Latest news with #HB451
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
To understand today's New Hampshire Legislature, consider the paint can bill
"Our state Legislature isn't exactly known for an abundance of impactful, no-brainer bills, but House Bill 451 is one of them." (Getty Images) If nothing else, modern American politics has taught us that ideologues are often good at wooing the people but they always stink at serving them. And that truism is on full display at the state level, too. Consider, for example, the saga of New Hampshire's paint can bill. Our state Legislature isn't exactly known for an abundance of impactful, no-brainer bills, but House Bill 451 is one of them. The point of the bipartisan — if you can believe it — legislation is to help residents and businesses recycle paint cans and keep the environmentally unfriendly contents of those cans out of our landfills. I'm not sure I've ever seen a basement or garage in New Hampshire that wasn't bulging with old paint cans — often bequeathed by previous owners — so for that reason alone my citizen homeowner vote would be a resounding, 'Yes, please!' But the unceasing proliferation of cans is only part of it: A lot of paint contains PFAS — the harmful 'forever chemicals' linked to cancer, liver damage, and other health problems — and New Hampshire should be doing everything in its power to, you know, not poison people for eternity. If preferring that families not get sick from industrial chemicals seems too 'woke,' let me spin it another way: Cleanup of bad stuff is more expensive than not dumping the bad stuff to begin with. For their own good reasons, House members were sold on the efficacy of the recycling legislation and passed it on a voice vote. So of course the Senate would get behind HB 451, too — right? — and maybe even whistle a little bit while dropping it on the governor's desk. Well, no. This is New Hampshire after all, and that means you can always count on a hefty segment of the Legislature stepping forward at some point to proclaim — through action or inaction — that their allegiance is to an ideology not, silly goose, the well-being of the people who elected them. But before I get to the heart of the bewildering opposition, which led to the bill being referred back to committee and most likely punted to the fall, it's important to understand how the program established by the bill would work. Amateur and professional home remodelers would take their paint cans to their local participating retailer, who would accept them at no cost. Those same retailers could then arrange with PaintCare, the American Coatings Association's nonprofit that already operates the program in 10 states, to pick up the collected cans. To pay for the program, a fee would be added to new paint cans, ranging from 30 cents to $2.45 depending on the can's size. So, for one of those 5-gallon cans of interior paint that sell for $100 or more, we're talking a couple bucks added to the total cost. I know, I know — a buck's a buck and nobody wants to pay more than they have to. But what does that little extra get you in the end? For starters, a place for that soon-to-be forgotten container other than the corner of your garage. Also, the not-poisoning-people-forever thing. To call this bill bipartisan doesn't do it justice. Here's a partial list of the strange bedfellows who also see HB 451 as a slam-dunk: Casella Waste Systems, the Conservation Law Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Aubuchon Hardware, and the Business and Industry Association. Oh, and the paint manufacturers themselves. And here's the list of people who oppose it: Libertarian lawmakers who, if they close one eye and squint with the other, see an evil tax rather than a clear solution that everybody who has willingly chosen to exist near other people should be able to live with. Among the opponents is Sen. Victoria Sullivan, a Manchester Republican who presumably arrives at the State House on session days via public roads paved and maintained thanks to funds we all contribute. But here's what she said of this no-brainer bill: It's 'a tax on every single can of paint that is purchased,' and 'the same paint tax that we've been fighting for years.' Jeez, really? A tax? Not a refreshing agreement of responsibility between an industry and its consumers? That's some pretty hardcore adherence to a misanthropic philosophy about personal freedom, isn't it? I guess if you ask New Hampshire Senate Republicans, the old poet John Donne had it all wrong: Everybody is an island. I understand that America is at a complicated moment in its political history, where the ruling party's most favored policies carry the taste of retribution against imagined enemies. But punting a sensible bill just because it veers from a rigid ideological blueprint doesn't look like governing to me. It looks like a newly popular brand of inflexibility that's wholly incompatible with public service.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
After weeks of division, Utah legislative leaders announce deal with judiciary
Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant speaks to a joint session of the House and Senate at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) A deal has been struck to solve one of the most contentious issues of the Utah Legislature's 2025 session. After weeks of outcry from Utah's legal community that Utah lawmakers were going too far by exerting their influence over the state's judicial branch of government, the state's top legislative leaders on Monday announced a compromise. Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, issued a prepared statement Monday saying an 'agreement' had been reached with the judiciary on a suite of bills that the Utah State Bar and other legal professionals rallied against last week, describing it as legislative overreach. The top Republican leaders said three controversial proposals 'will not proceed through the legislative process at this time.' They include: HB512, which would give legislators a say in judicial retention elections. HB451, which would require a justice or judge to receive at least 67% of the vote to be retained. An unnumbered but not yet publicly drafted bill by House Majority Leader Jefferson Moss, R-Saratoga Springs, that would increase the number of justices on the Utah Supreme Court. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX However, Adams and Schultz said four other bills — including SB296, which would give the governor and the Senate control over picking the Utah Supreme Court's next chief justice, and three others sponsored by Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland (SB203, SB204, and SJR9) — 'will continue to be considered and debated by the Legislature, with a position of neutrality from the Judicial Council.' 'Our system of government was designed to ensure that each branch operates independently, yet also relies on one another to function effectively,' Adams and Schultz said. 'At times, this dynamic creates natural and necessary friction between branches. However, we firmly believe that healthy debate and reform do not undermine democracy — they strengthen it.' Adams and Schultz said their aim is to 'preserve this legacy of excellence while improving transparency, efficiency and integrity within our courts.' Utah Senate passes bill to give governor, Senate control over picking Supreme Court chief justice 'The proposed changes are procedural updates, not an attack on the Judiciary,' the two legislative leaders added. 'The Utah Constitution entrusts the Legislature with a broad range of responsibilities in shaping the justice system — including creating courts, determining the number of justices, setting forth how a chief justice is chosen, setting up the nominating commissions for judges, confirming judges and setting retention elections, among others. These actions are not overreach; they are the Legislature fulfilling its constitutional duties.' The deal comes after Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant came to the Utah Capitol last week to meet personally with Adams and Schultz. He hand-delivered a letter that outlined Durrant's concerns with legislative efforts that could potentially undermine the 'independence and integrity' of the judiciary, but he only specifically called out one bill: HB512, sponsored by House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield. The previous day, more than 900 Utah attorneys signed on to a letter calling on the Utah Legislature to reject all of the bills. Durrant's letter did not specifically mention SB296, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, but in a Judicial Council meeting on Monday last week, both he and Justice Paige Petersen expressed concerns. That day, Justice Paige Petersen urged 'kill this silly bill.' Utah chief justice delivers letter to lawmakers to oppose bill threatening judicial independence 'There's absolutely no reason for (the governor and the Senate) to be meddling in how we pick the chief justice,' she said, urging her colleagues to take a public position to oppose the bill. Michael Drechsel, assistant state court administrator at the Administrative Office of the Courts, told a Senate committee last week the judiciary opposed Wilson's bill, expressing concern that it would be an 'unwise use' of legislative authority. However, on Monday, Drechsel did not comment on SB296 in a House committee hearing, but Ron Gordon, the state court administrator, issued a news release later in the afternoon confirming the Judicial Council 'will take a neutral position' on SB296. In order to address concerns with the other bill, Lisonbee's HB512, 'the Judicial Council and the Legislature have engaged in discussions over the last several days and have found a mutually agreeable path forward,' the news release stated. 'The Utah Constitution wisely created three independent branches of government,' Durrant said in a prepared statement included in that release. 