Latest news with #HB115
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposal to enhance Texas' pioneering junk science law approved by Texas House
Over a decade ago, the Texas Legislature passed a groundbreaking law to provide justice when the scientific evidence for a criminal conviction has changed or been discredited. But in a report examining appeals ruled upon in the decade since, the Texas Defender Service found last year that the so-called junk science law 'is not operating as the Texas Legislature intended,' and that the courts were applying a burden of proof that made it nearly impossible for appellants to meet. For some lawmakers, Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson became the face of that failure. On Wednesday, the Texas House sought to rectify those shortcomings. Lawmakers preliminarily approved, 118 to 10, House Bill 115 — legislation that would codify a number of recommendations advocates made to ensure the junk science law is working as intended. 'I do want to stress that this is a critical bill, and would appreciate your favorable consideration,' Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield and author of the bill, said during a late-night committee hearing last month. The measure, which must pass another vote in the House as a formality, does not have a companion in the Senate, making its path to law unclear. The proposal emerged out of a contentious interim period of the Legislature last year, during which the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee confronted Roberson's case, seen by some lawmakers as the face of Texas' failure to properly implement the junk science law. The argument for Roberson's innocence became a political lightning rod, as committee members took extraordinary steps to delay his October execution while Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton pushed back and stood behind the conviction. Roberson was convicted of capital murder in 2003 for the death of his 2-year-old daughter Nikki, who was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. He was one of the first death row inmates to have his conviction set for further review under the junk science law in 2016, when the Court of Criminal Appeals directed a lower court to take a second look at his case. But in 2023, after the state argued that the science had not changed that much and a trial court agreed, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Roberson's conviction and set an Oct. 17, 2024 execution date. Lawmakers, concerned that the courts had not meaningfully engaged with the evidence and properly applied the junk science law, managed to force a stay of execution in October. Roberson's execution date has not yet been reset, and he has a pending appeal. Still, proponents of HB 115 said the bill was meant to address broader deficiencies in the law — regardless of its application to Roberson's case. If passed, its provisions would not go into effect until December 1. The junk science law — Article 11.073 in Texas' criminal code — meant to provide a way for convicted people to obtain new trials if they can show that the underlying scientific evidence in their conviction was flawed. Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the bill in 2013 after two failed attempts to do so. 'It stood as a commitment to Texans that science in our criminal trials was not just a sword of the state, but also a shield for the wrongfully convicted and the unfairly prosecuted,' Chase Baumgartner, an attorney at the Innocence Project of Texas, testified to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee last month. 'House Bill 115 reaffirms that commitment and shores up where our current law has fallen short.' The measure would address many of the interim committee's concerns with the law. It would entitle low-income defendants to an attorney in junk science appeals and require the state's highest criminal court to issue a written opinion when denying a junk science appeal. It would also allow the court to consider junk science appeals even if they do not meet certain procedural requirements, a provision meant to address a finding that the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected almost 40% of petitions on procedural grounds, without considering the merits of the claims. It would also clarify that the junk science law requires appellants simply to show that their conviction was based on discredited science — not to prove their innocence. The bill changes the standard of proof to a 'reasonable likelihood' that the evidence 'could have affected' a person's conviction or sentence. That is a lower bar for convicted people to clear than the law's current standard, which says that 'on the preponderance of evidence,' the defendant 'would not have been convicted' based on the debunked science. Critics said that that was virtually the same standard required to prove 'actual innocence' — a difficult case to make, especially for people behind bars. 'The current standard has been interpreted by the Court of Criminal Appeals to essentially require the elimination of any rational basis for the conviction, which is the legal actual innocence standard,' Burke Butler, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, told the committee last month. 'This is not at all what legislators intended when they originally passed the law, and for various reasons, that standard is actually impossible for most innocent people to meet.' And the bill would extend the junk science law to accept relevant evidence that was 'not reasonably available' to the defendant at trial, and that 'tends to negate' scientific evidence 'relied on by the state' at trial. In its report, the Texas Defender Services found that no one on death row has successfully used the junk science law to obtain a new trial. The report also found that the Court of Criminal Appeals had applied a higher standard of proof than required by the law, rejected a significant portion of appeals on procedural grounds and produced a 'pervasive lack' of written opinions explaining its rationale, Butler said. 'No innocent person should ever serve out a prison sentence without having their case considered on the merits,' she said. 'The fixes in HB 115 would ensure that innocent people convicted based on junk science have a genuine pathway for relief.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House and Senate pass bills to remove income limits on EFA program
