The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: local government
House Republicans Hesitate To Overturn D.C. Law On Reproductive Rights

House Republicans Hesitate To Overturn D.C. Law On Reproductive Rights

By Billy House, Bloomberg News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Congress faces a Monday deadline to repeal a new Washington, D.C., law that would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees who obtain abortions or use birth control, and Republicans in the House seem divided about whether to make the effort.

Sponsored by Republican Representative Diane Black of Tennessee, the “resolution of disapproval” (H.J. Res 43) would undo the D.C.-passed Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act. The disapproval measure passed the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on April 21, by a 20-16 vote, according to House records.

The law, signed by Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser on January 25, protects employees in Washington, D.C., from being fired for reproductive health choices such as the use of birth control, or getting an abortion. Members of Congress who want to see the law overturned say that it discriminates against employers who have religious objections to birth control and abortion. They also argue that the law could force employers with religious objections to cover the abortions in their health care plans, or even hire abortion activists.

“We cannot let this bill stand,” declared Oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, in a statement prior to the panel’s vote in favor of the resolution of disapproval.

The Oversight Committee’s top Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, argues that Congress is resurrecting a legislative relic that allows Congress to disapprove laws enacted by the District of Columbia — something the lawmakers have not done in decades — for the purpose of infringing the rights of women, as well as local government control.

As of Wednesday afternoon, Chaffetz and Republican House leaders still had not discharged that resolution out of committee, which is a procedural requirement for a vote by the entire House. Because the bill has not been reported out of committee, no individual member of the House can invoke parliamentary privilege to call up the bill.

The delay caused a group of House conservatives Wednesday to press Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for a floor vote “as quickly as possible.” But aides to Boehner’s chief deputy, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and to other Republican leaders won’t discuss their plans, saying only that the dispute is the subject of ongoing discussions.

In any event, the battle seems more politically symbolic — and perhaps indicative of GOP leaders’ reluctance to continue fighting over divisive social issues — than substantive. Under federal law, a District law may be overturned if both houses of Congress vote to do so and the president agrees within 30 legislative days, something that hasn’t happened in 23 years. The deadline for action has been determined by the congressional parliamentarians to be Monday. Even if the House does vote, it seems unlikely that the Senate would act quickly enough to get the legislation to the desk of President Barack Obama who, in turn, would be unlikely to sign it.

Mike Long, a McCarthy spokesman, would not directly say whether the Monday deadline for passage of the disapproval resolution would be met — and if not, why not.

Black said there are ongoing talks, but would not say what those discussions were focused on. She said she still hopes to see the bill brought to the House floor for a vote in the coming days, but acknowledged in an interview Wednesday that a deadline is imminent.

Chaffetz’s committee spokesman did not respond to a request for comment about why his committee has not discharged the resolution of disapproval.

Internal tension being caused by the delay became public Wednesday when the conservative House Freedom Caucus released a statement calling on their Republican leaders to allow a vote on H.J. Res. 43. Their statement warned the D.C. law “could force religious and conservative employers in the District to cover abortions in their health care plans and require pro-life organizations to hire abortion advocates.”

This could be stopped, they note, because “Under the Home Rule Act, ‘Congress is statutorily empowered to review actions by the D.C. Council.’ ”

Photo: Adam Fagen via Flickr

Politicians For Local Control, Except When They’re Not

Politicians For Local Control, Except When They’re Not

The people of Denton, Texas, recently voted to ban fracking within the city limits. They were tired of the noise, lights and fumes caused by the 277 gas wells, some placed right next to housing developments. A blowout in 2013 covered homes in clouds of benzene. Some had to be evacuated.

One can hardly blame the citizens for trying to regulate industrial activity in a populated area unless one is the governor of Texas. Greg Abbott has denounced the vote and decisions by other local governments to regulate junkyards and ban litter-prone plastic bags as an affront to the “Texan model,” often defined as “letting businesses do pretty much as they please.”

The party in power at one level of government is understandably tempted to push around a lower level. Liberals do it. Conservatives do it. The difference is that conservatives profess to deplore such interference. Sadly, support for local control often evaporates when such principles run up against the interests of moneyed backers.

Listen to Governor Abbott talking to the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Local governments risk turning the “Texas miracle” into the “California nightmare,” he said. “Large cities that represent about 75 percent of the population in (Texas) are doing this to us.”

Large cities representing 75 percent of the population sounds like a whole lot of Texans. Makes you wonder who “us” is. Perhaps a state-run program to re-indoctrinate the peasants might be in order.

Similar battles are playing out in other places. Athens, Ohio, voted to ban fracking, but the Ohio Supreme Court just ruled that local governments can’t do that. They are clashing with the state’s “executive authority” on oil and gas drilling.

Conservatives running the Florida and Louisiana state governments are fighting local plans to raise minimum wages. The restaurants don’t want to.

“The state legislature is the best place to determine wage and hour law,” a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association told The New York Times, “This is not the kind of policy that should be determined jurisdiction by jurisdiction.”