'At times, there is tension, but that will not prevent the Judiciary and the Legislature from working together to serve the people of Utah.' The news release added that the judiciary 'remains committed to working with the Legislature' to address several issues that lawmakers have grappled with during the 2025 session, including 'judicial performance standards and judicial retention in a way that provides information necessary for voters to make informed decisions; and the Judiciary's ability to operate as an independent branch of government.' Despite experts' warnings, bill to give Utah lawmakers a say in judge elections advances The Utah State Bar — which previously opposed HB512 and SB296, along with previous versions of Brammer's bills — also issued a statement applauding the deal between legislative leaders and the judiciary after what it described as a 'tumultuous legislative session.' 'The Bar is supportive of the Court's agreement,' the Bar said, also expressing 'relief' and gratitude that lawmakers withdrew from HB512, Lisonbee's bill to create a legislative committee that would allow legislators to offer recommendations directly on the ballot as to whether voters should retain or not retain judges. 'The withdrawal of HB512 preserves the independence of the judiciary and maintains the Constitution's separation of powers between our co-equal branches of government,' the Bar said. While it previously opposed SB296, given the Judicial Council's shift of position, the Bar said it 'will also take a neutral position on this bill.' 'A broad attack': Utah's judiciary fights bills threatening its independence 'The Bar wishes to thank the lawyers and law firms who put in so much time and effort to speak with legislators, write letters, hold press conferences, and conduct legislative meetings to express support for an independent judiciary,' the Bar said, also thanking its commissioners and governmental relations committee for their work — as well as specifically applauding Durrant, Dreschel and other court leadership. 'Legislators listened, and combined efforts made a difference,' the Bar said. Specifically, the Bar also thanked Brammer, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, Lisonbee, legislative leadership, and other 'lawyer legislators who worked behind the scenes to find resolution.' 'The Bar is looking forward to facilitating any committees or work groups that are created to reach the goal that allows the branches to promote judicial access and assist the Courts in being able to be efficient and productive,' the Bar added. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Axios
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Utah legal community warns against bills targeting judiciary
A coalition of legal professionals spoke out Wednesday outside the state Capitol against a series of proposed reforms aimed at the judicial branch. State of play: The proposals follow Republicans' frustrations with the Utah Supreme Court after facing myriad legal setbacks in the past four years. Zoom in: The legal community has expressed profound concern about the following bills: HB 512, sponsored by Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee (R-Clearfield), would create a committee made up of state lawmakers that would evaluate and recommend judges for retention. Those recommendations would appear on the ballot during retention elections. In a statement, the Utah State Bar said the new committee would override the work the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission already does and would "inject politics" into the judicial system. HB 451, sponsored by Rep. Jason Kyle (R-Huntsville), would require judges to receive 67% of votes to be retained rather than a simple majority. Chris Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who ran as a Democratic candidate in the 2020 gubernatorial race, said both bills would create a "dangerous incentive for judges to no longer decide cases without fear or favor." What they're saying: "Simply put, these bills are coordinated efforts to weaken the judiciary and remove critical checks on government power that should concern every Utahn," said Kristy Kimball, chair of the Health Law Section of the Utah State Bar Association. Between the lines: Utah Supreme Court justices appear to agree, with Chief Justice Matthew Durant, in a rare rebuke, calling the package of bills "a broad attack on the independence of the judiciary," during a public meeting this week, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. The other side: In response, during a Tuesday news conference, Senate President Stuart Adams said, "We're just trying to make good policy," and said he was open to input. The intrigue: After 20 years in politics, Sen. Daniel Thatcher (R-West Valley City), known for voting against hotly contested bills from his own party, said he's never seen the judiciary weigh in to this degree on any issue. "It's unprecedented," said Kent Davis, an attorney and former prosecutor. The latest: About 900 Utah Bar members, former judges and legal professionals have signed on to a letter to the state legislators, calling on them to reject the bills.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legal professionals protest against bills that seek to reshape Utah's judicial branch
