On #FierceFlores, SexEd, & Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies"

What a week this has been. On Tuesday, the Nevada Legislature held its first hearing on AB 230, the comprehensive sex education bill. Sin City Siren told us about Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) and her heart wrenching testimony on Tuesday. Yet while that moved us to tears, others had a very different reaction.



On Tuesday, Lucy Flores told her story of seeking an abortion at age 16 because she didn't have the kind of SexEd that AB 230 calls for. Her mother left the family when she was 9, so her father had to work 2 jobs to support her family. And after seeing all her sisters become pregnant as teenagers, Flores did not want to meet the same fate.

“I didn’t want to be like that (teen mom)," Flores said. “I wanted to do better and I knew I couldn’t do that if I had a baby, just like everyone else (in my family). My dad gave me the money and I went with a friend of mine (to have the abortion) and I will never forget that, having that done.”

Flores said she didn’t regret having the abortion. Clearly, however, it was difficult to talk about it.

“I don’t regret it,” Flores said. “I don’t regret it because I am here (at the Legislature), making a difference, at least in my mind, for the young ladies and letting them know their options. They can do things not to be in the situation I was in, to prevent it.

“And so how do we prevent this? We prevent by education," Flores said. "We prevent by giving them the information and the resources that they need, so they don’t have to go to their dad and say, ‘I need $200 for an abortion.’

“So I wholeheartedly support this because this is an epidemic that is affecting so many of our young people. And I am here today because I did not have the burden of raising children (as a teen).

This was incredibly moving testimony. Yet for anti-choice extremists, this was a call to arms. Oh yes, that's right. Sharron Angle and her "Second Amendment Remedies" struck again! Sin City Siren has more.

Within hours of the hearing, Reno Gazette-Journal political reporter Ray Hagar posted a story about Flores’ testimony. As far as I can tell, Hagar was the only mainstream journalist to cover the announcement, with his story posting about an hour before my re-cap of the hearing, here on The Sin City Siren. But just days later, local television producer Dana Gentry broke the news that Flores had cancelled her scheduled April 4 appearance on the political news show Ralston Reports after receiving death threats stemming from her abortion story. [...]

Those opposed to reproductive health care —lest I remind you that abortion is a legal form of health care —and those opposed to comprehensive sex education share the same goal: To silence and shame women. They seek to demonize human sexuality.

The real story here should be about Lucy Flores’ bravery and determination to not be shamed or silenced by the threats of an incredibly loud opposition, who is actually in the minority. Polls show that regardless of religious affiliation or political party, the majority of Americans support comprehensive sex education over an abstinence-only curriculum. And, on this year’s 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Pew Research Center released a poll stating that 42 percent of Americans find no moral objection to abortion, while only 25 percent do (the rest were a mix of other opinions). An NBC Poll that same week found support for abortion rights at an “all time high” with 70 percent of Americans saying they do not want to see Roe overturned.

But while the anti-choice folks have made hay with headlines declaring, “I Don’t Regret Killing My Baby,”* it is disturbing that any person or persons have threatened the Nevada lawmaker with violence. As a Christian and a mother, I pray for her safety. When I tucked my toddler into bed tonight, I hugged her that much harder as I struggled to hold back tears thinking about Lucy Flores, not because we should condescend to characterizing even highly educated, powerful women as simply “somebody’s daughter,” but because Lucy is a fellow human being living with fear tonight. I have empathy for the worry she must feel.

It is this complete lack of empathy that is at the core of the opposition to women’s autonomy, and their access to legal forms of health care, or even the education that can help them establish healthy relationships, healthy sexual experiences, and healthy futures. Rather than live and let live —or even turn the other cheek, as Jesus might say —the anti-choice movement cannot see the humanity in any person not living their life as a man in a heterosexual man’s world. Because if you are anything other than a heterosexual, cisgender man you are cast as unequal, weak, or even deviant. I daresay the only humans who come close to having equality with men in their patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic, and often blatantly racist world-view are the fetuses they fight so hard to legally classify as “persons.”

So now, #FierceFlores is trending on Twitter. She is showing tremendous courage by sharing her story, and by refusing to back down in the wake of death threats. She is a woman who had to make a difficult choice. And she should be commended for what she's done with her life since then. She shouldn't be threatened with murder.

And really, when did advocacy for comprehensive SexEd start warranting death threats? Hello, comprehensive SexEd saves lives! And it means fewer teen pregancies, which also means fewer abortions. Is the extreme anti-choice religious right that out of touch with reality?

And that leads us to the other hot zone of public policy that this story leads us to. Just this past Tuesday, (Member of Congress) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) received death threats for her gun safety reform advocacy. Again, when did this behavior become acceptible? When did Sharron Angle become a "source for good advice"? Just about 48 hours after this and less than a week after Steven Brooks was expelled from the Nevada Legislature for allegedly threatening the life of Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas), this happened.

Again, comprehensive SexEd saves lives. So why threaten people's lives over this? Perhaps it's finally time for the right wing to stop paying so much attention to Sharron Angle. It's time to stop with the "Second Amendment Remedies".

One Small Card, One BIG Policy Change

Yesterday was another action packed day at the Nevada Legislature. This time, the Senate Transportation Committee heard testimony on SB 303. This bill provides for a driver's privilege card (or limited driver's license) for undocumented immigrants, and it's sponsored by Senate leadership from both parties. In addition to its hearing in Carson City, SB 303 also had satellite testimony from Las Vegas.



