Latest news with #HouseBill380
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Demand for capital defense attorneys may soon skyrocket in Idaho due to new law
Earlier this year, Idaho legislators passed a bill to allow some cases of lewd conduct with child under age 12 with aggravating circumstances to be punishable by death, despite knowing the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled a similar law unconstitutional. (Getty Images) This story was first published by Idaho Reports on May 9, 2025. Earlier this year, Idaho legislators passed a bill to allow some cases of lewd conduct with child under age 12 with aggravating circumstances to be punishable by death, despite knowing the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled a similar law unconstitutional. The bill did not allocate any additional money for the Idaho State Public Defender's Office. Instead, the fiscal note says the office will have additional expenditures should a defendant be assigned a public defender by the court. This could be a major flaw. The challenge is more about more than just money. It's about meeting what is required by law and agency rules – and when the death penalty is a possible sentence, those requirements are stricter than other criminal defense cases. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitles all criminal defendants to a public attorney if they cannot afford one. But prior state rule and national legal guidance say defendants who are facing the death penalty require more representation. The court grants those defendants a lead counselor and co-counselor, sometimes referred to as the second chair attorney. In 2024, prosecutors filed 382 charges of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 16, according to Idaho Supreme Court data. That doesn't mean all of those led to convictions, and not all of those victims were 12 or younger. Compare that to the 30 first-degree murder charges filed in 2024, according to Idaho Supreme Court data. Until House Bill 380's passage, first-degree murder was the only crime punishable by death in Idaho. Not all 30 of those charges would have been death penalty cases, as some would not have had necessary aggravating circumstances or a plea agreement could have been reached. Still, that's less than one tenth of the charges filed of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 16. Under the Public Defense Commission's now expired rules, any defendant who is charged with a crime that is potentially punishable by death required representation from a 'capital qualified defending attorney.' The new Idaho Office of the Public Defender hasn't yet adopted rules. Capital qualified attorneys have advanced familiarity with the laws around capital mitigation and jury selection methods. They also meet or exceed American Bar Association Guidelines and criminal defense experience. In an April interview with Idaho Reports, State Public Defender Eric Fredericksen said his understanding was that the Public Defense Commission's rules became defunct after his office opened, but added he was not part of that decision-making process. The Public Defense Commission first established rules in 2016 regarding caseloads and training for public defenders after a massive lawsuit, Tucker v. Idaho, found Idaho's public defense system to be insufficient. The lawsuit is what led Idaho to the eventual establishment of a statewide public defense system. Until the Idaho Office of the Public Defender opened in October 2024, individual counties funded public defense. Under the commission's rules, lead counsel in a capital case needed at least 10 years in criminal defense and felony jury experience and have served as lead or co-counsel in at least one tried capital case to verdict, among other requirements. Co-counsel must have at least five years in criminal defense and felony jury experience and have served as lead or co-counsel in at least one tried capital case to verdict, among other requirements. The new Idaho Office of the Public Defender has been following the guidelines of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, but has no formal state rules of its own. Those association guidelines require less criminal defense experience than the state's former rules, but still more than non-capital felony defense standards. A handful of national organizations offer trainings for capital cases, but Fredericksen notes that making the case for life, as it's often referred to by defense attorneys, is different in murder cases than it would be for lewd conduct cases. There's a playbook for defense attorneys in capital murder cases. Having the death penalty on the table for lewd conduct creates a different scenario. Why the extra rules? A person's life is on the line. As of April 23, Idaho had 13 attorneys who are qualified to be lead counsel on a capital case. Five are employees of the State Public Defender's Office and eight are private attorneys. There are an additional 18 Idaho attorneys who qualify to be second chair on a capital case. That means there are only 13 potential lawyers qualified to represent the people charged under the new crime of aggravated lewd conduct with a minor younger than age 12, on top of the other capital cases that may already be on their plates. Prosecutors won't necessarily seek the death penalty as punishment against every person who is charged with lewd conduct with a minor under 12, but the defense attorneys have an obligation to begin preparing as if it were at the time the charge is filing. 