catallaxy.net

I believe they’re doing it again. The General Assembly is violating the state constitution before our very own eyes and they’re doing it by passing an unconstitutional budget. Not surprisingly, 84 members of Kentucky’s House voted for it. Here’s the key phrase, which actually describes the budget:

AN ACT relating to appropriations and revenue measures

You might be surprised to learn that the state constitution actually prohibits the comingling of appropriation measures and revenue measures. Here’s a key phrase that every lawmaker swears to support when he or she is sworn in:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments thereto: Provided, No new matter shall be introduced, under color of amendment, which does not relate to raising revenue.

Emphasis mine. In layman’s terms, it means that bills to raise revenue can’t do anything else. They have to raise revenue only. That means, in translation, that a bill that spends state money may not also raise money, since a bill to raise money can’t also spend money. But the state constitution goes further:

No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred, shall be reenacted and published at length.

What does that mean? It actually, in part, restates the restriction I quoted earlier. Bills may not relate to more than one subject. Revenue is a subject. Appropriation is a subject. They may not comingle.

And yet, the state constitution makes this idea even more clear, but I won’t quote the whole section:

… The Governor shall have the power to disapprove any part or parts of appropriation bills embracing distinct items, and the part or parts disapproved shall not become a law unless reconsidered and passed, as in case of a bill.

Emphasis mine. Kentucky’s governor, like many governors, has the right to veto distinct portions of appropriation bills. This bill, as stated by the general assembly, relates to raising revenue. So it’s either unconstitutional or the title of the bill is wrong.

You’d think Harry Moberly would have been more careful in crafting this budget.

I wrote on this subject for the Bluegrass Institute a few years ago.

David Adams at the Bluegrass Institute revives a portion of Kentucky’s constitution that lawmakers would rather forget.

Kentucky’s Senate president David L. Williams hopes to move Kentucky’s filing deadline from the end of January (fast approaching) to the end of April:

Introduced by Sen. David L. Williams on January 18, 2008, to move the candidate filing deadline from the last Tuesday in January to the last Tuesday in April and the primary election to the first Monday in August. The bill also eliminates the gubernatorial runoff primary. The bill’s provisions would become effective immediately upon becoming law.

Read the rest of this entry »

David Adams at the Bluegrass Institute takes a bizarre shot at legislative analysis:

Rep. Charlie Hoffman eats boogers

The headline you just read could get me thrown in jail for up to ninety days if the above-referenced booger-eater from Georgetown has his way.HB 281 prohibits communication via the internet “which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate communication.”And since I’m clearly unrepentent, my soon-to-follow second offense would land me in jail for up to a year.In 2008, it should go without saying that we err on the side of liberty and thick skin on the internet.Given that it costs municipalities in Kentucky up to $88.44 a day to put someone in our already-overcrowded jails, maybe we can call this the Thin Skinned Tax-Raising Ninny Act of 2008. 

I suppose the post is meant to suggest that Rep. Hoffman should reread Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution (not to mention the First Amendment) and perhaps he’d realize that he should either begin filing bills that comport to the documents to which he has sworn an oath … or choose another line of work.Actually, that sounds like a pretty civil way to say the same thing David did. Perhaps that post was meant for David’s less-reserved other blog. Let’s hope so.

Sounds like it.

Imagine if leading lawmakers in Kentucky rolled the entire state budget and other items (including new taxes, fees, special tax breaks, etc.) into the same bill, prevented lawmakers from seeing it until the last minute and then rammed it through the legislature?

Oh yeah. They did.

Here’s an AP story from March 24, 2006:

The conference committee met publicly on Thursday, a contrast to the closed-door sessions the House and Senate used to develop their initial budget proposals. In years past, the conference committee has met part of the time publicly and part privately.

The tradition of closed budget meetings was criticized Thursday by Jim Waters, policy director at Bluegrass Institute, a Bowling Green-based organization that advocates open government. He said the conference committee should continue meeting publicly.

“If the politicians in Frankfort don’t want their constituents to be privy to the process, then they must realize that a lot of the decisions are not in the best interest of Kentuckians,” Waters said. “When you’re confident of the decisions you’re making, you want your constituents to be privy to the process and discussions taking place.”

Waters said many legislators seem to prefer meeting privately, then holding perfunctory open meetings to vote.

“We have consistently seen unanimous votes on some of the largest expenditures, and by the time those votes are taken on the floors of the House and Senate, the debate has already taken place. The question simply is why,” he said. “Why can’t the taxpayers whose money these politicians are spending, why can’t they at least be privy to the budget process? The budget affects the greatest number of Kentuckians, more than any other decisions these folks make.”

Richard Beliles, chairman of the advocacy group Common Cause in Kentucky, said legislative leaders should open all budget discussions to the public.

“How can the citizens really be fairly represented when they go into these closed meetings? It’s a great disadvantage to the average Kentuckian,” Beliles said. “Even if they make the right decisions, it’s still bad for government. People should have good feelings about their government.”

Beliles said holding budget discussions behind closed doors hurts public trust.

“We as citizens should complain about it enough to get both parties to not hold these closed-door meetings,” Beliles said.

I should have said something about this earlier:

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Reacting to the case of a high school band teacher accused of having sex with a student, a Kentucky lawmaker has become the latest state legislator to propose changing a law governing the age of consent.

J.R. Gray was disturbed to learn that teachers break no criminal laws by having sex with students, as long as the student is at least 16 years old and a willing participant.

That scenario played out in Gray’s hometown of Benton last month when a band teacher was accused of having an affair with a teenage student. Gray, a Democrat from western Kentucky, says he now plans to file a bill as soon as next week that would make it illegal for a teacher or anyone else in a position of special trust to have consensual sex with someone under 18.

Emphasis mine. Let’s understand this: J.R. Gray wants to create a special age of consent when one party is “in a position of special trust” and the other is under 18. What if the young person is having sex with someone he/she doesn’t trust? That’s OK?

More from WHAS TV.

Update: C-J confirms the choice.

The Washington Post has a fairly comprehensive story about Democrats’ resurgence
in Kentucky. The story ends with a quote from Steve Beshear:

Beshear said he believes Democrats nationwide have often put too much emphasis on policy pronouncements and not enough on polishing their personal appeal to voters. Too much about issues, he said, and too little “about who they are and their values.”

Values are one thing. Values inform public policy. But if Beshear ends up being all sizzle and no steak, in four years he might be facing the same problems Ernie Fletcher faces right now.

As Aaron has pointed out, Beshear’s plan for some gambling funds includes constitutional earmarks for a few of the largest portions of the state budget. In other words, he wants to take a large share of gambling revenues and dump it into the general fund. Because, as you know, that money has been spent so very, very well.