And while immigrant rights activists packed the hearing rooms in Carson City and Las Vegas, SB 303 also received some surprising support. For one, the bill is inspired by a program that's already happening next door. And no, I'm not talking about California (though the California Legislature is now considering its own bill).

“Denying driving privilege to the undocumented population jeopardizes safety and raises insurance rates for everyone,” [Senator Ruben] Kihuen [D-Las Vegas] told the committee. [...]

The driver’s privilege card will be available to people who cannot produce all of the documentation needed for a Nevada driver’s license. It would allow the holder to legally drive in the state but could not be used as an official identification or to apply for federal or state benefits. The application fee would be $22, the same as for a driver’s license, but the driver’s privilege card would have to be renewed annually instead of every four years like a traditional license.

“SB 303 will bring in new revenue at a time when we desperately need it,” Kihuen said. “There are over 100,000 undocumented people in Nevada who could benefit form this proposed bill. It could mean millions of dollars in stimulus to our economy. They will purchase cars, they will purchase insurance and they will drive to stores, take trips and more easily find a job.” [...]

The Nevada bill is modeled after similar legislation in Utah, and two Utah state senators also testified. Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said the law had contributed to Utah’s low rate of uninsured drivers and had improved road safety as more drivers are tested and insured.

“The angst from right (when we passed the bill) was that Utah would be a magnet, a mecca, a gateway for a subsequent influx of undocumented individuals because we provided this privilege. The data doesn’t support that,” Bramble said, pointing out that after peaking around 43,000 driver’s privilege cards, the number in Utah has since dropped below 40,000.

Bramble said there was concern in Utah of criminals applying for the card. Of 40,000 applicants in Utah, two were found to have criminal records, he said. Utah eventually added a fingerprinting and background check provision to its law, something Denis has resisted under the argument that it would discourage participation and the undermine the intent of the law.

“You must concede that they have violated immigration laws,” Bramble said of some of the potential applicants. “Beyond that though, it appears from our experience in Utah that folks who come forward to apply for this are not the criminal element, they are not the folks law enforcement is seeking out. … Pass it or not, they are on our roads.”

Indeed, Utah has been running this program since 2005. And despite a "tea party" fueled campaign to repeal the law last year (which failed), the program is working there. And in fact, the number of driver's privilege cards issues actually dropped last year.

It's also helped make roads safer there. And earlier this year, a California DMV report stated its roads will likely be safer Keith more insured drivers, which is what will happen once California starts issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. Behind all the controversy over immigration reform, this is really a simple matter of public safety.

So does this mean SB 303 will sail through Carson City? We'll see. As mentioned earlier, Senate leaders in both parties are backing the bill. However in the Assembly, Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) has been playing nefarious political games with the bill by trying to tie it to the otherwise unrelated SB 63 electronic poll book bill that Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) is pushing. There are probably still more than enough Democratic votes to pass SB 303 in the Assembly regardless, but we don't know yet what exactly Governor Brian Sandoval (R) plans to do with it (though he's seemingly been warming up to it).

It's been a long journey here, but Nevada may finally soon begin issuing driver's privilege cards alongside Utah, New Mexico, and Washington (State). Undocumented immigrants can finally be treated a little less "second class". And Nevada raids can be safer with fewer unlicensed and uninsured drivers.

"Second Amendment Remedies"... Revisited

I know it may seem like such a long time ago, but it's important to remember what happened here in Nevada during the 2010 Election. During that year's US Senate campaign, Sharron Angle actually said this.



And just seven months later, an armed madman attempted to assassinate then Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona). Jared Loughner succeeded in shooting her and eighteen other people, and six of them were killed. And Loughner used a Glock pistol with a high-capacity magazine.

Fast forward to December 2012. In the wake of the horrific Newtown elementary school massacre in Connecticut, we saw renewed demand for gun safety reform. And despite some DC pundits' spin to the contrary, the solid majority of Americans are still demanding action on gun violence today.

And now, all of a sudden, the violent rhetoric and actions that plagued the country in 2010 and boiled over horrifically in Arizona in January 2011 have returned in a major way. Some even wonder if the violent rhetoric and actions really waned for very long in 2011. Take into consideration this...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And this...

A sheriff known for cracking down on the drug trade in southern West Virginia’s coalfields was fatally shot Wednesday in the spot where he usually parked his car for lunch, a state official said, and a suspect was in custody.

State Police told Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin that Mingo County Sheriff Eugene Crum died of his wounds, said his chief of staff Rob Alsop. The suspect, who was also shot, was taken to a hospital in Logan, Alsop said.

The courthouse was evacuated, streets into the city were blocked off and officers held white sheets around the crime scene, Crum’s body further shielded by two vehicles.

The shooting occurred within a block of the county courthouse, said Office of Emergency Services head dispatcher Willis Spence. Officials planned a news conference for 6 p.m. in the county in the southwest corner of West Virginia, on the border with Kentucky.

And this.

“Yesterday, several death threats were phoned into my New York office in response to news reports about a bill I authored requiring gun owners to have insurance,” the congresswoman said in a statement Wednesday morning. “The calls were fielded by young interns, who were understandably shaken by this experience.” [...]

“They said they were going to kill me,” she told the [New York Daily News]. [...]

In her statement, Maloney said she’s proud of her work to stem gun violence and strongly supports President Obama’s gun control initiatives. “100,000 Americans are injured by guns every year,” she said. “Carrying insurance is the responsible thing to do.”