'The moment the charge of (aggravated lewd and lascivious) with a minor under 12 is filed, regardless of whether a death notice is filed, we will begin treating it as a death penalty case,' Fredericksen said. 'So, two attorneys will be handling the case, find a mitigation expert, we find an investigator. You have to start that work on Day 1 because the prosecution starts that work on Day 1.' Fredericksen's office remained neutral on the bill. He did write to sponsors Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, chairman of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee, and House Assistant Minority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, on March 14, stating that he did not have data on how many of the victims in cases they represented were 12 or younger, nor did he have data on how many of them had aggravating circumstances. On March 18, the State Appellate Public Defender Erik Lehtinen wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee Chairman Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, and cc'd the bill's co-sponsors and Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee co-chairs Sen. Scott Grow and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, about concerns about the bill's potential impact on his office's budget. Idaho Reports obtained a copy of the letter. The State Appellate Public Defender's Office handles cases post-conviction for appeals. Lehtinen estimated his office would receive, on average, two capital lewd conduct cases a year, in addition to the capital murder case appeals his office already handles. 'I estimate that once the new death penalty scheme fully ramps up, the SAPD would require at least $2,948,000 in additional ongoing funding – a 72.2% increase to the SAPD's current annual appropriation,' wrote Lehtinen in his March 18 letter. That number included 14 new employees, litigation expenses and conflict costs. Lehtinen noted it did not include one-time costs, such as computers for the employees, or paying Idaho State Bar dues. 'This increase in capital cases would require the SAPD to hire at least 14 additional full-time employees in its Capital Litigation Unit: four lead attorneys, four 'second chair' attorneys, two investigators, two mitigation specialists and two administrative assistants or paralegals,' Lehtinen wrote. Fredericksen told Idaho Reports that because public defense is so reactive to what the prosecution does, he couldn't give a fiscal impact estimate. His office has begun accepting applications for attorneys who may have enough experience to become death penalty qualified. But if half of the lewd conduct charges filed in 2024 involved children under age 12, he said, Idaho doesn't have enough public, private, and civil attorneys to handle that case load. The Idaho Legislature approved an $83 million budget for Fredericksen's office for fiscal year 2026. About $32 million of that is an enhancement budget for needed personnel costs, institutional offices in Elmore, Shoshone, Jerome and Benewah counties and more funding for contract attorneys. The budget doesn't specifically single out allocations for more death penalty-qualified attorneys. When the new law goes into effect on July 1, it will create a new crime called 'aggravated lewd conduct under 16' which creates a new mandatory minimum of 25 years for the crime of lewd conduct with a child ages 13 to 15. The option of pursuing the death penalty would be left to the individual county prosecutor in cases where the child is 12 or younger. The crime of lewd conduct with a child under 16 is already punishable by life in prison. The bill outlines a series of 17 aggravating factors that make a suspect eligible for the death penalty, including the victim being kidnapped or trafficked, or the suspect engaging in the act three or more times. If a jury, or the court if a jury is waived, finds two aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and if the death penalty is not sought, the court shall impose a life sentence with a minimum period of no less than 30 years in prison. Public defenders who testified in committee took issue with some of the items listed as aggravating factors, including if the defendant was in 'a position of trust' over the victim because that could be applicable to many sexual assaults of children. Public defenders also objected to including 'force or coercion' as an aggravating factor, as children cannot legally consent, so every case could arguably be 'force or coercion.' In committee, the Idaho Prosecutor's Association supported the list of aggravating circumstances, saying they were based off Florida and Tennessee's laws. 'I think it's fair to say that with the nature of the aggravating factors, a prosecutor could make a decision that just about every case would meet those aggravating factors,' Fredericksen said. 