Latest news with #HB2683
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Republicans care less about business freedom and more about 'owning the libs'
'When we are requiring businesses to do certain things, we need to be very careful.' This statement, made by state Rep. David Livingston, used to be axiomatic among elected Republicans in Arizona. It's why Arizona Republicans celebrated the Arizona Supreme Court's Brush & Nib ruling in 2019, so that businesses wouldn't be forced to violate their religious convictions. It's why Arizona Republicans filed suit to stop the Biden administration from mandating vaccination protocols for private businesses. And it's why Arizona Republicans passed a bill to prevent cities and towns from dictating the type of bags used by private businesses. But many of today's Arizona Republicans are no longer dogmatic limited-government conservatives. Their political philosophy is less Barry Goldwater and more 'own the libs.' It's perhaps why only two other House Republicans joined Livingston in opposing bill HB 2683, which forces retail businesses to accept cash as payment. Republican Rep. Pam Carter decided the cash mandate was worth it because "it is so much fun to take a little bit of your cash and put it in a little envelope" to be spent later. Republican Rep. Teresa Martinez sees government coercion as appropriate in this case because she wants "to be able to hand somebody a $20 bill and get some change back.' Free market conservatives would politely remind representatives Carter and Martinez that if their desires are broadly shared, there surely will be a market to satisfy them. But that doesn't require forcing all retail businesses to comply or be penalized. It's part of the reason why the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the Chandler Chamber of Commerce, the Buckeye Chamber of Commerce, the East Valley Chamber of Commerce Alliance, and the West Valley Chamber of Commerce Alliance all oppose the cash mandate. But even aside from a limited government philosophy, there are practical reasons to oppose the cash mandate of HB 2683. First, as anyone who has owned or operated a retail business (as I have) can tell you, having cash on-hand increases your risk of theft. According to both the FBI and the National Retail Federation, even a small amount of cash on premises – $100 – increases the likelihood of external theft. Potential problems from external theft don't end with the amount of money stolen. If somebody robs your retail store, there's a chance it turns violent. Or there's a chance your store's employees try to stop the thief, which then leads to potential legal exposure from both the employee and, bizarrely, the thief (e.g. if your employee uses excessive force in stopping the criminal). Happily, in Maricopa County, we have a prosecutor in Rachel Mitchell who cares about the rule of law and has made prosecuting retail crime a priority. But that doesn't unring the bell. Then there's internal theft. If you're a cash-heavy business with short term employees, you're going to lose some cash to employees 'skimming' from your sales. It's just that way it is. Internal theft is hard to measure, but a 2024 study by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners found that small businesses (fewer than 100 employees) were disproportionately affected by such theft. And there's counterfeit concerns. Most retail businesses now have access to counterfeit detection mechanisms, but those devices are another business cost, and using them slows down the pace of business. Time and administrative hassle is another downside to handling cash. If you have cash, you have to train employees in cash management practices. Every time a new employee takes over the cash register, you have to count the cash, and at the end of each business day, you have to reconcile cash with transactions – something that's a non-issue for digital payments. You also have to pay costs for secure cash storage and secure cash transfer to the bank. Again, all things that don't exist with digital payments. HB 2683 is a mandate on private businesses. Plain and simple. We Arizona Republicans all used to be programmed as Livingston still is: instinctually opposed to mandates. But even if that no longer matters, there are plenty of practical reasons to oppose the mandate, and let retail businesses avoid cash, should they choose. Stephen Richer is a former Maricopa County recorder. He is now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and CEO of Republic Affairs. Follow him on X, formerly Twitter, at @stephen_richer. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Where are the pro-business Arizona Republicans? | Opinion
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House passes Senate bill to ban ranked choice voting
Mar. 7—MORGANTOWN — The Senate bill to ban ranked choice voting breezed through the House of Delegates this week, passed overwhelmingly on Friday and will soon head to the governor's desk. SB 490 prohibits ranked choice voting — RCV — in local, state or federal elections. It defines ranked choice voting — generally abbreviated as RCV — as occurring in rounds where losers are eliminated until one candidate scores a clear majority. RCV is used statewide in Alaska, Hawaii and Maine. RCV is prohibited in Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. The Senate passed SB 490 on Tuesday. The House received it on Tuesday and immediately took it up for first reading without any committee reference. It reached third reading on Friday. On the House floor on Friday, it was said that the bill doesn't apply to internal party processes — a provision explicitly mentioned in the corresponding House bill, HB 2683, which was sidelined to the House inactive calendar when it reached second reading. However, given that SB 490 explicitly states what elections it applies to, the consensus is that it effectively exempts internal party elections, Delegate Kayla Young, D-Kanawha, said RCV isn't