TikTok loses, it says it would be forced to shut down next year.

    The law requires ByteDance to sell the platform to a U.S.-approved buyer within nine months. If a sale is already in progress, the company would get another three months to complete the deal. ByteDance has said it doesn’t plan to sell TikTok. But even if it wanted to divest, the company would need Beijing’s blessing. According to the lawsuit, the Chinese government has “made clear” that it wouldn’t allow ByteDance to include the algorithm that populates users’ feeds and has been the “key to the success of TikTok in the United States.”

    TikTok and ByteDance say the new law leaves them with no choice but to shut down by next Jan. 19 because continuing to operate in the U.S. wouldn’t be commercially, technologically or legally possible. They also say it would be impossible for ByteDance to divest its U.S. TikTok platform as a separate entity from the rest of TikTok, which has 1 billion users worldwide — most of them outside of the United States. A U.S.-only TikTok would operate as an island that’s detached from the rest of the world, the lawsuit argues.

    The suit also paints divestment as a technological impossibility, since the law requires all of TikTok’s millions of lines of software code to be wrested from ByteDance so that there would be no “operational relationship” between the Chinese company and the new U.S. app.

    The companies argue that they should be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and are seeking a declaratory judgment that it is unconstitutional.

    The Justice Department declined to comment on the suit Tuesday. And White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to engage on questions about why the president continues to use TikTok for his political activities, deferring to the campaign.

    Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, issued a statement Tuesday defending the new law.

    “This is the only way to address the national security threat posed by ByteDance’s ownership of apps like TikTok. Instead of continuing its deceptive tactics, it’s time for ByteDance to start the divestment process,” he said.

    ByteDance will first likely ask a court to temporarily block the federal law from taking effect, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School who isn’t involved in the case. And the decision whether to grant such a preliminary injunction could decide the case, because its absence, ByteDance would need to sell TikTok before the broader case could be decided, he said.

    Whether a court will grant such an injunction remains unclear to Hurwitz, largely because it requires balancing important free speech issues against the Biden administration’s claims of harm to national security. “I think the courts will be very deferential to Congress on these issues,” he said.

    The fight over TikTok comes amid a broader U.S.-China rivalry, especially in areas such as advanced technologies and data security that are seen as essential to each country’s economic prowess and national security.

    U.S. lawmakers from both parties, as well as administration and law enforcement officials, have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds. Some have also pointed to a Rutgers University study that maintains TikTok content was being amplified or underrepresented based on how it aligns with the Chinese government’s interests — a claim the company disputes.

    Opponents of the law argue that Chinese authorities — or any nefarious parties — could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that rent or sell personal information. They say the U.S. government hasn’t provided public evidence that shows TikTok has shared U.S. user information with Chinese authorities or tinkered with its algorithm for China’s benefit.

    “Data collection by apps has real consequences for all of our privacy,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “But banning one social media platform used by millions of people around the world is not the solution. Instead, we need Congress to pass laws that protect our privacy in the first place.”

    Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expects TikTok’s lawsuit to succeed.

    “The First Amendment means the government can’t restrict Americans’ access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it — and no such reason exists here,” Jaffer said in a statement.

    Although TikTok prevailed in earlier First Amendment challenges, it isn’t clear whether the current lawsuit will be as simple.

    “The bipartisan nature of this federal law may make judges more likely to defer to a Congressional determination that the company poses a national security risk,” said Gautam Hans, a law professor and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell University. “Without public discussion of what exactly the risks are, however, it’s difficult to determine why the courts should validate such an unprecedented law.”

    __

    Associated Press writers David Hamilton and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Medical aid in dying plan inches forward

    Medical aid in dying plan inches forward

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A proposal that would authorize physicians to administer lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients is advancing on Beacon Hill after winning support from two key legislative committees.

    Both the Legislature’s Public Health and Health Care Financing committees have approved the bills with a recommendation that they ought to pass, sending the measures to the Senate Ways and Means Committee for consideration.