“Given all the acts of gun violence we have seen in the past two years, the shootings in Aurora and Newtown, the attack on my friend and colleague Gabby Gifford (sic), I take the threat of more gun violence very seriously,” the congresswoman continued. “But it is not something that I will allow to stop me from doing my work.”

Yes, this actually happened this week. Here we go again.

And again, Sharron Angle's words return to haunt us. We're now seeing "Second Amendment Remedies" materialize. Once again, Members of Congress are receiving death threats. And law enforcement leaders are being shot dead. And even schools are again vulnerable.

I'm sure Senator Dean Heller (R-NRA) is trying to blame Hollywood for all of this. Yet despite his & the gun lobby's best attempts to spin away all this violence, the fact remains that it's here. So what will we do about it?

Sure, taking hunting rifles away from law abiding citizens won't help. And no one's talking about doing that. The problem, rather, is with extremely violent rhetoric paired up with easy access to dangerous military grade weapons. And especially when those military grade weapons fall into the wrong hands at the wrong time, (even more of) these horrific tragedies happen. And the violent rhetoric that's seeped into our politics in recent years has made this problem even worse.

So when will we do something?

What's Behind NV Energy's Latest Move?

Remember what happened in February? US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Don't Mess With Searchlight) addressed the Nevada Legislature... And asked them to fix the loophole in state law that's allowed the state's electric monopoly, NV Energy, to meet Nevada's renewable energy standard by buying hydroelectric power from Utah and occasionally handing out new light bulbs at Home Depot.

Ever since then, and especially with climate change returning to the headlines in recent weeks, NV Energy has been feeling the heat. So now, NV Energy is making a big announcement. Surprise, it will finally be investing more in homegrown renewable energy, along with investing in more natural gas power and shutting down the last of its coal fired power plants.

“I applaud the utility in having the foresight and the courage to try to answer the questions about the future of coal in Nevada and their willingness to recognize that coal needs to be exiting stage left,” said Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, who chairs the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee that could hear the bill if it passes the Senate. [...]

“In the coming weeks the Legislature is going to have some questions about how we get there so that it’s done in a way that’s going to be predictable and stable for ratepayers,” he said.

In place of coal, NV Energy wants to invest in a 60-40 split of natural gas and renewables.

NV Energy would construct, acquire or contract for 600 megawatts of renewable energy in Nevada during the next five years.

The bill mandates that the utility own or operate 25 percent of that renewable energy.

This would be the first time the utility would own and operate renewable energy power plants, [NV Energy Senior Vice President Tony] Sanchez said.

In addition, NV Energy is also planning to produce another 2,000 megawatts of natural gas powered electricity over the next 15 years. And it's all part of NV Energy's "NVision" plan... Which it's now offering as an amendment to SB 123, the bill offered by State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) and Assembly Member David Bobzien (D-Reno). It actually addresses what Harry Reid called for in February, which is updating and strengthening Nevada's renewable energy standard.



Does anyone think NV Energy executives suddenly decided to do this out of the goodness of their hearts? {Crickets.} Yep, me too. What's more likely is they were feeling the heat from Senator Reid, concerned about the increased controversy of Reid Gardner coal power plant near Moapa, and jittery over the prospect of SB 123 becoming law. So what else were they do to? All of a sudden, they're now rushing to invest in more renewable energy (and natural gas) in Nevada!

Of course, there are even more concerns regarding this sudden shift. For one, what's with all the natural gas? While it is cleaner than other fossil fuels, it still emits greenhouse gases along with other pollutants. And as of late, it's led to a huge controversy regarding its extraction. Is NV Energy looking to join the fracking fiasco? I wonder what NV Energy has to say about SB 390, Senator Tick Segerblom's (D-Las Vegas) bill calling for more regulation of fracking.

Another concern regards the cost... And specifically who pays for all of this. Will NV Energy try to use this to justify another rate increase? Will it seek some state funding for this program? That's another issue for legislators to examine further.

So NV Energy is now trying to get in front of calls for less dirty energy and more renewables. While it's great to see NV Energy agree to shut down Reid Gardner by 2017 and invest in more homegrown renewable energy, there are still unanswered questions that the Legislature must address. Again, how is NV Energy planning to pay for all this? How will it seek more natural gas? And will this truly be the start of a real transition from fossil fuels to renewables? Hopefully legislators will find the answers soon... And this will actually be something to celebrate.

Supreme Tax Melee

Just a month ago, we were all blown away when State Senator Michael Roberson (R-Metamorphosis) and his merry "Mod Squad" decided to not just change the tax debate in Carson City, but radically upend it with their mining tax alternative to IP 1/The Education Initiative (corporate margins tax). All of a sudden, some Republicans decided that the best way to kill a tax proposal... Is by offering another tax proposal. And on top of that, they decided to target the very industry that's had its sweetheart tax deals written into the Nevada Constitution.

I know, I know. That's a whole lot to process. Yet so is the trouble "The Mod Squad Mining Tax" is now running into.

For one, it likely still doesn't have the votes for passage. (Instead, it's been worsening the civil war within the Nevada Republican Party.) And Governor Brian Sandoval (R-Nevada Mining Association) has threatened to veto it if it does pass. And even if it does pass and somehow overcome a Sandoval veto, a growing chorus of legal experts have been declaring it to be unconstitutional. Why? Since the Nevada Legislature never even voted on IP 1, how can it place an alternative on the ballot?

Amicus Nevada (aka Sean McDonald) first chimed in with his legal opinion suggesting Roberson's tax alternative isn't legal. And now, he's far from alone in thinking this. Yesterday, both the Secretary of State's office and the Attorney General's office reached the same conclusion.