'Right or wrong, they could make the case to move forward with the aggravating factors under the statute.' Idaho legislators passed this law knowing that in the 2008 decision Kennedy v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for non-fatal sex crimes, even if the crime involved brutality and young children. Still, Florida passed a similar law in 2023, but to date, no one has been sentenced to death for child sexual assault. Instead, prosecutors have reached plea agreements with lesser punishments than executions, such as life in prison. Tennessee passed a law similar to Florida's in 2024, but it hasn't yet been used. During the session, Skaug repeatedly called the Idaho bill a 'test case' as the makeup of SCOTUS has changed since 2008. He also believes prosecutors will only use the charge for 'the worst of the worst.' Of the four justices who dissented in Kennedy v. Louisiana, three – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – are still on the bench. None of the five in the 2008 majority are currently serving. Regardless of the current court makeup, if someone is sentenced to death under this new law, it will almost certainly end up challenged in court. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho governor signs into law child sex abuse death penalty bill, despite U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Idaho Gov. Brad Little gives his annual State of the State address on Jan. 6, 2025, on the House floor at the Statehouse in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed into law a bill to make people who sexually abuse young children in Idaho eligible for the death penalty. House Bill 380 will allow the death penalty in a new criminal charge the bill creates: aggravated lewd conduct with children age 12 and younger. The bill also would add mandatory minimum prison sentences for cases of aggravated lewd conduct with minors that don't meet the bill's proposed criteria for death penalty eligibility. The new crime would only apply to abuse of children age 16 and below. Little signed the bill Wednesday morning, according to the governor's office legislation tracker. He told the Idaho Capital Sun in a written statement that he signed the bill 'because heinous sex crimes against children destroy lives, and the perpetrators deserve the ultimate punishment.' The Idaho Legislature widely passed the bill, with only five votes against in the Senate and none in the House. The bill was cosponsored by Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, and over a half dozen other Idaho lawmakers. Skaug has told lawmakers Idaho has some of the nation's most lenient child rape laws. The bill takes effect July 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 blocked death penalties for child rape in Kennedy v. Louisiana. Florida passed a child rape death penantly law two years ago. Last year, Tennesee passed a child rape death penalty law. Idaho will be only state with firing squad as main execution method, after governor signs bill Bracing for a legal challenge to the bill, Skaug told lawmakers he expects the U.S. Supreme Court would rule differently. 'You can say, 'Well, that's unconstitutional, Bruce. Why would you bring that?' Well, it was — according to a 5-4 decision in 2008. I don't think that would be the case today,' Skaug, an attorney, told lawmakers in a House committee hearing. 'That's my professional opinion. That's the opinion of many other attorneys.' The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, or ACLU, strongly opposes the bill. 'Choosing to make this bill law not only demonstrates an arrogant disregard for legal precedent from our country's highest court, but it would also have devastating consequences that victims, their families, and wrongfully convicted people would be unable to reverse,' ACLU of Idaho spokesperson Rebecca De León told the Idaho Capital Sun in a prepared statement. 'This law will vastly increase death penalty prosecutions in Idaho, burdening an already flawed criminal legal system prone to wrongful convictions, inadequate public defense, and racial disparities.' Skaug has said the death penalty would be rarely sought under his bill. Nine people are on death row in Idaho, according to the Idaho Department of Correction. Idaho law only allows the death penalty in first-degree murder cases with aggravating circumstances. Little also recently signed a bill into law that will make the Gem State the only state to use firing squads as its main execution method. Skaug also cosponsored that bill. This year's child sex abuse death penalty bill is Skaug and Tanner's second attempt at such a bill. Last year, another bill they brought widely passed the House but never received a Senate committee hearing. Their new bill that passed will establish the new crime, and mandatory minimums criminal sentences. For instance, the bill's proposed mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated lewd conduct with minors under age 16 would carry at least 25 years in prison. Under the bill, lewd conduct with a minor would include but is not limited to 'genital-genital contact, oral-genital contact, anal-genital contact, oral-anal contact, manual-anal contact, or manual-genital contact' when such acts are meant to arouse, appeal to or gratify 'lust or passions or sexual desires.' CONTACT US The bill outlines more than a dozen aggravating factors under which prosecutors can seek the death penalty. Only three are required to seek the death penalty, which would only be available in cases of aggravated lewd conduct against minors age 12 and younger. Public testimony has been largely supportive of the bill. But in a Senate committee hearing on the bill, David Martinez of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified against the bill, saying at least three of the bill's aggravating factors were already present in almost every lewd conduct case he has handled or supervised. He also argued the bill doesn't focus on 'the worst of the worst,' could potentially expose victims of decades of reliving trauma, and fails to account for Idaho's shortage of qualified death penalty defense attorneys. Holly Rebholtz, representing the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said she disagreed, saying the new aggravated lewd conduct crime wouldn't be charged very often. 