    Advocates praised the vote to advance the bills, noting that it was the first time that the Health Care Financing committee approved the proposal.

    Melissa Stacy, Northeast campaign director for the group Compassion & Choices Action Network, called it a “historic movement to help alleviate unbearable suffering for terminally ill patients.”

    More than 80 lawmakers have signed the proposals filed by Rep. Jim O’Day, D-West Boylston, and Sen. Joanne Comerford, D-Northampton. The bills would allow terminally ill patients to be prescribed a lethal dose of medication to end their lives.

    The proposals would require patients to make two verbal requests for a doctor’s intervention at least 15 days apart, as well as a written request signed by two witnesses. A physician would need to certify that the patient seeking access to lethal medicine is suffering from an incurable, irreversible condition.

    But the measures still face a tough slog on Beacon Hill, where perennial medical-aid-in-dying proposals have failed to win final approval despite increasing support and emotional testimony from terminally ill patients who pack hearings to tell their stories.

    If the Senate approves the legislation, it would still need to go before the House of Representatives before landing on Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for review.

    In 2012, Massachusetts voters rejected a ballot question that would have allowed the terminally ill to end their lives with medication prescribed by physicians. The referendum was narrowly defeated, with 51% voting against it.

    But a March poll by Beacon Research found more than 73% of Massachusetts residents believe doctors should be allowed to end a patient’s life by painless means.

    Critics of medical aid in dying laws, including medical and religious groups and advocates for those with disabilities, say misdiagnoses are common. They urged lawmakers not to approve the practice.

    Terminally ill patients suffer from depression, they noted, and may irrationally decide to end their lives.

    Others argue that legalizing physician-assisted suicide would encourage suicide among those suffering from depression and other mental health issues.

    Lawmakers who support proposals to authorize the procedure say it would include safeguards to prevent abuse and rules to keep doctors from prescribing lethal drugs to those with mental health issues or impaired judgment.

    Proponents of the practice got a boost in 2017 when the Massachusetts Medical Society dropped its longstanding opposition to physician-assisted suicide.

    A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1997 left the issue largely up to states. Thirty-seven states have since banned the practice, either at the ballot box or by legislative act.

    But at least eight states, including Vermont and Maine, have approved medical aid in dying laws, according to the advocacy group Death with Dignity.

    In December, the state Supreme Judicial Court upheld a Massachusetts law allowing state prosecutors to charge doctors for prescribing life-ending medication to terminally ill patients.

    Justices rejected claims in a lawsuit that the prosecution of physicians who provide lethal medication to mentally competent, terminally ill adults is unconstitutional.

    The high court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of medical aid in dying laws, saying the issue is best left to the “democratic process where the resolution can be informed by robust public debate and thoughtful research by experts in the field.”

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Andover voters approve capital improvements, reject ballot questions

    Andover voters approve capital improvements, reject ballot questions

    [ad_1]

    ANDOVER — After a turbulent first day of Town Meeting, a noticeably more subdued crowd approved millions of dollars in capital improvements while voting down ballot questions Tuesday night.

    Voters struck down two articles that sought to add similar nonbinding ballot questions for the next local election.

    The questions would have asked residents their opinion on the town meeting form of government.

    Members of a committee that recently studied whether the town should continue with Town Meeting spoke against the articles, saying a ballot vote could undermine the group’s work.

    “Town Meeting is where knowledge and perspectives are exchanged,” said Jon Stumpf, chair of the town governance study committee.

    Others residents were worried about what the town should do with the results of a survey.

    “It robs all of us of the benefits of deliberation and debate,” said committee Vice Chair Dara Obbard. “It could lead to something we won’t have a say in.”

    The articles were defeated 266-190 and 268-161.

    “Of the people, by the people, for the people,” said Keith Saxon, who advocated for studying if the town should continue to hold Town Meeting.

    “We have 26,000 registered voters in Andover,” Saxon said, pointing to the meeting’s low attendance.

    The proposal may have elicited a feeling of deja vu for some voters.