Actually, the local jurisdiction is one of the better places to set a minimum wage. The cost of living in New York City is much higher than it is across the state in Buffalo, and so might the minimum wage be. Seattle might want to try out a $15-an-hour minimum wage, while less rich parts of Washington stick with the state minimum of $9.47 an hour, itself well above the national minimum of $7.25.

A number of cities across the country, as well as three counties in California, have approved fracking bans. Even Fort Collins in energy-rich Colorado has done so. But Texas, as those tourist ads said, is “like a whole other country” when it comes to showing deference to energy producers and purveyors of plastic bags.

At least the governor thinks so. He seems to see the locals’ efforts to set rules for their communities as evidence of creeping collectivism.

This prompted the following retort in a Dallas Morning News editorial: “Allowing Austin to make single-size decisions for local governments instead of allowing them to tailor unique solutions sounds an awful lot like central state planning to us.”

Some conservatives are reportedly hopping mad over the state’s efforts to curb the right of their local governments to control their own destiny. Tea Party folks, in particular, are known for hostility toward crony capitalism — the alliance of big business and government officials.

Abbott’s allies in turn accuse them of being closet socialists working in the interests of Russia. How ironic. The way the locals can show that they’re not tools of Russia, the fracking forces say, is by acting like serfs.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: The Texas Tribune via Flickr

Ferguson: No Peace Without Representation

Ferguson: No Peace Without Representation

By Zoltan Hajnal, Los Angeles Times

Before the media and the public shift their attention to the next pressing issue, we should use this opportunity to think about reforms that could prevent future Fergusons. One solution is easy to legislate and remarkably effective: increase representation.

There are many factors driving the anger in Ferguson. But the fact that African-Americans had almost no representation in city government shaped much of what happened in that Missouri suburb after the shooting death of black teenager Michael Brown by a white police officer. The figures are stark. Blacks represent two-thirds of the city population, yet the mayor, five of six City Council members, six of seven school board members and 50 of 53 police officers are not black.

Ferguson is not alone on this front. Across the nation, racial and ethnic minorities are grossly underrepresented in city government. African-Americans make up roughly 12 percent of the national population but only 4.3 percent of city councils and 2 percent of mayors. The figures for Latinos and Asian Americans are even worse.

By simply changing local electoral laws, we could radically alter who votes, who wins office and the types of policies that local governments pursue. My research shows that altering the timing of local elections, shifting from nonpartisan to partisan contests, changing from staggered to consolidated council elections and switching from at-large to district elections all have important effects on local politics.

Moving from stand-alone local elections — the system that is in place in Ferguson — to on-cycle elections that occur on the same date as statewide and national contests has the most potential to increase the number of voters. Across the nation, turnout in cities with on-cycle elections is, all else being equal, almost double that of turnout in cities with off-cycle elections.

What makes timing especially appealing as a policy lever is that there are strong incentives — in addition to increasing participation and minority representation — to switch to on-cycle elections. The primary motivation for this move usually has been cost savings. In most states, municipalities pay the entire administrative costs of stand-alone elections but only a fraction of the costs of on-cycle elections. The city of Concord, California, for example, estimated that the cost of running a stand-alone election would be $58,000, while an on-cycle one would be only $25,000.

But other small steps toward more inclusive local elections could have big impacts as well. By adding partisan labels to local electoral ballots, we can make it easier for voters to know what each candidate stands for. By having all council seats up for election at the same time rather than staggering them across two contests, we can make each election more meaningful by having more offices up for grabs. And by electing each council member by district or ward instead of by a citywide at-large vote, we can give minorities a real chance to elect a candidate of their own.

With a few easy steps, we could move from local elections with a tiny and generally unrepresentative electorate to elections with broad and significantly more representative participation. Given that the majority of cities have electoral institutions that tend to generate low turnout, the potential to expand participation is enormous.

All of this has critical ripple effects for minority representation in office. Higher-turnout cities elect city officials who are much more representative. My analysis shows that increasing turnout could eliminate up to a third of the underrepresentation of minorities on city councils and in mayor’s offices.

Cities with higher turnout and greater minority representation tend to enact policies that are more in line with racial and ethnic minority preferences. In particular, higher turnout is associated with greater social welfare spending and greater hiring of minorities in city government.

Coming back full circle to Ferguson, my research with Jessica Trounstine of UC Merced shows that these kinds of changes can reduce frustration among blacks. Our analysis of local surveys and U.S. Census data shows that African-Americans are generally less happy than whites with the performance of their city governments. But those same surveys show that when local governments spend more on social welfare and hire more African-Americans, black dissatisfaction declines and blacks are as happy as whites with local government.

In most cities, a simple municipal ordinance would suffice to change local electoral laws. A survey in California found that more than 40 percent of cities had made a change in the timing of municipal elections in recent years. States can also get involved. In 2012, Arizona passed legislation mandating that many of its cities hold local elections that coincide with statewide contests. Citizens can also contribute. In states with direct democracy, they could put local election timing, district elections or other reforms on the statewide or local ballot.

Entrenched officeholders would probably resist such reforms. But the changes would be too powerful to be ignored. With a few small measures, we could do much to prevent future Fergusons from erupting across the country.

AFP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!