Jam Session - Tulsa World Editors Look at 2010 Session
January 3rd, 2010
Oklahoma's leaders won't have any money to spend in the coming year, but that doesn't mean they won't be busy in a jam-packed legislative session. Lawmakers already have made some of their legislative objectives known and, as usual, plenty of controversy is in store.
In the view of some lawmakers, the budget crisis is an opportunity to make government leaner and more efficient, a battle cry heard oft before but which has yet to produce much in the way of change. Look for more debate (but not necessarily action) on defining core government services, seeking out innovation, and modernizing operations.
Workers compensation reform seems headed to replace tort reform as the partisan battle of the session. Whether to privatize the state's workers comp carrier is already under discussion, and other proposals are expected.
A constitutional measure targeting federal health care reform and aiming to preserve individual choices likely will be a hot topic, as it will be in at least a dozen other states. It's unclear how such opt-out measures would play out, but some leaders privately find them worrisome. Most are aimed at preserving such choices as whether and from whom to buy insurance, but all proposals, including Oklahoma's, appear to be part of a national movement aimed at influencing the final version of the federal health care overhaul.
And as usual, abortion is liable to come up. Two separate laws are being challenged in the courts, and some legislators already have hinted they may try to pass legislation to get around any court ruling they don't like. And they'll also probably come up with some new abortion restrictions so as to maintain the state's reputation as the nation's keeper of the moral high ground.
Also on the agenda: tighter divorce laws, expanded smoking restrictions, penalties for campaign falsehoods, and a change in the lottery's payout to education.
Facing unprecedented revenue shortfalls that show no signs of letting up, state leaders at year's end seemed close to an agreement on how to close out this fiscal year's spending. Then it will be time once the new session convenes on Feb. 1 to tackle the coming fiscal year's budget — a task no one is eager to take on. Leaders will attempt to protect core services such as education, health and public safety to the extent possible, so many agencies will be forced to continue slashing double-digit percentages from their monthly budgets for the foreseeable future.
But there will still be controversy and headlines even without any money to spend, rest assured. Oklahomans can always count on that.
Tobacco targeted
Sen. David Myers, R-Ponca City, and Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove, are continuing a long-running effort to expand smoking restrictions. Their earlier attempt to ban smoking in most public workplaces failed in the face of opposition from Oklahoma restaurants, but a new legislatively mandated state health improvement plan that calls for broader smoking restrictions could work in their favor this time around.
There may also be an effort to repeal the state's pre-emption law, which prohibits cities from enacting stricter laws than the state can pass.
Getting the message
Texting while driving is a public safety issue that should have been banned when Rep. Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, brought the subject up in a past session. Unfortunately, she couldn't even get a hearing. She's introducing her bill and passage should be a no-brainer. Let's hope that Tibbs and others are more successful this time around. The bill is backed by AAA of Oklahoma. What could be more politically popular than saving lives?
For better and worse
If Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, gets her way, Oklahomans soon will have a harder time getting divorced. In House Bill 2279, Kern seeks to tighten up the incompatibility grounds for divorce. Under her proposal, judges could not grant a divorce on the basis of incompatibility if there are living minor children of the marriage, the parties have been married 10 years or longer, or either party files a written objection to the granting of the divorce.
Apparently forcing married people who hate either other's guts to stay married is better for everyone, including the children, than letting everyone have the chance to start a new life, in Kern's view.
The lies have it
Sen. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah, is resurrecting a measure aimed at penalizing lying during campaigns, thanks to the rancorous Tulsa mayoral debate. Senate Bill 1255 would make it illegal for anyone to "intentionally participate in the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of paid political advertising, campaign material, or a letter to a newspaper editor that is false and that such person knows is false ... ."
Anyone found guilty of campaign lying could be fined $5,000 or sent to the county jail for up to a year, or both. If this passes, we'd probably have to triple the capacity of our county jails.
Wilson said the idea for the campaign-lying law originated from the bitter 2000 Senate race between Sen. Lewis Long and GOP challenger Nancy Riley. Most observers agree a false claim by the Oklahoma Christian Coalition — which the group ultimately apologized for — about Long's voting record cost him the election.
Wilson's goal is laudable, but it's hard to imagine politicians having much enthusiasm for a new law that could land them in jail.
Victimized twice?
Wilson also is the author of SB 1251, which would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or canceling coverage based on an applicant's or insured's status as a victim of domestic abuse. According to national reports, Oklahoma is one of only a handful of states that do not already prohibit such actions on the part of insurers.
Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland has said that state law does prohibit group plans from asking questions about domestic violence history, and regulations prohibit individual plans from asking about it. But Attorney General Drew Edmondson has said state statutes lack the language that would specifically prohibit domestic violence from being taken into account.
Even though Holland's office hasn't received any complaints about the subject, Wilson and other advocates are not convinced that denials and cancellations aren't occurring on this basis. It's possible women are being denied or are losing coverage on the basis of domestic violence without knowing it, advocates say.
Why not join the majority of states that have tightened up their laws to ensure this type of discrimination doesn't occur?
Bet on controversy
Another measure sure to be controversial is Senate Bill 1279, which would eliminate the requirement that 35 percent of the Oklahoma lottery's net sales go to education. Lottery revenue has failed to live up to expectations, and the system's managers argue that the 35 percent requirement inhibits sales and therefore actually reduces the amount of money going to education. Other states have abolished such requirements and have seen sales dramatically increase, which in turn makes more money available for education.