'I don't think these crimes are going to come into play very often. But when they do, they are the most serious crimes we see. And again, the prosecutors believe that the most serious crimes against children deserve a serious punishment,' she testified. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Legislature widely approves child sex abuse death penalty bill, sending it to governor
Idaho Gov. Brad Little gives his annual State of the State address on Jan. 6, 2025, on the House floor at the Statehouse in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) A bill to allow the death penalty for adults who sexually abuse children age 12 and younger in Idaho is headed to Idaho Gov. Brad Little for final consideration. House Bill 380, cosponsored by Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa and House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, would allow the death penalty in a new criminal charge the bill creates: aggravated lewd conduct with children age 12 and younger. The bill also would add mandatory minimum prison sentences for cases of aggravated lewd conduct with minors — which would only apply to abuse of children age 16 and below — that don't meet the bill's proposed criteria for death penalty eligibility. The Idaho Legislature widely passed the bill this year. The Idaho Senate passed the bill Monday on a 30-5 vote, with opposition from three Senate Democrats and two Senate Republicans. Last week, the Idaho House unanimously passed the bill, with 63 votes in favor and seven lawmakers absent. When the bill is transmitted to Gov. Brad Little, he has five days, excluding Sundays, to decide on it. He has three options: sign it into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. If passed into law, the bill would take effect July 1. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Skaug has told lawmakers Idaho has some of the nation's most lenient child rape laws. 'Unlike most states, Idaho currently lacks mandatory minimum sentences for these horrific crimes — meaning judges have the discretion to place the worst offenders on probation,' bill cosponsor Sen. Doug Ricks, R-Rexburg, told the Senate on Monday. 'This legislation ensures that those who commit the most severe offenses against children face significant consequences, sending a clear message that Idaho will not tolerate the sexual abuse of minors, especially our children.' Idaho law only allows the death penalty in first-degree murder cases with aggravating circumstances. Idaho Gov. Brad Little recently signed a bill into law that will make the Gem State the only state to use firing squads as its main execution method. Skaug also cosponsored that bill. Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, voted against the death penalty for child sex abuse bill. She said harming a child should carry significant penalties, but she said the bill represents a significant policy shift for Idaho. 'Unfortunately, I only heard from four sources regarding this bill. And that feels very uncomfortable, when I think we need a vigorous and long debate and discussion,' Wintrow said. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 blocked death penalties for child rape in Kennedy v. Louisiana. Florida passed a child rape death penantly law two years ago. Last year, Tennesee passed a child rape death penalty law. Bracing for a legal challenge to the bill, Skaug told lawmakers he expects the U.S. Supreme Court would rule differently. 'You can say, 'Well, that's unconstitutional, Bruce. Why would you bring that?' Well, it was — according to a 5-4 decision in 2008. I don't think that would be the case today,' Skaug, an attorney, told lawmakers in a House committee hearing. 'That's my professional opinion. That's the opinion of many other attorneys.' Skaug has said the death penalty would be rarely sought under his bill. Nine people are on death row in Idaho, according to the Idaho Department of Correction. Public testimony has been largely supportive of the bill. But in a Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee hearing on the bill on Wednesday, David Martinez of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified against the bill, arguing the bill doesn't focus on 'the worst of the worst,' could potentially expose victims of decades of reliving trauma, and fails to account for Idaho's shortage of qualified death penalty defense attorneys. The bill outlines more than a dozen aggravating factors under which prosecutors can seek the death penalty. Only three are required to seek the death penalty, which would only be available in cases of aggravated lewd conduct against minors age 12 and younger. But in almost every lewd conduct case Martinez has handled or supervised, he said at least three of those factors are already present. Using force or coercion is one of the aggravating factors outlined in the bill. But that's inherently present in every lewd conduct case because minors can't consent to the conduct, Martinez said. 