Latest news with #SB204
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Proposal to let schools opt in to expanded meal assistance gets bipartisan support
The legislation passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote, but it has received a tougher reception in the House. (Getty Images) The Merrimack School District has long maintained a breakfast program for high school students: $2 per meal, with discounts for lower-income students. And after the district recently extended the program to its middle school, the effects were immediately apparent, Kaitlyn Bernier says. 'We have seen test scores improve (after) the breakfast (program) just at that middle school,' Bernier, a member of the school district's budget committee, said in testimony to lawmakers last week. One bill this year would allow the school district to extend those discounts to more students. After years of debate among New Hampshire lawmakers over legislation to boost school meal assistance for low-income public school students, legislation to do so is moving forward with bipartisan support — at least in the state Senate. Senate Bill 204 would allow school boards to vote to raise the eligibility level for free and reduced-price lunches to 200% of the federal poverty level, up from the current 185% cap. Currently, the National School Lunch Program allows students from families making up to 130% of the federal poverty level — $41,795 for a family of four — to pay nothing for school lunches, and those from families making between 130% and 185% — $59,488 for a family of four — to pay no more than 40 cents per lunch. SB 204 would allow school boards to extend that second category up to 200%. And those school districts that chose to expand would also be required to offer online and physical applications to the free and reduced-price lunch program. The legislation passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote, but it has received a tougher reception in the House, as Republicans on the House Education Funding Committee have voiced skepticism that school meal access is as big a problem as advocates say. 'Are you familiar with any situations where a child is not given the breakfast or lunch in school because they are unable to pay?' asked Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller, a Windham Republican, speaking to Sen. Donovan Fenton, a Keene Democrat who sponsored the legislation, during a hearing on the bill. Fenton said while he didn't know of a student that was refused a meal, some school districts provide cold food options to children whose parents have school lunch debt. Others choose not to create consequences, but the meal debt still affects them, Fenton said. 'What we are finding out is that schools are trying to pay no matter what for these meals, oftentimes going into massive amounts of debt that we pick up the tab for: the state,' Fenton said. 'And if we have a program that is an opt-in program where the taxpayers aren't burdened with this, I think that would help tremendously.' Rep. Dan McGuire, an Epsom Republican, noted that the Legislature is increasing state funding to schools despite enrollment dropping. 'What we just passed in our House budget was more money — not just per pupil, but total dollars — for education than ever before,' he said. The cost of SB 204's proposed expansion would be split by the state and local taxpayers. In the existing national program, the federal government reimburses schools for a certain amount for students whose families make up to 185% of the federal poverty level — but no higher. Under SB 204, for those school districts that choose to expand to 200%, the state would pay half the additional cost and the school districts would pay the other half. The bill sets aside $250,000 for the first fiscal year for the Department of Education to distribute money to school districts, as well as another $107,000 to cover administrative costs for the department to help set up online applications. Fenton, who introduced the bill with Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican, said the bill is necessary to help more families avoid school lunch debt — and to help more students obtain more nutritious meals. 'We want to ensure that no child goes hungry in school,' he said. 'We recognize that well-nourished students are better learners, and that investing in them today leads to a stronger workforce and economy tomorrow.' The legislation comes a year after Democrats and some Republicans attempted to pass a bill that would increase eligibility for reduced-price lunches to 300% across all school districts. That legislation, House Bill 572, passed the House but was tabled by the Senate. This time, lawmakers are proposing to make it voluntary for each school district, Fenton noted. 'This is an opt-in program that allows communities to decide what is best for their students, while offering a cost-sharing structure that ensures neither the state nor local school districts bear the full financial weight,' Fenton said. New Hampshire Hunger Solutions, an advocacy group that has supported a number of bills to expand school lunch services in schools, endorsed the bill, arguing there are more children showing up to school hungry than may be known. 'I was at Somersworth Middle School: I popped into the (nurse's office) and I asked her if she was tracking hunger visits,' said Riona Corr, deputy director of the organization. 'It was 9:30 in the morning. I asked her how many kids came in because they were hungry. There was nine.' Corr said the nurse at Somersworth High School that day told her the number was 15. 'Our kids are hungry, and we're listening to the constituents within the schools and hearing what they need,' Corr said. 'We're not here to ask for solutions. We actually do have a solution.' But some Republicans have raised concerns about the cost of increasing the program to local taxpayers — even if the expansion option were voluntary. Rep. Riché Colcombe, a Hillsborough Republican, asked about the need for lower-cost options for breakfast. 'I understand the part about lunch, but I don't understand the part about breakfast,' Colcombe said. 'I've always been fed breakfast before or eaten breakfast before I left the house, so as a child, I had breakfast before school started.' 'I think that's amazing that you had breakfast,' Fenton replied. 'The problem here is that a lot of children aren't having those meals.' Bernier agreed, arguing that malnutrition and food insecurity do exist for children in New Hampshire. 'There's a lot of people that might not have that privilege to be able to have breakfast at home with their family beforehand,' Bernier said. 'Their parents might not have that money. They might be given a Pop Tart that was expired from the food pantry of their community that they're trying to put together because they're just trying to do what they can to give a child something, and what they could really benefit from is a more nutritious meal that our schools are trying to help provide.'