used anywhere in the state. "This is a waste of time. We're not helping people here. I'll be a no." Judiciary chair JB Akers, R-Kanawha, said the bill is a proactive measure, to keep RCV from taking effect here. Delegate Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, pointed out that the blue chairs at all the delegates' desks — purchased during the chamber renovation completed before the 2024 session — were chosen from among a group of candidates by ranked choice voting. It worked well for that, he said, and it can work well in an election with a crowded slate of candidates. It can also promote civility, where a candidate doesn't want to alienate another candidate's voters and jeopardize a chance of being at least a second choice. "We're banning something that we don't have, " he said. Supporting the bill, Delegate Larry Kump, R-Berkeley, said, "For sure and for certain, ranked choice voting is a Rube Goldberg political scheme." RCV primaries are often called jungle primaries. "Ranked choice voting will confuse voters in West Virginia and undermine confidence in election integrity." The vote was 87-9, with all opposition votes from Democrats.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This bill could help food truck vendors statewide, here's how:
TEXAS (KMID/KPEJ)- The 89th Texas Legislative session is fully underway as the Texas House and Senate continue to decide what new laws will go into effect. Of the more than 6,000 bills that have been introduced this session so far, House Bill 2683 is the only one that will help the fast-growing food truck industry. 'What this does is it provides freedom for food truck operators in terms of the permitting process, especially in a place like ours here in the Permian Basin where you have multiple cities and multiple counties that a food truck may serve,' said state representative Brooks Landgraf. 'Rather than forcing those operators to get different permits in each jurisdiction that they're in, what if we just had one statewide permit that would allow them to operate legally and in compliance with certain health and safety regulations.' We recently sat down with Odessa city councilman, Craig Stoker. Who touched on the city's impact on local food truck vendors. Stoker Q&A What are the current city ordinances the city has in effect for food truck vendors? 'So right now, looking at the city ordinances, you've got about three different iterations that have been put together that are about three, five, and seven years old. And so what we're doing is looking at those and trying to decide, what role does the city have in enforcing any of it? What role does the county play? And what role should we play? So we are currently working with the fire marshal's office to make sure that what we're writing into the ordinance follows the international fire codes that the fire department follows.' What are your thoughts on House Bill 2683? 'It just makes sense… I've been in talks with some of the leaders in Midland about how we even come up with a Midland-Odessa super permit where if you're good in Midland, you're good in Odessa. I think that it gets the city out of the way of these small businesses and lets them operate.' What is the city doing to help out local food truck vendors? 'We will be hosting a town hall for the food truck owners. It'll come to council, so there'll be plenty of opportunity for feedback from the community.' WATCH: HB 2683 and it's impact on local food truck vendors Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House committees take up absentee ballot, ranked choice voting bills
Feb. 24—dbeard @ MORGANTOWN — The House of Delegates is trying once again to prevent potential abuse of absentee ballots by making it illegal to distribute more than 10 applications for absentee ballots with a specific request by a voter or voters. And a bill to prohibit ranked choice voting began its committee journey on Monday. This year's attempt is HB 2400, approved in a divided voice vote on Monday morning by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the House floor. The revised version the committee approved wasn't available to view on Monday afternoon, but the committee attorney said it reflected the 2022 version, which was HB 4293, that passed out of the House and died in the Senate. HB 4293 said that any election official who knowingly and intentionally mailed or delivered an application for an absentee ballot to any voter without the specific request of that voter would face a misdemeanor charge, subject to fine and jail time upon conviction. It also said that any person who is not an election official knowingly and intentionally mailed or delivered more than 10 applications for an absentee ballot to a group of voters without the specific request of those voters would also face a misdemeanor charge, subject to fine and jail time upon conviction. HB 2400 adds that applications shall be available in either physical form at the clerk's office or online. Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, has regularly opposed the bills and said again that absentee ballot applications are government forms freely available online, No other government form carries a criminal penalty for distribution. "It's ridiculous " to criminalize distribution of this form. County clerks have a process to determine the validity of an application, he said, and the Preston County Clerk has expressed reservations about the bill. "We should put a little faith and trust in our county clerks." Hansen also noted that this could hamper voting for nursing home residents, who rely on staff to bring them applications for absentee ballots. Likewise for people with disabilities, and those who tend not to vote because of transportation, job or family issues. Delegate Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, said the bill could also criminalize neighbors who help neighbors by bringing them ballot applications. Secretary of State General Counsel David Cook, in answer to some