The Secretary of State’s Office said this alternative or any other wouldn’t qualify for the ballot because the Legislature did not meet a deadline by which to introduce the alternative.

That keeps the Nevada State Education Association’s margins tax alone on the ballot. Voters will decide in 2014 if they should approve or disapprove of a 2 percent tax on business revenue that would raise an estimated $800 million for the state’s education system.

After consulting with the Attorney General’s Office, Deputy Secretary for Elections Scott Gilles wrote that the Legislature failed to take actions defined in the state’s constitution by March 15, the 40th day of the legislative session.

The constitution says that the Legislature needs to reject by the 40th day any initiative — in this case, the margins tax initiative — in order to preserve the right to introduce an alternative.

The legal question involved the definition of reject.

And obviously, the Governor's office also agrees with this. However, Roberson still doesn't. Instead, he's doubling down on his mining tax alternative. And he even has a brand new (Legislative Counsel Bureau) LCB opinion to back him up!

["You can do what you want, and the executive branch can't interfere," is] the gist of a new legislative legal opinion that mining taxman Michael Roberson obtained shortly after news broke of executive branch analysis that could block an alternative to the margins tax from the ballot.

It's all about the power of the Legislature to do what it wants.

There is a real separation of powers battle brewing this session, unlike any we have seen before.

Ralston is correct on the last point. We are now seeing an unprecedented conflict over separation of powers, and over who ultimately sets the rules on what makes the cut for the ballot. Roberson & the LCB are arguing that the Legislature can essentially reject citizen initiatives and place alternatives to compete against them on the ballot, the Legislature can do so however it wants, and everyone else must essentially accept this as legal.

Amicus Nevada, Governor Sandoval, and both the Secretary of State's office & the Attorney General's office disagree. They're saying that Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution stipulates that any alternative to a citizen initiative petition must be rejected in an actual vote of the Legislature. They've also hinted that it's unclear as to whether the Governor's approval is also required to move an alternative initiative forward. And on top of that, is this mining tax also violating the single subject rule (since it proposes a completely different tax than that of IP 1 itself)?

At the very least, the legal waters here are very murky. This nonetheless doesn't seem to be stopping Senator Roberson's "Mod Squad" from pursuing their mining tax alternative. It's now just a matter of how much further it can go in the Nevada Legislature... And how long before The Nevada Supreme Court is asked to intervene.

Final Municipal Election Primary Report

So has anything changed since last night? Well, not enough to actually change the results that looked quite apparent last night. So what happened?

In Henderson, Mayor Andy Hafen slipped just under 55%, but that's still more than enough to avoid a runoff. Incumbent Ward 3 Council Member John Marz now stands just under 52%, and that's also more than enough to avoid a June runoff. The only runoff happening here will be for Municipal Judge, as incumbent Mark Stevens only scored 42% to Sandy DiGiacomo's 41%.

Again, Las Vegas will have no June runoffs at all. Ward 2's Bob Beers and Ward 4's Stavros Anthony are still above 75%. And while Ward 6 tightened up a bit, Steve Ross still finished just below 53%, which means no June runoff.

Yet while the other two major Southern Nevada cities were ho-hum, North Las Vegas was full of drama last night. We saw both a stunning rebuke (for one) and an epic comeback (for the other) as Former State Senator John Lee defeated incumbent Mayor Shari Buck 53% to 35%. Buck won't even have the chance of a June runoff, since Lee scored over 50%. However, Ward 1 will go to June runoff, as Isaac Barron scored 45% to Jared Hardy's 25%. Yet Ward 3 won't, as incumbent Anita Wood stands at just under 52%.

Unfortunately, turnout was horrific. Overall turnout was just over 11%. Henderson turnout hovered over 12%, while Las Vegas and North Las Vegas turnout only topped 10%. Yes, it was really that bad.

It's saddening to think that so few people participated in the process. As we discussed yesterday, this is the level of government we interact with most often. This was our chance to have our say in the direction of our communities and the state of our roads, parks, community centers, police & fire services, and more. Yet, only a select few of us even bothered to participate.

There's been talk of moving the municipal elections to even numbered years. I had been leery of that before, since local elections will likely be overshadowed by federal and state level elections. But at this point, is anyone even noticing municipal elections. I guess almost 45,000 people did, but that's still quite pathetic.

Otherwise, last night's results weren't really frightening. Rather, it looks like a certain "newspaper" was embarrassed badly in its effort to meddle in Henderson City Hall politics. And "tea party" efforts to defeat Steve Ross in Las Vegas backfired. At least most of those who showed up seemed to tire of the kind of zealotry that's wreaked havoc in past cycles & other elections.

So status quo reigned supreme for most of the municipal elections yesterday. That's not entirely bad... But it would have been nice to see more voter participation.

Municipal Elections UPDATE

So today was the final day of voting for the Southern Nevada municipal election primaries. Now, we have results... At least from early voting. But in this case, that may be all we need to figure out the final results for at least most of these races.

So what's happening? So far, most incumbents are cruising.

In Henderson, Mayor Andy Hafen has likely just been reelected. He has just over 57.7% with early votes, so at this point it's unlikely he'll even have to face a runoff at this point. Perhaps Hafen really lucked out with the lack of serious opponents, as did John Marz in Ward 3. Marz now sits at 52.2%, so he's closer to the edge. He must be hoping none of his opponents caught any late momentum, so that he can also avoid a June runoff. So far, the only likely runoff looks to be for Municipal Judge (Department 1), as incumbent Mark Stevens is locked in a close race with Sandy DiGiacomo with nearly 42% a piece.