In her budget trailer bill, Gov. Kelly Ayotte called for removing income caps on students receiving EFAs only for students who had attended public school for at least a year. Here, Ayotte delivers her inaugural address at the State House on Jan. 9, 2025. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire House and Senate passed two separate bills to remove income caps from the state's education freedom accounts program Thursday, heralding a shift among Republicans since the program began. But the two chambers' bills differed in their implementation, and each included some guardrails. In a 198-180 vote, the House passed House Bill 115, which would phase-in universal eligibility over two years. Under the bill, in the 2025-2026 school year, the income limit would be increased from the current 350 percent of the federal poverty level to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or from $112,525 in total income for a household of four to $128,600 for that same household. Then, in the 2026-2027 school year, the program would be open to all students in the state regardless of income level. No House Democrats voted to support HB 115; 10 House Republicans joined Democrats to oppose the bill. And in a 16-8, party-line vote, the Senate passed Senate Bill 295, which would remove income limits immediately, but would include a 12,250-student cap on the program. That would allow the program to more than double — there were 5,321 students in the program at the start of the 2024-2025 school year — but it would also mean that applications could be limited in future years after more students signed up. Both bills would expand the program further than what Gov. Kelly Ayotte has proposed. In her budget trailer bill, Ayotte called for removing income caps on students receiving EFAs only for students who had attended public school for at least a year. Under Ayotte's plan, families of students who had been home schooled or were already enrolled in private school would still face the 350 percent income cap. Republicans hailed the universal eligibility bills as a logical endpoint for the education freedom account program, which began in 2021. The program currently allows income-eligible families to use the per-pupil state adequacy aid that historically had been given to public schools and apply it to private school and home-schooling expenses. 'This bill ensures children will no longer be turned away from education that best meets their needs, prioritizing students over systems,' said Rep. Valerie McDonnell, a Salem Republican. But Democrats, who have long opposed the EFA program, warned that removing the income eligibility caps would require the state to spend much more on the program, and draw more from the state's Education Trust Fund. The state is expected to pay about $27.7 million for the current school year; Democrats said that annual amount could rise by an additional $60 million under the House's bill if every student currently attending private school or home school took an EFA. The Trust Fund spends about $1.2 billion per year on education, largely toward public schools. 'I think it's really, really high time that elected representatives, elected legislators get real about the cost associated with this and what impact it has, not only on the state budget and the state state resources, but also on their school districts that are vastly underfunded by the state,' said Rep. Dave Luneau, a Hopkinton Democrat, at a press conference Thursday shortly after the vote on HB 115. It is unclear how Ayotte and Republican lawmakers plan to reconcile their different proposals for expansion. Asked in February whether she would support universal education freedom accounts, Ayotte said she supports the concept but believes the state should take a more incremental approach to get there, noting the underperformance of the state's business taxes in recent months. Ayotte's own, more limited expansion proposal would not take effect until the second year of the two-year budget, July 2026, a date that aligns with the governor's projections that business taxes will rebound. HB 115 and SB 295 are heading next to the House Finance Committee and Senate Finance Committee, respectively, and must both pass the Senate and House again. And either bill could be added to the state budget, which the House Finance Committee is currently reviewing. For Republicans in the Senate, Thursday's vote represented a change from previous years. In 2024, the Senate rejected a bill by the House that would have raised the income eligibility from 350 percent to 500 percent; some Republican senators worried about the impact on the state's Education Trust Fund and asked to compromise at 400 percent. On Thursday, Republican senators also voted down a number of attempts by Democrats to impose more oversight and stricter income reviews over the EFA program. One Democratic bill would have required families to prove their income eligibility every year in order to qualify for the EFAs. Currently, families need to do so only in the first year and may continue receiving EFA funds until that child graduates, even if their household income later increases beyond the limit. Another would have required the Department of Education to administer the program, rather than the Children's Scholarship Fund, the nonprofit group that currently contracts with the state to do so. Democrats said the measures would keep the program in check and target the funding to families who needed the funds. Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican, disagreed. 'These bills threaten to cripple the EFA program with unnecessary bureaucracy and overregulation,' he said in a statement.
