Latest news with #HouseBill115
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Winrock hosts event teaching community to live alongside wildlife
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – City officials were down at Winrock Saturday morning, teaching humans the best way to live alongside some of our smaller and wilder neighbors. 'Urban wildlife are the critters that you would often encounter, for example, in your backyard. Like squirrels and bunnies and raccoons and maybe even coyotes. We know there are ways to peacefully coexist with those animals,' says Stacy Sutton-Kerby, chief government affairs officer with Animal Protection Voters. APD is relaunching community safety meetings in Nob Hill Along with learning about the city's wild animals, community members also got to learn about some recent legislation aimed at helping our pets. 'With the passage of House Bill 115, the state set aside $5 million for animal care and animal control providers. I'm talking about our shelters, our rescues, nonprofits that do things like spay/neuter and microchip,' Sutton-Kerby says. Another law passed this session made it easier for law enforcement to go after organized dog and cock-fighting rings. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas lawmakers pass bill to improve state's junk science law
The Brief House lawmakers approved a bill to clarify Texas' junk science law. If approved, low-income defendants would be entitled to an attorney and the Court of Criminal Appeals would be required to issue a written opinion on denied appeals. Critics of Texas' junk science law say that it isn't working as intended with its current language. AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas House on Thursday approved changes to the state's "junk science" law. The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek relief if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. On Thursday, lawmakers advanced a bill that would make changes to the law that were suggested during an out-of-session House committee meeting. What we know Under House Bill 115, low-income defendants would be entitled to an attorney in junk science appeals. The bill would also require the Court of Criminal Appeals to issue a written opinion when a junk science appeal is denied. The bill would also require the court to consider cases that might not meet procedural requirements. A 2024 report from civil rights group Texas Defender Service showed that 38% of appeals to the court citing junk science were rejected on a procedural basis. The bar for granting relief would also be lowered to allow relief if there's a reasonable likelihood that the conviction was based on discredited science. Critics of the law say its current wording essentially forces the convicted person to prove complete innocence. The changes were among those sparked both by the Texas Defender report and the death row case of Robert Roberson. What they're saying "In reality, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's implementation of the statute has shown inconsistency in application, a disregard for discredited scientific methods, a heavy investigative burden for people seeking relief (especially people without counsel), and a striking absence of relief in capital cases—meaning that potentially innocent people will be executed," Texas Defender said in their report. What's next The bill now heads to the Senate, but with the legislative session winding down, it is unknown if it will be heard. Texas lawmakers made headlines in October after they petitioned to delay Roberson's execution, stating the science behind his execution doesn't hold up. Roberson was convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter in Palestine, Texas in 2002. He took her to the emergency room with a high fever, where medical staff determined her condition was consistent with shaken baby syndrome. Roberson's attorneys have challenged that diagnosis, calling it "junk science." They say Nikki died from natural causes, likely undiagnosed pneumonia. A coalition of lawmakers and the lead detective on the case have argued the science supporting Roberson's death sentence doesn't hold up. The Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena on the day before Roberson's scheduled execution on Oct. 17 for the death row inmate to testify at a hearing about his case. The Supreme Court paused the execution that night to review the committee's request. An opinion from the Texas Supreme Court in November said that the committee should be allowed to hear his testimony, as long as a subpoena does not block an inevitable execution. Roberson did not appear at subsequent House committee meetings after the attorney general's office opposed the efforts to bring him to the Capitol building. The Office of the Attorney General told the State Supreme Court that doing so would present security and logistical concerns. Some relatives of the 2-year-old have criticized lawmakers for delaying Roberson's execution. The backstory Texas' junk science law was the first of its kind in 2013 and a model for other states across the country, according to legal experts. California, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming have similar "junk science" statutes, but it has not been studied how successful they are at overturning death penalty convictions. The 2013 law allows a person convicted of a crime to seek relief if the evidence used against them is no longer credible. At the time, it was hailed by the Legislature as a uniquely future-proof solution to wrongful convictions based on faulty science. No one facing execution has had their sentence overturned since the junk science law was enacted in 2013, according to the Texas Defender Service report. In the last 10 years, 74 applications have been filed and ruled on under the junk science law. A third of applications were submitted by people facing the death penalty. All of them were unsuccessful. Of the applications that led to relief, nearly three-quarters were for convictions related to DNA evidence, despite making up less than half of all applications. The Source Information on House Bill 115 comes from the May 14, 2025, House session. Information on Texas' junk science law comes from previous FOX 4 coverage. Information on the rates of granted relief comes from a report by civil rights group Texas Defender Service. Backstory on Robert Roberson comes from previous FOX 4 coverage.