    At a Special Town Meeting in November, voters approved an article similar to what was rejected at this meeting.

    Due to a minor procedural rule, the article was not technically legal, according to town legal counsel Doug Heim, who said ballot questions need to be voted on at a regular Town Meeting, not a Special Town Meeting.

    That vote also saw a lot more participation. It was approved 1,181 to 692.

    Rather than use their authority to add the question for the election in March, the Select Board decided to throw the article back to voters at this Town Meeting.

    The petitioner for the original article proposed the similar article.

    This resulted in two articles that sought to achieve a similar aim to the one adopted in November but later found to be invalid.

    Some in town think that Andover has outgrown Town Meeting, a form of government where residents come together once or more in a year to vote on legislation, rules and appropriations.

    Many have argued the low attendance is evidence of this. Those in favor have said Town Meeting is unique in its ability to give every resident who wants it a direct voice in local government.

    Voters approved Article 23, which limits the town staff positions that the Select Board must approve. Before the change, the board had to approve every position, including part-time positions such as lifeguard.

    Voters also approved millions of dollars for capital projects, including sidewalk repairs and tree removal.

    Residents voted to spend more than $4 million from the town’s general fund for projects related to IT infrastructure and minor storm drainage improvements.

    More than $7 million for water and sewer expenses was appropriated with the majority, $6 million, destined for water main replacement and distribution improvement projects.

    The full list of articles voted on can be found at andoverma.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=945.

    The number of voters participating in the later votes that night were fewer than during the previous day or even earlier that night when MBTA zoning was debated.

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Healey signs off on migrant funding, reforms

    Healey signs off on migrant funding, reforms

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey has approved a plan to pump hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding into the state’s beleaguered emergency shelter system, which has been overwhelmed by a historic surge of asylum seekers.

    Healey signed a supplemental budget late Tuesday that will divert $251 million into the shelter system and to cover housing, food and other migrant costs. The plan would also authorize a transfer another $175 million from an escrow account set up to cover emergency housing costs, if needed.

    The spending bill also reforms the state’s emergency shelter system, limiting migrants to nine months beginning on June 1, with up to two, 90-day extensions for those who are employed or participating in a work-training program or are a veteran or pregnant woman, among other situations.

    Healey said the spending plan “dedicates resources to balance the budget and maintain critical services and programs” and sets limits on stays in shelters, “which is a responsible step to address our capacity and fiscal constraints as Congress has continued to fail to act on immigration reform.”

    “We will be finalizing details of this policy in the coming weeks and ensuring that families and providers are informed of the requirements and the services that we have available to help them secure work and stable housing,” the Democrat said in a statement.

    The spending bill was approved by the House and Senate in a largely party line vote, with Republicans opposed to the changes. It comes only months after Healey signed another bill that included $250 million for migrant costs. To date, the state has spent an estimated $700 million on migrant costs.

    Democrats who pushed the spending bills through both chambers on largely partisan votes argue that the additional funding and reforms are aimed at preventing a collapse of the state’s beleaguered shelter system.

    Republicans have argued that record spending on emergency shelter will crowd out education spending and other priorities in the upcoming budget, with the state’s revenue benchmarks coming in below projections for several months.

    Massachusetts is wrestling with a record influx of thousands of migrants over the past year amid a historic surge of immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Healey declared a state of emergency in August and deployed the National Guard to help deal with the influx. Her administration also set a 7,500-family cap on the number of people eligible for emergency housing last October. Hundreds of families are currently on a waiting list for housing.

    The governor has set new restrictions on migrants and other homeless families who are being housed at large-scale “overflow” sites that were set up in response to the shortage of beds in state-run shelters.

    Under the new rules, which went into effect on Wednesday, migrant families staying in those sites will be required to document every month that they are searching for work and permanent housing or risk being denied shelter.

    Healey has estimated the state will spend nearly $1 billion to support emergency shelter for homeless families and migrants over the next year.