'What this bill actually does is subsume the underlying crime, because potentially all (lewd and lascivious cases) will fall under this new statute, and none under the old,' Martinez testified in committee. Holly Rebholtz, representing the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said she disagreed, saying the new aggravated lewd conduct crime wouldn't be charged very often. 'I don't think these crimes are going to come into play very often. But when they do, they are the most serious crimes we see. And again, the prosecutors believe that the most serious crimes against children deserve a serious punishment,' Rebholtz testified. Skaug told the committee that Idaho public defenders were not able to immediately estimate the bill's costs. But in a worst case scenario, Skaug said, there could be two cases each year at a cost of up to a million dollars per case. Sen. Dan Foreman, R-Moscow, a combat veteran and retired police officer, voted against the bill on the Senate floor. He was also one of few Republicans to vote against a bill to make the firing squad the main death penalty method in Idaho. 'I see society starting to go down a dangerous road here. Not just with this bill, but in general — where we are starting to equate revenge with justice. And that's a slippery slope,' Foreman said in a committee hearing last week on the child sex abuse death penalty bill. Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, argued on the Senate floor that the bill isn't about retribution. 'When I look at the types of circumstances that would lead to these charges — and I think about the irreparable and irreversible damage done to a child who then has to live with the consequences of these actions upon them for the rest of their lives — I think this is about accountability and about how we value life,' she said. This year's child sex abuse death penalty bill is Skaug and Tanner's second attempt at such a bill. Last year, another bill they brought widely passed the House but never received a Senate committee hearing. Skaug and Tanner's new bill this year — cosponsored by eight other Idaho lawmakers — would establish the new crime, and mandatory minimums criminal sentences. For instance, the bill's proposed mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated lewd conduct with minors under age 16 would carry at least 25 years in prison. Under the bill, lewd conduct with a minor would include but is not limited to 'genital-genital contact, oral-genital contact, anal-genital contact, oral-anal contact, manual-anal contact, or manual-genital contact' when such acts are meant to arouse, appeal to or gratify 'lust or passions or sexual desires.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paging Miracle Max: A look at the ‘mostly dead' bills with three weeks left
An empty State House lobby in this file photo. The halls are much busier this week as lawmakers power into the last three weeks of the session, but some bills have already passed by the wayside. (File photo by Bruce DePuyt/Maryland Matters) Anybody who knows Annapolis knows very few things are ever really dead before Sine Die. And anybody who's watched 'The Princess Bride' know that there's such a thing as 'mostly dead.' With three weeks left in the session, we present the Miracle Max Report, a list of those mostly dead initiatives we don't have to worry about so much now. Some could still come back — it's not quite time to go through their pockets, looking for loose change — but odds are slim. Some didn't make Monday's 'crossover' date, the deadline by which a bill has to move out of one chamber if it's to be guaranteed a hearing in the other. Some were pulled by their sponsors or have been frowned on by legislative leaders, committee chairs or the governor. Most bills on crossover day are dead by inaction, usually by a committee opting to not bring the bill to a vote or simply not getting around to it before the crucial deadline. That was not the case with House Bill 380, which went through days of contentious debate in the House, only to be killed on the spot when it arrived in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which took all of 10 seconds to vote it down down on the spot on Feb. 28. HB 380 would have removed a criminal penalty on those who sell or offer contraceptives from a vending machine at a kindergarten, nursery school, or elementary or secondary school. Del. Nicole Williams (D-Prince George's) said it was an effort to decriminalize access to contraception, but Republicans had a field day promoting the narrative that the bill would have exposed 5-year-olds and younger to a host of lewd products and scenarios. The House spent days in floor debate before passing the bill 89-41, sending to the Senate, which assigned it to Judicial Proceedings. It didn't last long. 'We all know what this bill does. There is a motion for an unfavorable – is everyone comfortable being recorded in the unfavorable?' Judicial Proceedings Chair Will Smith (D-Montgomery) asked in the opening seconds of the committee voting session. He quickly got a second. 