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Competing education grant bills advance
Mar. 13—New Hampshire's House and Senate approved competing bills Thursday to eventually allow parents of any income level to receive state-funded Education Freedom Account grants. Both bills go far beyond what Gov. Kelly Ayotte has requested of lawmakers. The House bill (HB 115) that won initial approval Thursday would raise the income limit next school year to 400% of the federal poverty level before eliminating the income limit entirely in 2026-27. Under the current 350% limit, a family can earn up to $103,600; the 400% limit would raise it to $128,600. The House vote was 198-180 with only 10 House Republicans joining all House Democrats in opposition. A few hours later Thursday, the Senate passed its own bill (SB 295), offered by first-term Sen. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester. Her bill, as amended, would eliminate the income limit but cap at 10,000 the number of grants awarded every year. Currently just over 5,200 families make use of the EFA grants, which can be used toward tuition or expenses for private, religious, alternative public or home school. The average EFA is worth about $5,100. The Senate endorsed its bill, 16-8, with all Republicans in support and all eight Democrats against it. "The voters of this state overwhelmingly support the principle of school choice," Sullivan said. Yet Sen. Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, said residents who signed up online to comment opposed the measure by nearly a 10-1 margin. "This program is in no way wildly popular," Altschiller said. Both bills went to their respective Finance Committees to be studied further. In her state budget message last month, Ayotte called for more modest legislation that would permit a family of any income to get an EFA grant, but only if their child was currently enrolled in a public school. Studies have confirmed that EFA grants have gone to a very small number of families who used the money to take their child out of a public school. Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, said House Democrats would oppose any expansion of the program even though the cost of Ayotte's proposal would likely be minimal. Luneau contended the House-passed bill could cost up to $60 million more a year once it's fully implemented. House Education Funding Committee Chairman Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, the architect of the House plan, insisted it would cost $11 million more in 2027. Rep. Daniel LeClerc, D-Amherst, pointed out that the conservative Granite State Taxpayers Association had opposed the House bill, adding that such a hefty expense "at a time of budget deficit" would be inappropriate. "Let's not risk a good thing by spending money that we don't have," LeClerc argued. Rep. Victoria McDonnell, R-Salem, said all families should have access to the grants. "I look forward to the day when children will not be turned away from their school choice based on their ZIP code or their family's ability to pay," McDonnell said. During Senate debate, Democratic Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka of Portsmouth reminded colleagues that a superior court judge has already ruled that state support of public schools is $540 million less a year than it should be. "Our property taxpayers will have to foot the bill if we pass this," Perkins Kwoka said. "We should be focused on adequately funding our neighborhood public schools." Attorneys for the state have asked the state Supreme Court to overturn that decision; a ruling is expected later this year. +++ What's Next: The House and Senate Finance Committees will continue work and report back to their chambers next month. Prospects: Something is likely to pass but details are unclear. The solution may become part of a final state budget compromise that lawmakers take up at the end of the legislative session. klandrigan@
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Universal EFA bill clears House committee
Mar. 4—An amended bill to offer universal access to a taxpayer-funded Education Freedom Account grants, regardless of family income, cleared its first hurdle Tuesday. House Education Funding Committee Chairman Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, persuaded his panel to support, along party lines, an incremental expansion of the program allowing families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level to receive them in 2026. The current cap is 350% of the poverty level. For a family of four, this would raise the eligibility income level from $109,200 to $128,600 annually. Under Ladd's amended bill, the income limit would be eliminated in 2027. "Parents are looking at options — what is the best placement for the child," Ladd said. "The education-choice programs are showing they are creating more competition with the public schools." Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, said it makes no sense to offer a taxpayer subsidy equal to about $5,200 per child to wealthy families. More than 70% of those currently receiving EFA vouchers already had their children in private schools, he said. "Hardly anybody is leaving their public schools to take a voucher," Luneau said. The original bill (HB 115) would have eliminated the income limit for the school year starting this fall. The committee vote was 10-8 with all Republican members joining Ladd in support, all Democrats backing Luneau in opposition. Ladd said he objects to EFA critics who bemoan the use of taxpayer dollars on grants parents can spend as they wish on private, religious or alternative public schools or home schooling. "Whose taxpayer dollars are these? The taxpayers, they are my dollars, your dollars. I feel everybody who is paying into the system ought to have the opportunity to benefit from that contribution," Ladd said. Luneau and Ladd battled over the price tag of the bill, which didn't have an updated fiscal note. Luneau said the current $27 million cost of the program could go over $40 million during the first year and as high as $100 million after that. To back up his estimate, Luneau said there were 16,600 students in private schools and 3,900 in home school programs. But Ladd said 9,000 private-school students are ineligible for an EFA because their parents live outside the state and pay the full tuition at Phillips Exeter or some other boarding program. Another 1,700 are in pre-school private programs and they likewise can't get an EFA, Ladd said. "I am not going to debate you but $100 million is totally off track. The combined cost would be a little more than $17.5 million for two years," Ladd said. Vice Chairman Walter Spilsbury, R-Charlestown, said lawmakers next year should discuss whether to enhance accountability over EFA spending since by then they will receive a performance audit of the program. klandrigan@
