Alabama House passes bill criminalizing forgery of local legislation sponsorship
Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, walks across the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on April 10, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The House passed Hurst's bill that criminalizes forging sponsorship on local legislation on Tuesday. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama House of Representatives Tuesday passed a bill that would make it a crime for somebody to forge sponsorship on local legislation.
Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, the sponsor of HB 454, said somebody drafted a local bill in his name through the Legislative Services Agency without his permission. He did not say when this happened or what bill was involved.
'I found out later on that a bill had been drafted. I talked to the Legislative Reference Service and asked them to look it up because I did not do this,' he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The legislation makes drafting a bill without a lawmaker's permission and advertising the legislation a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by one year in jail and a fine of up to $6,000.
The bill passed 94-1 with a floor amendment by Rep. Ben Robbins, R-Sylacauga, that clarified that the person publishing the bill was requested to do so by a legislator.
'I got recommendations from the county commission association to add this,' he said.
Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, was the only vote against the bill. He said he could not support it because of confusing language.
'I can't support it the way it is written because you may catch somebody that's trying to do the right thing and help you out,' England said.
The bill goes to the Senate.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers scale back proposal for unemployment strike payments amid blowback
Hundreds of educators, parents and students joined a rally Nov. 1. 2023 at Roosevelt High School in north Portland to support striking teachers. Teachers like them could soon receive up to 10 weeks of unemployment benefits under a compromise negotiated by Oregon lawmakers.(Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A particularly controversial measure that would give unemployment benefits to public and private Oregon workers during labor strikes survived a key Wednesday hearing after lawmakers agreed to cut the length of time in which workers on strike could cash checks by more than half. Senate Bill 916 would have limited striking workers to receiving benefits for 26 weeks, in line with the current caps on unemployment checks for Oregonians. But after the Senate rejected an amended version of the bill on Tuesday, a bicameral conference committee voted Wednesday to set a new cutoff at 10 weeks after a two-week waiting period. Committee members voted along party lines, with the sole Republican present voting against the amendments. 'I do feel like this is a massive compromise,' said Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Portland, the bill's lead author. 'It's not something I'm entirely thrilled with.' The measure would be a first-in-the-nation move by Oregon, establishing a right to strike for public and private employees while ensuring them the ability to apply for unemployment benefits. Aside from traditionally strike-exempt public employees such as firefighters and police, workers such as nurses and teachers could claim benefits after two weeks of striking. The bill has been among this session's most controversial measures, laying bare deep divisions over how best to use the state's $6.4 billion unemployment insurance fund. The changes come after support for a Democrat-led bill collapsed in a concurring Senate vote on Tuesday amid concerns from Republicans and a key dissenting Democrat. It had already drawn opposition from school board leaders who help negotiate teacher strikes, business groups, and local government leaders who contribute to the state's unemployment fund. 'We have a healthy fund today due in no small part because all the agreements in the years have been honored,' committee member Sen. Daniel Bonham, R- The Dalles, told his colleagues before voting against the amended bill. 'It is a healthy enough fund that I don't know that this will be a massive draw on it, but again the kids will lose if teachers are incentivized to strike.' House Democrats got the bill over the finish line in their chamber last week, arguing that the benefits would be used sparingly and not as a tool to prolong strikes, but to shorten them. A change made in a House committee would cap benefits to eight weeks if the state's unemployment fund is at risk, and lawmakers also included an amendment that mandates deductions in backpay for benefits claimed by teachers during strikes. Grayber on Tuesday repeated a promise she has made to continue monitoring the bill's implementation if it were to pass, but also signaled that she hoped to move past concerns that the bill would promote misuse of the unemployment system or dramatically hamper school life and public facilities. She said she's been 'guided by the math' behind the bill from the beginning, a subtle nod to the estimates from the state's employment department that the bill would not change existing tax structures for businesses and government agencies paying into the state's unemployment funding. 'I have heard the opposition,' she said. 'I very much look forward to moving past what feels like a worst-case scenario focus that we've maintained for several weeks now.' Oregonians who have lost a job can currently apply for unemployment weekly checks ranging from $196 to $836. The bill would allow benefits to kick in immediately if workers are locked out of facilities by their employer during negotiations. Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone, is a sponsor of the legislation, but withdrew his support when it came up short in a 15-14 Senate vote on Tuesday. In a brief interview after the hearing, he declined to comment on whether he supported the proposed changes. He referred to another attempt at a transportation and infrastructure funding bill that the Legislature has taken up in the final weeks of the session: 'If there's time to pass a transportation package, there's time to get this right,' he said. The new amendment pushes the bill closer to a similar law passed in Washington that caps benefits at six weeks, but which doesn't go so far as to protect public employees like Oregon's proposed legislation. New Jersey and New York have also passed laws in recent years to provide unemployment benefits to striking private sector workers, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar effort in 2023 over fiscal concerns. Another bill extending benefits to striking workers in Connecticut is currently sitting on Gov. Ned Lamont's desk, but he is expected to veto it. The bill passed out of committee on a 4-1 vote. Rep. Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, was excused. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Durbin pushes to pass DACA bill ahead of 13th anniversary
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) — Sunday is the 13th anniversary of the DACA program. Senator Dick Durbin is spearheading the movement to turn the executive order into law. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals allows undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children protection from deportation. The program has helped more than 800,000 young people. 'They've gone to our schools, they've stood up every morning in the classroom and pledged allegiance to the same flag we pledge allegiance, and they aspire to be great and make America a greater country,' Durbin (D-IL) said at a news conference Wednesday. Illinois bill ending scam gym membership tactic heads to governor's desk The senior senator from Illinois is one of the biggest supporters of the program. He first introduced a bill on the senate floor in 2001 but has not been successful codifying it into law.'Sometimes we'd pass it in the Senate, but the House wouldn't,' Durbin said. 'Sometimes we couldn't get 60 votes, sometimes we could.' President Barack Obama enacted the program with an executive order in 2012. Critics said implementing it was an overreach of Obama's powers. 'The program essentially rewards parents for bringing their children to the United States illegally,' Ira Mehlman, the Media Director for Federation for American Immigration Reform, said. 'And anytime you reward illegal activity, the inevitable result is you're going to get more of it.' Immigrant advocates say Dreamers serve many essential roles in their communities. 'There's a lot of doctors, nurses, individuals like myself doing advocacy based work, and pretty much any career you can think of here, there are DACA workers in our community,' Maria Jimenez, the Executive Director of Immigrant Services of Champaign-Urbana, said. Illinois bill on governor's desk would require law enforcement to work with federal gun tracing database But as the Supreme Court debates the constitutionality of the program, they're facing anxiety over a possible future without the program. 'It would mean a great deal of instability for my family,' Jimenez said. 'I have a partner, I have two young kids I provide for, it would mean myself, my brother, my family members would all of a sudden not have the stability and safety from deportation.' The proposed legislation, American Dream and Promise Act of 2025, would give anyone who is 18 or younger who's been in the U.S. since 2021 protected status. It would also provide a pathway to permanent legal status if dreamers get a degree or serve in the military for at least two years. The full bill can be found here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate GOP unveil long-awaited SNAP proposals for Trump bill
Senate Republicans on Wednesday rolled out a suite of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a key component of President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' – but it dials back some of the proposals sought by the House that drew intraparty concerns. The new legislative text from the Senate would require states to cover some of the cost of SNAP benefits, which are currently completely funded by the federal government, if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028, while allowing states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see its share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent to 15 percent. The House, by contrast, called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its agricultural proposal passed as part of a broader plan to advance Trump's tax agenda last month, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 to 25 percent. The softened proposal comes as Senate Republicans expressed concerns about how the House pitch would have impacted states. 'This bill takes a commonsense approach to reforming SNAP-cutting waste, increasing state accountability, and helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training,' Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman (R-Ariz.) said in a statement on Wednesday. 'It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed.' 'At the same time, our farmers and ranchers are facing real challenges,' he said. 'This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel, and fiber in the world. It's an investment in rural America and the future of agriculture.' Like the House bill, the Senate bill would also decrease the administrative cost the federal government is required to pay to help cover program operations in the states by 25 percent, but beginning in fiscal year 2027. The proposals in both chambers also seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future and beef up work requirements, as well as farm provisions that GOP leaders have argued will make it easier to craft a bipartisan farm bill in the months ahead – although Democrats have said otherwise. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee estimated the recent legislation would generate $144 billion in net savings in the years ahead as the party looks to ramp up cost-cutting measures in Trump's plan amid concerns about the overall deficit impact of his tax priorities.