Las Vegas will likely have no June runoffs. Both Bob Beers in Ward 2 and Stavros Anthony in Ward 4 romped the early vote with over 75%, so they've likely been very securely reelected. Steve Ross wasn't quite as fortunate in Ward 6, but he will likely also be reelected as he took 55.3% of the early vote.

If Henderson & Las Vegas are mostly lacking in the drama, then North Las Vegas is swimming in it tonight! For one, this city may already have a new Mayor waiting in the wings. John Lee led incumbent Shari Buck 51.7% to 37.2% in the early vote, so Buck may not even have a chance for redemption in the June runoff! However, there will be a Ward 1 runoff, as no one cleared 50% there. Isaac Barron at least came somewhat close with almost 41%, so he may have an edge over Jared Hardy (who only scored 27.7% so far). And in Ward 3, incumbent Anita Wood probably won another term tonight, as she scored 54.4% in the early vote.

So far, the status quo seems to be holding in most of the Southern Nevada cities. There just may be some interesting drama brewing in North Las Vegas. Just stay tuned here at Nevada Progressive. Tomorrow, we'll post another update on the big municipal races.

Dean Heller, Meet Steven Brooks.

Yesterday, Jon Ralston interviewed Roxanne Brooks. She's the mother of Former Assembly Member Steven Brooks. Ms. Brooks went on statewide TV last night to tell her family's side of this tragic story.

(The interview starts at 17:30.)



Last night, Roxanne Brooks confirmed what most had already been suspecting. She recalled her constant efforts to help her son obtain the mental health treatment he needed. Yet for far too long, not enough people saw what she saw. And by the time they did, it may have been too late.

There are many serious and disturbing issues that have been unearthed due to the Steven Brooks scandal here in Nevada. But today, I'd like for us to touch on one that reaches all the way to Washington, DC.

There, gun safety legislation seems to have stalled. Despite strong public support for gun safety reform, some Members of Congress are backing away from common sense measures... Even the ones with nearly 90% support! Last Thursday, just hours after the Nevada Assembly voted to expel Brooks, Senator Dean Heller (R-Office Space) blamed Hollywood for recent gun violence. No really, he went there.

Did Hollywood encourage Steven Brooks to attempt to buy a gun in Sparks in February? I seriously doubt that. Even if some movie or video game did inspire Brooks to walk into Scheels to attempt to purchase firearms and ammunition, the entertainment industry ultimately has no power over firearms policy. Senator Heller, however, does.

So what will Dean Heller do with that power? After initially warming up to wildly popular gun violence prevention measures like expanded background checks, he seems to be flip-flopping back to knee-jerk opposition. As mentioned above, Heller is now blaming Hollywood for recent massacres. And on top of passing the buck in such a ridiculous manner, Heller is also pushing dangerous NRA approved legislation that will actually allow the severely mentally ill to purchase guns & ammunition!

No really, check this out.

[US Senator Mark] Pryor [D-Arkansas], along with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), and Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), has introduced the NICS Reporting Improvement Act (S. 480). The Act clarifies that mentally ill people are prevented from obtaining firearms but defines that term narrowly, so as to allow patients who had been treated for mental illness to pass a federal background check and purchase guns.

For instance, federal law prohibits people who are ordered by a court into involuntary treatment, found to pose a danger to themselves or others, or lack the mental capacity to enter into legal contracts from buying weapons —even though individuals can petition to have their rights restored in 22 states. The bipartisan NICS Reporting Improvement Act would allow these people to purchase weapons immediately after being released, unless it can be proven that they pose an “imminent” danger.

Since the shooting at Virginia Tech, the number of mental health records in NICS has grown from 200,000 to 1.2 million, though “millions of records identifying seriously mentally ill people and drug abusers as prohibited purchasers are missing from the federal background check database because of lax reporting by state agencies,” a report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns found. Pryor’s bill would keep even more mentally ill individuals out of the system.

“I doen’t listen to [New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg] on these issues, I listen to Arkansas,” Pryor said. A recent poll found that 84 percent of Arkansans support expanding background checks to all firearm purchsases.

And it's at 86% support here in Nevada. Just don't tell that to Dean Heller. I guess this is how he's being so "no labels post-partisan". He's found a tiny handful of Red State/Blue Dog Democrats to join with him and other Republicans to essentially undermine the very background checks legislation that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is rounding up votes for... And Dean Heller at one time suggested he'd vote for!

If Heller, these other conservative Senators, and the NRA get their way, millions of people who otherwise shouldn't be able to access dangerous weapons will be able to do so. Perhaps even Steven Brooks would have been able to buy that gun & ammo at the Sparks Scheels had Heller's legislation been in place. Was Dean Heller that oblivious to what had just happened in Carson City when he was addressing the Nevada Legislature? Perhaps so.

While the rest of us in Nevada have had to learn some tough lessons from the Steven Brooks scandal, it looks like Dean Heller has learned nothing. And not only that, but he's even turning against legislation that even conservative Republicans have supported! And not only that, but Heller is even pursuing legislation that likely would have worsened this hot mess had it been in place earlier this year. This may turn out to be yet another horrific tragedy of this sorry story.

The Next Big Election Reform Bills

As mentioned earlier, this has been an incredibly busy session of the Nevada Legislature... And we're only halfway through! One fascinating development this session has been Secretary of State Ross Miller's push for election reform. He's been championing SB 63 to create electronic poll books and streamline the process. And in arguing for this, Miller has suggested this will open the door to another major reform.