'All right. We have disposed of House Bill 380 unanimously,' Smith said, before moving on to the rest of the voting list. HB380 did not even get a hearing before the committee killed it. With no Senate version of the bill, the legislation was dead long before crossover. Supporters of the For Our Kids Act said it would provide $500 million in a tight budget to fund school lunches, child care scholarships and the state's general fund, all while improving public health by 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks, syrups and powders. Opponents saw that as just so much sugar-coating on a tax on soft drinks. House Bill 1469, sponsored by Dels. Emily Shetty (D-Montgomery) and Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Prince George's and Anne Arundel), was modeled on a 2017 Philadephia law that raised more than $400 million in fiscal 2022. Similar laws have been adopted in Seattle, Boulder, Colorado, and Berkeley, California. Maryland would have been the first state to adopt such a law if the bill passed. The bill would have taxed distributors of sweetened drinks by the ounce; sweetening powders and syrups would have been taxed based on the ounces of drink each container could produce. The bill included language to increase the tax rate annually, based on inflation. But it ran into fierce opposition from business owners, who packed a March 7 hearing to complain about the bill that they said would hurt retailers and cost people jobs. It probably didn't help that some skeptical lawmakers were enjoying a soft drink during the hearing. If there were any doubts about the bill's future, Gov. Wes Moore (D) put them to rest Monday during remarks about ongoing budget negotiations. 'There are a few things that will not be included inside of that final budget,' Moore said. 'We've got to bring down the cost of what people are seeing inside of the grocery stores in the markets, and that's why things like the soda tax will not happen in the state of Maryland, and the soda tax will not be included in the final budget.' The governor's comments also affected another bill's odds, though this one didn't turn out quite the way he liked. For years, lawmakers have tried unsuccessfully to expand beer and wine sales in the state to other retailers, like grocery stores. Maryland is one of only a handful of states that do not allow those sales. Supporters of expansion thought this would be their year, after Moore in December said the he supported the proposal, something he said voters across the state have been asking for. While he did not make it part of his legislative package, he said he expected a bill 'on my desk at the end of the session.' That buoyed the bill's backers, but left many legislators unmoved. Supporters cited polls that show the concept is widely popular among consumers in the state. Besides providing choice for consumers, they said the change would create jobs and could ease the problem of food deserts by giving groceries the margins they need to move into underserved neighborhoods. But critic said expanding alcohol availability would burden communities that already suffer from a disproportionate number of liquor stores. They also said it would be a death sentence for mom-and-pop liquor stores that would not be able to compete with prices big retailers and grocery chains were likely to offer. Senate Bill 824 was up for a vote in the Senate Finance Committee on March 5 when it was pulled back at the last second by its sponsor, Sen. Cory McCray (D-Baltimore City), when it became clear there were not enough votes on committee to pass the bill. He withdrew the bill entirely five days later. A similar bill in the House, House Bill 1379, got a committee hearing on. Feb. 17, but has not moved since. Contested races for circuit court judge in Maryland will continue, at least for the foreseeable future. Senate Judicial Proceedings Chair William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery) said last week that there were not enough votes on the committee to pass Senate Bill 630, which would have asked voters next year if they wanted to amend the state Constitution to eliminate contested judicial elections. A companion bill, House Bill 778, never got a vote in the House Judiciary Committee. District court judges in Maryland serve 10 year terms, while appellate judges serve 10 years and then run for reelection base on their records, but do not face challengers. Circuit judges, however, have to stand for reelection every 15 years, but can be challenged by other candidates. The Maryland Judicial Conference requested legislation to ask voters next year whether they want to change the current system for circuit judges stand for reelection. Critics say the current system puts circuit judges in the potentially unethical position of having to raise funds and curry favor with people whose cases they may be called on to judge. But supporters say that by opening elections up to challengers, the current system allows for a more diverse, and representative, bench than might occur in uncontested elections. Dozens of bills to make the change have been introduced and have failed since the 1980s. This year's attempt is apparently no different. Supporters, such as Montgomery County Circuit Judge Kathleen Dumais, a former legislator, said they plan to keep the discussion going. The Judicial Proceedings Committee is still at an 'impasse' about a bill that would usher in Good Cause evictions for participating counties, meaning its chance of moving out of committee this year is nearing zero. Committee Chair William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery) indicated