SALT LAKE CITY () — Several bills proposed in the 2025 legislative session are looking to reshape Utah's judicial branch — but hundreds of attorneys, judges, and legal professionals gathered on Wednesday to say that would be attacking the separation of powers. More than 900 attorneys across the Beehive State signed a letter urging lawmakers to reject a handful of different efforts to reform the judiciary. LEARN MORE: 7 key ways the Utah legislature could change the judiciary 'S.B. 203 and SJR 9 will make it harder for Utahns to challenge unconstitutional laws, stripping away one of the few tools that everyday people in Utah have to hold their government accountable,' one protester said. 'We have a good judiciary,' Rep. Grant Amjad Miller (D – Salt Lake City) said. 'We shouldn't change it. We should keep it.' The bills they were opposing range from the makeup of the state's Supreme Court to setting up a process for lawmakers to make retention recommendations for judges on the ballot. 'The legislature has an important role to serve — that role is in making laws, not in telling each of us how to vote in judicial retention elections,' University of Utah law professor Christopher Peterson said. State Sen. Daniel Thatcher (R) said he has never seen the judicial branch weigh in on legislation. Senate leaders say it is within their constitutional right to change the judiciary, arguing that changes are about the best policy — and an effort to speed up the judicial process. Legal professionals who signed the letter and protested at the State Capitol voiced their disapproval of the following bills and resolutions: , 'Boards and Commissions Revisions,' and , 'Judicial retention changes.' , 'Judicial Election Amendments.' , 'Judicial Standing Amendments.' , 'Legislative Audit Amendments,' and , 'Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence.' , 'Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions' , 'Judicial Amendments.' , 'Right to Appeal Amendments.' has previously discussed some , including changes that could come from HB 512, HB 451, SB 203, SJR 009, SB 296, and SB 204. A more is also available on Protesters on Wednesday called to 'keep politics out of the courtroom.' HB 412 would amend several sections of the Utah Code and change requirements for limiting members of a political party to be on 'certain boards, commissions, committees, and councils.' The language of the bill suggests removing constraints to control how many members of a political party may be on a commission. HB 512 sets up the 'Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance,' outlines its makeup, and directs the Lt. Governor's office to put 'any retention recommendation from the (committee) for a judge or justice who is listed on the ballot.' HB 451 would raise the threshold for a judge to be retained. According to the language in the bill, it proposes requiring judges to receive at least 67% of the vote to retain their office. However, opponents argue that the bill would create 'extra barriers' to prevent some judges from keeping their positions. SB 203 looks to (people different from the plaintiff) and add requirements for when an association can bring a case on behalf of its members. Critics argue this would make it harder for 'everyday Utahns' to challenge laws. SB 154 seeks to make changes related to the disclosure of confidential information. The bill proposes, in part, that the disclosure of confidential information would be authorized if requested by the legislative auditor. Refusal to disclose a 'privileged item' would require a written statement explaining why that information was withheld. The passage of SB 154 is attached to the passage of SJR 004 — if SJR 004 does not pass, SB 154 would not be enacted. SJR 004 seeks to make amends to several rules of civil procedure, including (but not limited to) attorney-client privilege and waiving that privilege in relation to a legislative audit. SJR 009 would put a 28-day stipulation on parties challenging potentially unconstitutional laws and seeking an injunction. They would need to do so within 28 days from the time the legislature adjourns. 'By limiting this timeframe, it makes it harder for citizens to fight back against unfair laws,' opponents argue. SB 296 would allow vacancies in the high court and court of appeals to be filled by appointment of the Governor and confirmation by the Senate — a process used now to confirm each of Utah's judges. Opponents argue the bill 'allows politics to dictate court leadership.' SB 204 would allow defendants to appeal an injunction when a trial court rules that a law must be paused or not enacted because it's potentially unconstitutional. Sen. Brady Brammer (R – Pleasant Grove) has previously told this proposal aims to address the 'overuse' of injunctions in lower courts, particularly on laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Derick Fox contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