And now, that other major reform is in play. AB 440 calls for expanded (including same-day) voter registration, and AB 441 sets up election day vote centers not unlike what already happens during early voting. Ross Miller has teamed up with Assembly Member James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor) to offer these bills. If passed, and especially if passed alongside SB 63, these bills will revolutionize our election system in Nevada.

Miles Rapoport is a former Connecticut Secretary of State, and he's now President of the nonpartisan public policy think tank Demos. Here's what he's had to say about same day registration in his state.

Maine, New Hampshire and seven other states allow citizens to register and vote, or update their existing registrations, on Election Day or during early voting periods. Year after year, these Same Day Registration states lead the nation in voter turnout. As a group, they have boasted average voting rates that are 10 to 12 percentage points higher than non-SDR states. Voter turnout was seven points higher in SDR states than non-SDR states in the 2008 presidential election. When offered the opportunity, voters use Same Day Registration. They will also fight to keep it. Last November, Maine citizens overwhelmingly voted to restore SDR in a so-called "People's Veto" of a Same Day Registration repeal bill that the Maine legislature had passed earlier in the year.

Same Day Registration just makes sense in our highly mobile society, where over 35 million people changed residences in 2011. Many of these individuals learned on Election Day that they could not vote a ballot that would count because they were not properly registered at their new addresses. Our voter registrations don't follow us when we move. Many other eligible voters are just too distracted by the daily demands of work and family to register to vote before the deadline passes.

[... T]he SDR bill, offers a simple solution to these common problems. Just drop by your local registrar's office on Election Day, fill out a voter registration application or update your existing voter registration, show proof of residency, and vote.

It's important to note that Same Day Registration holds special benefit for young people, lower-income voters and voters of color -- segments of the electorate with higher rates of geographic mobility. It's no coincidence that their registration rates lag behind others. Experts predict greater voter turnout increases for these citizens with Same Day Registration.

Other states have already been doing this. And California is next to implement it. Demos has even more 411 on SDR.

[... W]hile many elected officials in states across the country have focused on passing laws that would disenfranchise millions of people and do nothing to improve the voting process--like restrictive voter identification laws--they have neglected to address the most important issues of our democratic access. Our antiquated voter registration rolls are inefficient, inaccurate, and an obstacle to voting for tens of millions of eligible U.S. citizens.

The [February 2012] Pew report finds that 51 million U.S. citizens of voting age--a quarter of the eligible population--are not registered to vote. That means that there is a huge population that is not even able to get to the ballot box. Moreover, millions of people show up at the polls to find they are not on the registration list because of simple flaws in the system.

The report concludes that these problems demonstrate the need for comprehensive voter registration modernization.

The first and most important step that states should take in this regard is to enact Same Day Registration. Analyses have consistently shown that SDR is a measure that increases voter participation dramatically and, importantly, allows people to fix registration problems at the polls on Election Day. States with SDR have had higher voter turnout than those without SDR for over 25 years. Data shows an average voter turnout 7 percentage points higher than the average turnout for non-SDR states in November 2008. The top five states in terms of voter turnout were all SDR states.

We've all seen this. We've seen people who wanted to vote, but couldn't because they missed the deadline. And even some who did register before the deadline still didn't vote because they didn't know where to vote.

How is anyone helped by preventing otherwise legal voters from casting ballots? How does any of us benefit from excluding these people from our democratic process? Think about it.

SDR is more efficient. It may ultimately be quite cost effective. And perhaps most important, this gives more legal citizens the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

So why not just do it already?

What's SexEd Got to Do With It?

Is it OK for us to finally catch our breaths? There's just been so much Nevada Legislature news lately that it's been difficult to keep up with it all. But yesterday, another important bill was heard.

This time, it was AB 230. And fortunately, The Sin City Siren was there to cover what happened. Here's a taste.

Of course, it was no surprise that a hearing about comprehensive sex education would be controversial or even draw a crowd. The conservative, anti-sex-ed crowd —a surprisingly homogenous, lily white, and largely grey haired group —was there in force. One proud grandmother boasted driving in from Pahrump to give her testimony. Alrighty then. Indeed, there were many proud grandparents on the anti side of the room. (I’ve got nothing against grandparents, but there were an awful lot on the anti side.) Many wore their religion like a banner and brandished it like a weapon, intent on cutting out the very heart of sex education in Nevada.

“Strike the whole thing. I am against sex education!” was spoken by more than one in the opposition.

On the other side of the aisle was a more diverse group with people of color, LGBT individuals, students, parents, teachers, at least one clergy member, and even a few grey hairs sprinkled in the mix. I was proud to sit next to Northwest Community Church’s Rev. Greg Davis, who was the first in Las Vegas to testify in favor of AB230. (Full disclosure, I am a member of NCC.) Committee Chairman, Assemblyman Elliot Anderson, was taken so by surprise to see a clergy member speaking in favor, he interrupted to ask if Rev. Davis was, in fact, speaking in opposition.

“No. I’m for this bill. I’m for sex education,” Rev. Davis replied.

Just before the hearing opened up to those in Las Vegas, we watched some truly powerful testimony by people who shared their experience with intimate trauma as a result of a lack of education on healthy relationships, violence in relationships, and what consent to sex means (and how a lack of consent is the hallmark of sexual assault, or rape).