questions, said the bill doesn't pose legal problems in terms of federal regulations for nursing home residents. The committee advanced the bill over the nay votes of the two Democrats. Ranked choice voting Judiciary's Legal Services Subcommittee took a first look at HB 2683, to prohibit ranked choice voting. It gives a ling definition: "Ranked choice voting is defined as a method for casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates for an office in order of preference, and then tabulation occurs in rounds, with each round dropping the candidate with the least support and then reallocating the first-place votes from the eliminated candidate to the second choice candidates." The bill makes this illegal for any local state or federal election, and any such election conducted in this manner would be invalid. It does not apply to internal party processes. Lead sponsor Rick Hillenbrand, R-Hampshire, said the bill is an effort to assure clarity, where ranked choice voting brings complexity and confusion. "RCV methods are anything but transparent and simple to understand and they're confusing as heck." National Public Radio cites figures from the advocacy group FairVote that indicate as of December 2024, 51 American jurisdictions have RCV in place for all voters in public elections. This includes two states, three counties, and 46 cities. Ballotpedia gives a different figure, saying RCV is used statewide in Alaska, Hawaii and Maine. It says RCV is prohibited in Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Under the House committee process, Monday's discussion was the initial hearing of the bill. At the next subcommittee meeting, the bill can be marked up, debated and voted to advance to the full committee.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House committees take up absentee ballot, ranked choice voting bills
Feb. 24—dbeard @ MORGANTOWN — The House of Delegates is trying once again to prevent potential abuse of absentee ballots by making it illegal to distribute more than 10 applications for absentee ballots with a specific request by a voter or voters. And a bill to prohibit ranked choice voting began its committee journey on Monday. This year's attempt is HB 2400, approved in a divided voice vote on Monday morning by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the House floor. The revised version the committee approved wasn't available to view on Monday afternoon, but the committee attorney said it reflected the 2022 version, which was HB 4293, that passed out of the House and died in the Senate. HB 4293 said that any election official who knowingly and intentionally mailed or delivered an application for an absentee ballot to any voter without the specific request of that voter would face a misdemeanor charge, subject to fine and jail time upon conviction. It also said that any person who is not an election official knowingly and intentionally mailed or delivered more than 10 applications for an absentee ballot to a group of voters without the specific request of those voters would also face a misdemeanor charge, subject to fine and jail time upon conviction. HB 2400 adds that applications shall be available in either physical form at the clerk's office or online. Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, has regularly opposed the bills and said again that absentee ballot applications are government forms freely available online, No other government form carries a criminal penalty for distribution. "It's ridiculous " to criminalize distribution of this form. County clerks have a process to determine the validity of an application, he said, and the Preston County Clerk has expressed reservations about the bill. "We should put a little faith and trust in our county clerks." Hansen also noted that this could hamper voting for nursing home residents, who rely on staff to bring them applications for absentee ballots. Likewise for people with disabilities, and those who tend not to vote because of transportation, job or family issues. Delegate Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, said the bill could also criminalize neighbors who help neighbors by bringing them ballot applications. Secretary of State General Counsel David Cook, in answer to some questions, said the bill doesn't pose legal problems in terms of federal regulations for nursing home residents. The committee advanced the bill over the nay votes of the two Democrats. Ranked choice voting Judiciary's Legal Services Subcommittee took a first look at HB 2683, to prohibit ranked choice voting. It gives a ling definition: "Ranked choice voting is defined as a method for casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates for an office in order of preference, and then tabulation occurs in rounds, with each round dropping the candidate with the least support and then reallocating the first-place votes from the eliminated candidate to the second choice candidates." The bill makes this illegal for any local state or federal election, and any such election conducted in this manner would be invalid. It does not apply to internal party processes. Lead sponsor Rick Hillenbrand, R-Hampshire, said the bill is an effort to assure clarity, where ranked choice voting brings complexity and confusion. "RCV methods are anything but transparent and simple to understand and they're confusing as heck." National Public Radio cites figures from the advocacy group FairVote that indicate as of December 2024, 51 American jurisdictions have RCV in place for all voters in public elections. This includes two states, three counties, and 46 cities. Ballotpedia gives a different figure, saying RCV is used statewide in Alaska, Hawaii and Maine. It says RCV is prohibited in Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Under the House committee process, Monday's discussion was the initial hearing of the bill. At the next subcommittee meeting, the bill can be marked up, debated and voted to advance to the full committee.