    Despite requests from Healey and members of the state’s congressional delegation for federal funding, the Biden administration has only provided about $2 million to the state for emergency shelter and other migrant needs.

    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, asked the federal agency to grant a waiver to the state for expedited work authorization for migrants “in the absence of significant financial or structural assistance” from Congress or the White House.

    Healey said the state has been able to secure work authorization for nearly 3,600 migrants to date but continues to see an “unabating influx” of new arrivals.

    “We need more federal assistance to support these families and connect them with job opportunities,” she wrote. “These immigrants are ready to joint the workforce and we need to support them in the process.”

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Andover voters approve MBTA zoning

    Andover voters approve MBTA zoning

    [ad_1]

    ANDOVER — Voters approved a zoning district on Tuesday that allows for the potential construction of up to 2,121 multifamily housing units.

    Only a day after more than 900 voters turned out Monday for the first day of Town Meeting, the state-mandated district was approved 434-196.

    To combat the housing crisis, the state passed a law in 2021 mandating that communities with MBTA transit stations or station located nearby create a zoning district that promotes the construction of multifamily housing, with the added requirement that 50% of the housing capacity must fall within a half mile of a transit station.

    Creating zoning for the units does not necessarily mean they would be built. Developers would still need to meet regulations; the town would just have less discretion to deny projects, according to planning officials. The district, crafted over the last three years, spreads the density over three sections of town – downtown, Ballardvale and the area off River Road near Old River Road.

    The proposed district was debated Tuesday night on the Town Meeting floor at Andover High School, but few voters lined up to oppose the measure.

    “Andover is aging and we need good housing that makes it possible for young people to live in town,” she said.

    Other residents were concerned about how the new zoning might change the town.

    “I moved to Andover because it is not densely populated,” said Mike Tompkins. “Andover would not be the first town to vote against this overreach.”

    The new district could be formally created relatively soon. The plan will now be sent to the state Attorney General’s Office, which has 90 days to approve the new zoning.

    The section of the district off River Road has sparked some concern since there is little infrastructure there. The area is dominated by parking lots, corporate buildings, restaurants and a hotel.

    “The river district aims to transform the area into a vibrant village-like feel,” said Jennifer Lemmerman, who chairs the volunteer group that drew up the district proposal.

    The location is not within a half mile of a MBTA transit station for the commuter rail line, though it does have a bus stop.

    The downtown zone would allow for up to 1,234 units with 119 in Ballardvale and 768 off River Road. The zone would allow for a unit density of up to 23.2 units per acre, with 17 units per acre for Ballardvale and 39 units per acre for the River Road area.

    Select Board Chair Melissa Danisch said the district is a “measured and thoughtful response” to the state’s requirement.

    “Reflects that fellow residents were listening,” she said.

    Danisch also spoke of the millions of dollars in the grants the town could lose if it does not comply with the law.

    State Sen. Barry Finegold, who received the opportunity to vote on MBTA zoning for the second time, also voiced his support.

    “I did vote for this because it is the right thing to do,” he said. “It has become impossible to afford to come to this community.”

    The proposed district has been well-received by officials. It would boost growth in town and pave the way for more private investment in infrastructure, they said.

    Some residents have voiced concerns that having more people in town would put a greater strain on school services. School and planning officials have said that would not necessarily be the case with enrollment more heavily tied to turnover of current housing stock rather than the construction of new units.

    The district would allow for up to 2,121 housing units – 90 more than previously allowed. Officials have said the state recommends a small buffer.

    A map of the districts can be found at andoverma.gov/1069/Multifamily-Overlay-District.

    A commuter rail line snakes through town and has stations in Ballardvale and the downtown.

    The state law was met with a mixed response from community officials around the state. Not complying with the law could carry serious consequences.

    In addition to the potential loss of grants, municipalities could also face legal action. Milton is being sued by the state after its residents chose to vote against a proposed district.

    At Town Meeting, one resident advocated for only approving the district once the legality of the state requirement was settled through the lawsuit.

    Andover had until the end of this year to approve the district or face consequences from the state.

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link