Assemblywoman Lucy Flores gave tearful, raw testimony about growing up in a family of girls who got pregnant as teens. When she found herself pregnant at 16, she went to her father to get money to have an abortion, something she said she had never admitted publicly before. Flores’ story is just another thread in an amazing story of redemption that found a former gang member turn good by getting her GED, then law degree, and who now works as a state legislator. She described being raised, one of 13 children, by a single father after her mother walked out when she was nine. Flores described the hardship that she saw her sisters go through as teen parents and said she was determined to change the cycle —one that is all too common in the largely Latino district she now represents. It was inspiring and moving to witness a politician lay bear such a heart-felt and sincere plea for a change in law.

“I had an abortion because I didn’t have access to birth control, or even an understanding of what that meant,” an emotional Flores said. “I didn’t even understand that my worth did not come from men, or sex with men, trying to fill up a hole in me from so much pain.”

That's the problem. Because many Nevada students are not receiving the sex education they need, they may not know how to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies. That's why AB 230 is so badly needed.

Again, here's the problem.

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. In addition, while young people ages 15-25 in the United States make up only one quarter of the sexually active population, they contract about half of all the country's 19 million sexually transmitted infections and almost one-quarter of the estimated 56,300 new HIV infections. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than three million teen girls have a sexually transmitted infection. That's at least one in four.

Teens need medically accurate, age appropriate, comprehensive information to help them both postpone sexual activity and protect themselves if they become sexually active.

Did you know?

Nevada has the second highest teen pregnancy rate, the third highest teen abortion rate and the 8th highest teen birth rate [according to the] Guttmacher Institute. The communities of color are bearing the brunt of teen pregnancy in Nevada. The Latina teens have three times the rates of pregnancy of their Caucasian counterparts; the African American teens have twice the rates of pregnancy and the Asian population in Nevada has twice the rate compared to national average. Our teens deserve better.

Nevada taxpayers contributed $67 million associated with teen childbearing in 2004 [according to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies].

This is the problem. And this is why AB 230 is no laughing matter. Rather, it's dead serious. And Nevada has to fix this problem soon.

All our STIs and teen pregnancies are costing us. And they cost us far more than simple prevention with comprehensive sex education. So why not start solving the problem now?

This is why SexEd matters. So will we finally do something about it?

Why Vote Today? It Really Matters!

So it's finally here. Today is Election Day in Henderson, Mesquite, North Las Vegas, and Wards 2, 4, & 6 of Las Vegas. Municipal election primaries for City Council (and Mayor in Henderson & North Las Vegas) are today, and voting continues until 7:00 PM.

But come on, this is just city council. Why is it important to take time out of one's busy schedule to vote today? Let me explain.

Local government is most likely the government one interacts with every day. Local government takes care of the roads. And it runs the parks. And it runs the community centers. And it provides police & fire protection. Local government may not seem important compared to that on the state & federal levels, but it actually is.

So if you want to have your say on what will happen to the local community center, the state of your neighborhood's roads, and current police policies, you need to vote today. It's really as simple as that. You can only have your say on the state of your community if you participate. And the most basic way to participate is to vote.

Again, vote centers will be open until 7:00 PM tonight. So don't forget to vote today. Your community depends on it.

More Brooks Drama Ahead?

Last Friday, we found out about the current tragic twist to the Steven Brooks saga. Since then, we've heard from plenty of pundits on what just happened. Ralston obviously has had some choice words.


att
So has his attorney (as he's suing to make the special committee report public). Even Steven Brooks himself sounded eerily prophetic on Thursday.

"I'm the assemblyman of sorrow," he declared. "Why do they hate me so much? Fill in the blank: I'm so angry I could (blank) myself."

Brooks told me he was "on my way to Seven Hills to check myself into the hospital. He began weeping when I asked why, adding, "I have no other resort. I'm going to kill myself if they keep this up. I have nowhere to go. I'm the assemblyman of sorrow."

He would later add, "I don’t want anyone else to think I'm crazy…I'm all cried out, man. I've done everything right and it’s wrong."

Brooks also told me that the leaders were fueled by hatred of him. Why?

"You know why they hate me? You know why want to kill me because I know all of their secrets."

And in case this isn't dramatic enough, Amicus Nevada has hinted of even more Brooks drama ahead. So what can we expect? Possibly another law suit? Possibly.

In Brooks’ case, one of the early complaints about the process was that the Select Committee was not given a specific charge. By the only official public document available, Assembly Resolution 5, the Assembly found the Select Committee was charged “to consider and investigate matters within the jurisdiction of Section 6 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution.” Additionally, the Assembly resolved that the Select Committee is “instructed to continue its proceedings to consider and investigate matters within the jurisdiction of Section 6 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution.” Assemb. Res. No. 5, 77th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2013). The 687-word resolution makes not a single reference to Brooks, much less to his alleged expulsion-worthy disorderly conduct.

Seasoned political commentators and journalists still don’t know why Brooks was expelled from office, and I’d wager a guess that Brooks didn’t know the reason why either. In Steve Sebelius‘ words, the Select Committee is saying, “You have to trust us.”

The closest thing to a charging document is the letter sent to Brooks by Assemblyman William Horne. The letter states “The alleged conduct which will be the subject of the investigation includes failure to carry out certain responsibilities of an Assemblyman, engaging in unethical conduct and engaging in certain other deleterious conduct.” But this charge was never adopted by the Assembly and does not refer to specific conduct.

After the vote took place, the reason for expulsion became quite clear: Brooks was believed to be dangerous, and was proven to be at the very least unstable, as evidenced by his three arrests, most recently the same day as the expulsion vote. But ex post evidence of his instability cannot be used as a justification for the lack of sufficient due process.