last week the bill was struggling to get enough support from committee members and said the committee was 'running out of time' to push it through by crossover. The outlook had not changed over the weekend, Smith noted Monday, meaning the bill would need significant interventions to pick up momentum at this juncture. Senate Bill 651 would let jurisdictions to adopt 'good cause eviction' policies, which require a landlord to cite a specific reason to not renew a lease with a current tenant. Last week, advocates learned that the committee was considering an amendment to limit counties to either Good Cause evictions or rent-stabilization efforts in their local renters' policies — they could not have both — which some advocates considered to be a 'poison pill' amendment to the legislation. Similar legislation passed the House last year, but died in Smith's committee. The House is unlikely to move House Bill 709 knowing the bill would likely get stuck on the Senate side. The Judicial Proceedings Committee will also be the hurdle for medical aid-in-dying legislation, as the chair gave a quick signal that the End-of-Life Options Act would be short on votes in his committee this year, as in previuoe=e too. 'The votes aren't there. Not in committee and not on the floor,' Senate Judicial Proceedings Chairman William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery) said March 4. His comments came just hours after a joint hearing by the House Judiciary and the Government and Operations committees on House Bill 1328, the End-of-Life Option Act, which would let certain terminally ill patients request medical aid in dying with the help of a physician. Senate Bill 926 never even received a bill hearing in Judicial Proceedings, despite Smith sponsoring the legislation. That's how certain its outlooks is this year. For the past couple years, Maryland lawmakers have been adding 'shield laws' for physicians who provide certain medical procedures that may be outlawed in other states. So far, abortion and gender-affirming care are considered 'legally protected health care' under Maryland law, meaning that the state will protect information on out-of-state patients who receive that care in Maryland, as well as the physicians who provide that care. SB1 was poised to continue the streak to include in vitro fertilization under those shield laws, amid fears that some IVF treatments would be restricted in other states. But it never received a bill hearing. The bill was initially scheduled for a hearing on Jan. 23, which was canceled and never got put back on the calendar. That was on purpose, said bill sponsor Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D- Montgomery). 'I asked that this bill not move forward this year,' Waldstreicher said in a recent text message. 'Protecting IVF is deeply personal for me, but the shifting attacks on reproductive freedom by the Trump Administration makes drafting difficult. We will return next year with more clarity and tighter language.' The bill does not have a House version, so without Waldstreicher leading the effort on the legislation this year, it's not going anywhere. Some routine traffic stops by police officers will remain a go. Senate Bill 292 sponsored by Sen. Charles Sydnor III (D-Baltimore County) sought to reclassify some primary traffic offenses as secondary, reducing the ability of police to pull a driver over. Some of those primary offenses include excessive noise, failure to illuminate a license plate and driving without a functioning headlight, brake light or taillight. A House version is sponsored by Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County). Law enforcement officials said at a Jan. 28 hearing before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee that the measure would make their jobs harder and decrease public safety. Sydnor, Public Defender Natasha Dartigue, Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) and other supporters said the measure would increase public safety for motorists and police officers. The also pointed data from the Governor's Office of Crime Prevention and Policy that showed Blacks accounted for 32% of the population, but 43% of the nearly 428,300 vehicle traffic stops in the state in 2023. White motorists, by comparison, made up 57% of the state population that year but accounted for 39% of all traffic stops. 'The data is there. It's there for everyone to see,' Sydnor said. 'The problem hasn't gone away just because the bill doesn't pass. I suspect that me and Del. N. Scott Phillips will look and see what's the best ways to go forward.'
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho House unanimously passes child sex abuse death penalty bill
