Legislative news

[RingoShirl@aol.com]

Dear visionaries:

Some of the folks here think this could be our last week.  What an 
interesting session this has been!

As you know, the House voted for a rather extensive tax cut, which would have 
been very unfortunate for public education.  It also would be unfortunate for 
many communities, in my opinion, because they may be forced to look to the 
property tax to maintain operations.  Luckily, the Senate is taking a more 
responsible approach to the matter.  They appear to be leaving in some 
reasonable tax cuts, but not to the extent recommended by the House.  The 
proposed budget for public education is a pretty good one.  I would like to 
see it be higher, because I think we have the opportunity to put in some new 
programs that are needed.  However, there is an increase in support units and 
salaries that is good to see.  

Now the question that remains will be whether the House will concur with the 
tax package that the Senate returns to us.  If not, a committee will have to 
attempt to work that out.  However, if the proposed education budget is 
approved, it would pretty much make the House proposal impossible to carry 
out.

There was spirited debate centered on the Freedom of Religion bill in the 
House this week.  It started in the Senate and passed there without much 
trouble.  It is one of those things that sounds harmless, but is full of 
disturbing implications.  When it first emerged in the Senate, some of the 
more conservative churches supported it.  It seemed to take a while before 
folks generally realized what is contained in it.  By the time it reached the 
House, many churches opposed it, but to little avail.  As I understand, there 
was a Religious Freedom Act on the Federal level that was struck down, but 
with the suggestion that the matter would be better handled on the state 
level.  I think that now seven states have such law, pretty much engineered 
by the religious right.  The crux of the language sates that the state cannot 
place any barriers in the way of an individual's expression of religion, 
unless that state can show a compelling interest in doing so.

Open for interpretation will be the definition of religion (Richard Butler's 
church?), and what constitutes a compelling reason.  I found an interesting 
case in California that was decided based upon the Federal law before it was 
struck down.  Three elementary students' religious beliefs required that they 
were ceremonial knives as part of their attire.  The public school had a 
policy that forbade a student to carry a knife, and refused to let the 
students wear them.  The court ruled in favor of the students.  Apparently 
the safety of the other students did not present a compelling interest of the 
state.  Although the court did make some provisions, such as requiring the 
students to dull the blades, I think the case indicates where this law could 
take us.  We can undoubtedly think of many possibilities.  The law did pass 
the House easily.  If you find it disturbing, I suggest you might contact the 
Governor about a possible veto.

This promises to be a busy week, with bills flying past us.  If there is 
anything out there that particularly concerns you, please let us know.  I 
look forward to seeing you soon.

Shirley