Just like in the criminal arena, a legislator cannot fairly respond to charges of legislative misconduct unless the legislator is put on notice what the charges against him or her are and what the alleged wrongdoing is. This is all the more important because the Constitution limits the Assembly’s disciplinary power against its own to cases of “disorderly conduct.” So what is the disorderly conduct that warranted expulsion? We don’t know.

Even Anjeanette Damon's Sun cast doubt on the process, though she didn't get into detail (like Sean McDonald did) on the merits of a possible law suit challenging this outcome.

So will Steven Brooks actually return to the Nevada Legislature? I personally still doubt it, but I guess it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility. This likely just means there's another lesson for legislators to learn.

Why put this off for so long, only to initiate a process that invites litigation? Perhaps there was no intention to set up such a haphazard process for expulsion. But going forward, legislators will need to be more careful and thoughtful in pondering how to expel their own when they're no longer functioning in Carson City.

And perhaps Clark County Commissioners will need to be careful in wading into this mess. Already, a fight is brewing over how quickly to fill the Assembly seat just vacated by Brooks. So I guess the Steven Brooks melodrama continues...

Senate Passes SJR 15 (Again).

Last week, we saw a breakthrough. Just weeks after facing near death, SJR 15 was resurrected in an unanimous Senate Revenue & Economic Development Committee vote. Today, the resurrection continued as the full Senate voted 17-4 in favor. Only Senators Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley), Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka), Don Gustavson (R-Sparks), and James Settlemeyer (R-Minden) objected.

Otherwise, "The Senate GOP Mod Squad" joined with all the Senate Democrats to pass the bill. It now moves onto the Assembly. And as long as it passes there (again), it moves onto the 2014 general election ballot for final approval.

So why again is this important? Take a look at this again.

• Trans-national mining conglomerates took $8.76 billion in gold from Nevada in 2011, and paid a total of $104 million to the state general fund under the mining tax, an effective tax rate of 1.187%. In 2010, they mined $6.64 billion in gold, and paid $71.7 million in taxes, an effective tax rate of 1.079%. (Nevada Department of Taxation)

• Mining does pay sales tax and they pay certain property taxes —but not on the value of the mine or their mining claims. Renters, the unemployed, and minimum wage workers also pay sales and property taxes. But gold mining is different, so it should be taxed differently. Once that gold is gone, it’s gone forever. The money will be in Canada and other foreign countries, leaving Nevada with clean up costs and massive pits.

• Three of the five largest mines in Nevada are foreign-owned. The second largest mine in the world, and the most profitable mine in the world, is owned by Barrick corporation, based in Canada. This single mine will exceed $1 billion in profits in 2012, having reaped $500 million in the second quarter and $313 million in the third quarter of 2012 alone.

• Barrick pays next to nothing in taxes on the huge windfall profits from the world’s most profitable gold mine—paying a mere 1% on gross production value in taxes to Nevada’s General Fund in 2010, according to the state’s 2010-11 net proceeds of minerals tax (NPOM) bulletin.

As we've discussed before, SJR 15 takes the mining industry's current tax rate and deductions out of the Nevada Constitution so that our legislators have more authority over future mining taxes. That's all. Yet because that's SJR 15, mining industry lobbyists have fought hard to shoot it down this session (after exasperation over the status quo finally convinced most legislators to pass it the first time in 2011).

However, the story isn't over quite yet. The Assembly must now pass SJR 15 (again). Then in November 2014, voters must provide final approval. And actually, that's what likely scares the mining industry the most.

So this story may be far from over... But the mining industry already fears the ending. We'll have to see if the Assembly moves us closer to that happy ending.

Now, I'm Serious. Will You Be My Partner?

OK, so that last diary was an April Fool's Day joke. This blog isn't going anywhere... Wait, take that back. I do want to take this blog somewhere.

It's not going away any time soon. Rather, I'd like to expand it to provide even more coverage of the important issues of our communities and our time. But at this point, I'm running into difficulties.

I want to continue growing and nurturing and expanding the community we've been building here. I even have ideas for revamping this very blog! However, I can't embark on Nevada Progressive 3.0 without your support. This is why I'm coming to you now. Will you become a partner in building this blog community?

I know, I know. I'm not great at this. This is probably why I've never pursued a career in fundraising.

However, I very much want to continue doing this. I want to continue writing here. And I want to continue providing a space to share stories, even those stories that aren't always told elsewhere in the media. That's why I very much appreciate your help and continued support.

We've already been sharing some amazing stories here. We were on the ground in the last election. We've been closely monitoring the goings-on in the Nevada Legislature. We've found connections between odd local stories and major national stories. And we've even had some fun along the way.

I'd like for us to continue this. And I'd like to expand the blog to allow for even more voices to be heard and more stories to be shared. However, I can't do this without your help. Will you help me with this? Will you be my partner in progress?

Thanks so much for your support for this blog. Thanks for enduring my lame April Fool's Joke earlier this morning. I hope I can count on you as a partner to help us grow this blog & discover new opportunities. And I hope our journey here won't end any time soon.

End of the Line

I'm not sure what else to do. We may have finally reached the end of the line here. It's over.

I've done everything I could to continue this blog. Let's just say this has been a ton of work. And it hasn't always been easy work. And it may just be work I can no longer afford to do for free.

So with immense sadness in my heart, I must close this blog. It's been a rewarding labor of love in many ways. But at this point, I just can't continue.

I'm so sorry. I hope you will understand.