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
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Hampshire House Again Votes to Expand School Voucher Program
This article was originally published in InDepthNH. CONCORD — After voting to cut off debate on the latest Education Freedom Account expansion bill, the House Republican majority approved a bill that would do away with an income cap beginning July 1. Under the bill, there would be a 10,000 student cap on the program that has grown in four years from 1,635 students to about 5,400 students and in cost from $8 million to over $30 million. Currently there is an income cap of 350 percent of the federal poverty level — or $112,525 for a family of four — on the program that would be eliminated next school year under Senate Bill 295, which the House passed Thursday. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter House Bill 115, which is now before the Senate, would eliminate the cap beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, and would have a cap of 400 percent next school year, or $128,600 for a family of four. Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, moved the previous question as the bill came to the floor which cuts off debate on the issue. The House has debated the issue at length this session and in the past, he said. But Rep. Laura Telerski, D-Nashua, opposed the motion saying the issue of school vouchers is extremely important to the public and voters want to hear what their representatives have to say about it, and urged her colleagues to vote against 'the silencing of the debate.' But the House voted 185-155 to cut off debate before it began. Under the bill, if enrollment in the program reaches 90 percent of the student limit, the cap would be increased by 25 percent or to 12,500 the following school year. The bill also sets up a priority system if the cap is reached before the expansion. The priorities would be: 1. Student currently enrolled in the program, 2. Sibling of an enrolled student, 3. Student with disabilities, and 4. Student with family income less than 350 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, tried to amend the bill to require a performance audit currently being done by the Legislative Budget Assistant's Office, be completed and the organization administering the program have 'a clean bill of health' before there could be any expansion of the program. He noted a sample audit several years ago found that 12 out of 50 applications were approved in error by the Children's Scholarship Fund that administers the program. The amendment would force the company to comply with 'The laws and rules we have passed in this body and to take what we are doing seriously,' Luneau said. But House Education Funding Chair Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, called the amendment another trap and delaying tactic to implementing the EFA program, noting no date has been set for the audit's release. And he said most performance audits are 120 pages with many findings that would have to be resolved before the program could be expanded. The amendment was defeated on a 199-165 vote. Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon, urged her colleagues to defeat the bill. '(We should not be) expanding the EFA voucher program to a cost of $100 million when we lack adequate revenues to fund essential needs of New Hampshire citizens, such as Medicaid, the state employee retirement system, affordable housing, and corrections safe staffing,' Damon said. 'We should fund our impressive university system that benefits our economy rather than paying stipends to wealthy families. And most importantly the public statewide has overwhelmingly and repeatedly opposed this Free State marketing scheme.' But Ladd said the program is not a voucher program or a voucher scam and not a recruiting tool for people moving into New Hampshire, but for parents justified in wanting alternatives if their child is struggling, or being bullied or not being challenged in a 'one-size-fits-all situation.' The bill was initially approved on a 188-176 vote and was sent to the House Finance Committee for review before coming back for a final vote. House Bill 115 has had a public hearing before the Senate Education Committee but has yet to come before the Senate for a vote. The House also approved Senate Bill 292 which would establish a floor under state aid for special education costs that exceed three-and-a-half times the average per pupil cost the previous year. School districts have been receiving prorated state reimbursement for those costs under what was the catastrophic aid program that have been about 50 percent of their expenditures. The bill would require that school districts receive at least 80 percent of their special education costs that reach the catastrophic level. The bill was referred to House Finance for review before a final vote is taken on the bill. Garry Rayno may be reached at This article first appeared on and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Just a burden': New Ohio bill looks to eliminate E-Checks
CLEVELAND, Ohio (WJW) – State lawmakers are making a strong push to eliminate the federal requirement for E-Checks for cars four years old or older in seven northeast Ohio counties. Steve Demetriou (R-Bainbridge Township) and Bill Roemer (R-Richfield) recently re-introduced House Bill 115. It calls for drivers to be able to fill out a personal attestation form to confirm their vehicle is in good condition, rather than having to go to an E-check station. 'Tragic loss of life': Cause determined after man, woman, 3 kids found dead in Ohio home The two lawmakers will be continuing on with that standalone bill, which hasn't had a hearing yet, regardless of what happens with House Bill 54. House Bill 54, recently signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine, has the state's transportation budget in it, and part of that budget includes language from HB 115. Rep. Demetriou told Fox 8 that everything that he wanted to accomplish with the bill is also in HB 54, but HB 54 also requires approval from the federal government. If the Environmental Protection Agency deems the personal attestation forms as still meeting its clean air mandate for northeast Ohio, then the E-checks would no longer be required. Either way, Demetriou told Fox 8 they're going to continue to try and find a way to make the E-Check process easier or have it be eliminated it altogether. 'It's just a burden on [people]. It's really not making our air any cleaner or our lives any better, and people generally don't like it when the federal government tells them what to do, especially when it's not making a dent in their lives,' Demetriou said. 'I think between Sen. Bernie Moreno, Sen. Jon Husted, I think with the new administration, this is on people's radars in D.C., and that's really what it's going to take to end E-Check.' Erie County peace officers now allowed to use EpiPens Demetriou added that they asked the Ohio EPA to conduct a study on the effectiveness of E-Checks, but he would argue that making people drive to and from E-Check stations isn't doing anything to help the environment. He's not sure on the timing of when the federal EPA will look into the proposal to end E-Checks in Northeast Ohio. Fox 8 did request comments from the Ohio EPA. In a statement, a spokesperson directed us to their website and said: 'The E-Check program was developed in 1996 to help improve air quality by identifying cars and trucks with high emissions that might need repairs. Ohio EPA will implement and enforce any final changes that are signed into law.' In a statement sent to Fox 8, the director of Case Western Reserve University's School of Law's Environmental Law Clinic, Miranda Leppla, said eliminating E-Check would likely not have a major impact on the environment: 'Eliminating Ohio's E-Check program likely won't have a meaningful environmental impact, one way or the other. While vehicle emissions are a concern, the state's air quality issues are largely driven by coal-fired power plants and industrial pollution. E-check was a costly and inefficient program that placed the burden on individuals, particularly low-income residents, rather than addressing the major sources of pollution. Its removal is unlikely to change much.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