Members of the Idaho House of Representatives hold a floor session on March 10, 2025, at the Idaho Capitol Building in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) The Idaho House on Monday unanimously passed a bill to allow the death penalty for adults who sexually abuse children age 12 and younger in Idaho. Similar to his bill that stalled last year, House Bill 380, cosponsored by Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, would allow the death penalty in a new criminal charge the bill creates: aggravated lewd conduct with children age 12 and younger. Skaug's bill also would add mandatory minimum prison sentences for cases of aggravated lewd conduct with minors — which would only apply to abuse of children age 16 and below — that don't meet the bill's proposed criteria for death penalty eligibility. 'Unfortunately, Idaho has some of the widest or most lenient statutes on rape of a child in the nation,' Skaug told House lawmakers. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 blocked death penalties for child rape in Kennedy v. Louisiana. Florida passed a child rape death penantly law two years ago. Five other states are considering child rape death penalty bills, Skaug said. He said the death penalty would be rarely sought under his bill. Nine people are on death row in Idaho, according to the Idaho Department of Correction. Bracing for a legal challenge to the bill, Skaug told lawmakers in committee he expects the U.S. Supreme Court would rule differently. 'You can say, 'Well, that's unconstitutional, Bruce. Why would you bring that?' Well, it was — according to a 5-4 decision in 2008. I don't think that would be the case today,' Skaug, an attorney, told lawmakers on the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee last week. 'That's my professional opinion. That's the opinion of many other attorneys.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The Idaho House passed the new bill on Monday with 63 votes in favor and no votes against. No lawmaker debated against the bill on the House floor. To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto. Idaho law only allows the death penalty in first-degree murder cases with aggravating circumstances. Last week, Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed a bill into law that will make the Gem State the only state to use firing squads as its main execution method. Skaug also cosponsored that bill. Seven lawmakers were absent for the child sex abuse death penalty bill's floor vote — including four of the nine House Democrats, including House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel and Rep. Chris Mathias, both from Boise, who opposed advancing the bill in committee last week. The five House Democrats present for Monday's House floor vote all voted in support of the bill. House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, another cosponsor of the child sex abuse death penalty bill, said the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong. 'Reading back through that Supreme Court case, it shocked me that they could get it so wrong — that you could rape an 8-year-old girl in a way that she had to have massive surgery just to just to get by from the aspect of the physical damage, let alone the mental, emotional damage that they deal with for decades after this,' Tanner told House lawmakers. 'But I don't think this is necessarily a good bill. I think this is just a necessary bill that we have to do to protect the children of this great state.' Rep. John Shirts, R-Weiser, a prosecutor in the Air Force Reserve, said 'there are things that are so horrific that people do to children there's nothing more than ultimate punishment that is just.' And he suggested Idaho's bill would help the court re-evaluate the issue. 'Some people might argue that this doesn't have any binding on the court. It really does,' Shirt said. 'It shows what our will, what the state's will, in these types of cases, are. It goes to that national consensus analysis under the Eight Amendment.' This year's child sex abuse death penalty bill is Skaug and Tanner's second attempt at such a bill. Last year, another bill they brought widely passed the House but never received a Senate committee hearing. Skaug and Tanner's new bill this year — cosponsored by eight other Idaho lawmakers — would establish the new crime, and mandatory minimums criminal sentences. For instance, the bill's proposed mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated lewd conduct with minors under age 16 would carry at least 25 years in prison. Under the bill, lewd conduct with a minor would include but is not limited to 'geital-genital contact, oral-genital contact, anal-genital contact, oral-anal contact, manual-anal contact, or manual-genital contact' when such acts are meant to arouse, appeal to or gratify 'lust or passions or sexual desires.' Lewd conduct against minors age 12 and younger would only be eligible for the death penalty if cases involve at least three aggravating factors. The bill spells out more than a dozen aggravating factors, including already being found guilty of a crime that requires sex offender registration, committing lewd conduct against the same victim at least three separate times, being in a position of trust or having 'supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim,' penetration with a penis, kidnapping, human trafficking the child, torture, using force or coercion, and being armed with a weapon. Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, was among 10 House Democrats who voted against the bill in the House last year. But he was the first lawmaker to debate in favor of the bill on the House floor Monday. 'I see this as a kid's bill,' Gannon said on the House floor. 'And I see it as being extremely important — that those who have that proclivity now, today, go get your help, stay away from kids, and let's not have to ever use this bill — because you did the right thing and took care of the issue that you have.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