The addition of lotteries and the expansion of other forms of gaming in and around Oklahoma also have cut into Oklahoma lottery sales. The initiation of a lottery in Arkansas in September has hit border retailers that used to attract many players from that state.
But some GOP leaders, who make no secret of the fact they love hanging lottery problems around Gov. Brad Henry's neck, have been cool to the notion of changing the mandate, so don't bet a lot on this measure becoming law, even though it makes a lot of sense and has a proven track record.
Not over yet
Two controversial abortion laws now in court might be revisited this legislative session if supporters decide they can successfully circumvent any legal rulings. One measure that would have required women to undergo an ultrasound within an hour of obtaining an abortion and hear a description of the findings was tossed out by an Oklahoma County judge who ruled that it violated the state's constitutional one-subject requirement. The attorney general's office is appealing that decision.
In another case, an Oklahoma County judge has extended a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of a measure that would require physicians to obtain extensive personal information from abortion recipients and make it available for inclusion on a state Web site. Opponents argue the measure, which has other provisions, is intrusive and unnecessary and could make women who receive abortions identifiable.
Plaintiffs challenging that bill contend it also violates the one-subject rule. The case is set to be heard beginning Feb. 19.
Look for Oklahoma lawmakers to continue to make national news on this front, whether we want them to or not.
Clemency conundrum
On the criminal justice front, tumbling revenues finally might accomplish what rational reformers never could — to largely remove the governor from the parole process. For years a legion of experts as well as independent auditors have advised lawmakers to get the issue before voters for a constitutional amendment.
Requiring the governor to review every one of the thousands of annual requests for clemency is a hugely expensive, tedious and time-consuming process that exacerbates prison overcrowding by creating delays. Oklahoma should do what every other state has done — get the governor out of the day-to-day review of clemency requests. The state needs a professional parole board making decisions in all but the most heinous cases.
Sen. Constance Johnson, D-Oklahoma City, has introduced a measure that would allow clemency recommendations from the state Pardon and Parole Board to be approved if the governor failed to act within 30 days. The legislation would allow for a trial period before the question of removing the governor from the parole process is put on the ballot. Johnson senses momentum. The state Board of Corrections backs the change and John Pearson, chairman of Citizens for Responsible Parole, recently said that the state's budget crisis would give lawmakers the "cover" they need in this election year to vote for Johnson's bill. Political expediency often triumphs over political will. But if it gets the job done, so be it.
Courting disaster
Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, and Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, favor giving the Legislature greater power to remove judges and to make judges strictly adhere to jury recommendations on criminal sentences. The legislation is in response to recent judicial decisions the two lawmakers didn't like. As Allen Smallwood, incoming Oklahoma Bar Association president, said: "This is an attempt by one branch of government to impose on the authority and power of another branch."
It's important that judges be able to make sentencing decisions based on facts and not because of pressure from the Legislature.
Are these the same lawmakers who only last session passed tort reform? That reform capped "pain and suffering" damages in lawsuits with the argument that juries were awarding too much money to plaintiffs.
Now lawmakers, who apparently want it both ways, are arguing the reverse, saying judges should always follow jury decisions.
Tort trouble
While we're discussing tort reform, here's a question: Is the reform legislation, which passed last session after years of failure, imperiled by the revenue crisis? Maybe, if the state cannot finance a fund to pay damages in physician negligence cases. The 2009 tort reform bill calls for the state to establish an indemnity fund that would pay jury awards above $400,000, with an annual cap of $20 million. Last fall, a task force discussed the idea of the state purchasing a $20 million insurance policy to provide money for the fund, with premiums paid with state general revenue funds. The bill's author, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said at the time that if economic conditions did not improve the state might not be able to afford the insurance premiums. A number of options are being explored to make this important aspect of tort reform happen.
Prescription for inconvenience
Several years ago Oklahoma became the national model for curbing production of illegal methamphetamine by limiting access to its key ingredient, pseudoephedrine, which is found in common cold and allergy medicines. With the resurgence of illicit meth labs this year, Rep. Lucky Lamons, D-Tulsa, wants to go a step further and require people seeking pseudoephedrine pills to have a prescription. Such a bill is sure to meet with resistance from law-abiding citizens who don't want to be inconvenienced. It's a tough call. Meth makers have a history of finding ways around laws or finding other ingredients to make the powerful and debilitating drug.
Autism coverage redux
Disappointment doesn't even begin to describe the dashed hopes of families who had hoped earlier this year — for the second year in a row — that Oklahoma might join several other states in mandating insurance coverage for treatment of autistic children. House Bill 1312, "Nick's Law," was defeated in a House committee.
Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, said of the panel's members: "They tore the Band-Aid off now quickly because they think they won't have to endure the public scrutiny for the next two years. I think that's a serious miscalculation on their part. These families aren't going away. These kids aren't going away."
Gumm is back with two bills for the coming session. One in every 150 children struggles with autism, the fastest-growing disability in the nation. Without early, aggressive treatment, autistic children will continue to rely on parents and when those parents die, they likely will become wards of the state, a costly proposition.
By: JULIE DELCOUR and JANET PEARSON Associate Editors - Tulsa World