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Utah Legislature's attack on judiciary is part of a dangerous trend to violate checks and balances
Utah's judicial system is under attack. A series of bills seeks to expand the power of government, weaken the ability of everyday Utahns to challenge government overreach and stretch thin our state's legal norms. In proposing these bills, some members of the Utah Legislature appear all too ready to participate in the newest political trend — caring little for future ramifications and delighting in chipping away at the checks and balances of the judicial branch. No matter how trendy, these efforts must be opposed. SB203 significantly limits how groups can challenge harmful laws passed by the legislative branch. SJR9 needlessly narrows the window for plaintiffs to file suit to challenge an unconstitutional law, while SB204 creates special rules that make it easier for the Legislature to appeal a ruling against them. HB412 would eliminate a requirement that boards and commissions with oversight of the judiciary be bipartisan. HB512 and HB451 would increase opportunities for politicians to add their own nominees to the judiciary and make retention of qualified judges on the bench more difficult for voters, unnecessarily introducing party politics into and elevating the voices of partisan lawmakers in the judicial retention process. SB296 would inexplicably insert both the executive and legislative branches into the affairs of the Utah Supreme Court, encouraging more, rather than less, political interference into a branch of government that should be independent. So many bills with a direct impact on the judiciary and its role in limiting legislative power have been proposed this session, it is difficult to view it as a coincidence. Coordinated effort or not, the result is a slicing away of one check or balance after another that, when taken together, will blunt the protections of Utah's constitution. Several of the preceding bills are on such shaky constitutional ground that they will almost certainly face lengthy legal challenges. These legal battles will cost taxpayers money unnecessarily, and, even if the laws survive challenge, none of these bills will have an upside for anyone living in the Beehive State beyond elected officials looking to expand their influence on judges, avoid accountability or skirt our state's constitution. Alarmingly, these bills are not locally driven responses to isolated policies in need of fixing. Instead, they appear to be targeted retaliation against previous efforts by Utahns to assert their constitutional rights and oppose government overreach. After Utah courts acted to protect the people's rights, the Legislature has responded by attempting to insulate themselves from anyone who would check their power. And the backlash is not subtle. These bills, taken together, would result in weakening the judiciary's ability to check the executive and legislative power balance, opening the door for lawmakers to more easily pass unconstitutional and unpopular laws with no consequences. The Utah State Bar has rightly come out in opposition to the majority of these proposed bills, and lawyers and non-lawyers in the state should share its concern. More critically, members of the Utah Legislature should remember that the job they have been elected to do is to preserve the power of the people, not increase their own. We must resist this political trend of expanding one branch of government at the expense of the judicial branch within the borders of our own state or it will become the norm. The norm will numb us, resulting in a system and set of laws biased toward a select few. Judicial norms and constitutional processes have never been flashy or trendy — but that is exactly why they must be preserved; these norms and processes will preserve us and our state. This latest power grab by the Legislature needs checking now and consistently until this trend reverses and the critical checks and balances of our state government are respected once again.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bills altering mill levies will jeopardize public safety, critics say
Feb. 8—Two bills designed to lower property taxes by changing the way mill levies work elicited opposition from local government officials, including those in Kalispell, last week. Senate Bill 204 would require all levies to sunset after 10 years while Senate Bill 205 would raise the voter turnout required for a levy to pass. Critics say the proposals would hamstring local governments. Kalispell City Manager Doug Russell spoke in opposition of the bills during a Senate Local Government Committee meeting Wednesday night, alluding to the "starvation path" cities would face if unable to collect mill levies. "This bill doesn't move the goal post. It changes the game," said Russell. Kalispell was far from the only city represented. Helena City Manager Tim Burton sarcastically referred to the legislation as the "Public Safety Reduction Act" during his testimony and Belgrade Mayor Russell Nelson joked that he was "starting to believe the Legislature does not like cities." Chief among opponents' concerns was the potential for more mill levy elections. Senate Bill 204's 10-year maximum sunset period on levies would require municipalities to regularly go back to the public for funding. Opponents say that would lead to voter strain. The bill also applies the new sunset period to levies already passed. In his testimony, Russell referenced a public safety levy passed by Kalispell residents last year. While the ballot measure defined the levy as permanent, voters would have to reapprove the measure in six years if SB 204 passed. And that could prove challenging under Senate Bill 205, which raises the percentage of voters needed to pass a levy-related ballot measure. Currently, a levy passes with a majority of votes if a 40% voter turnout is achieved and a supermajority if a 30% voter turnout is achieved. If fewer than 30% of voters cast a ballot, the measure automatically fails. Senate Bill 205 would raise voter turnout thresholds to 40% and 50%. While Russell and others expressed trust in their citizenry, they questioned whether voters would be willing to return to the ballot box again and again. "We can't control the active nature of our citizenship," said Russell. "We have our budget meetings, our public hearings. Very few people show up for a $150 million budget to be passed." Both bills are sponsored by Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson. He said the bills introduce necessary measures to curb local government spending, resulting in lower property taxes. "Unfortunately, what we have done in a lot of taxing jurisdictions, is probably, in my mind, gone beyond what a lot of citizens expect out of their local government," said Hertz. At a Feb. 6 press conference, Gov. Greg Gianforte agreed with the need to cut local spending and referenced "fear-mongering" by local officials. "This is a question of priorities at a local level. We've seen runaway spending," said Gianforte. On Feb. 6, Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Evergreen introduced House Bill 410, which also addresses levy elections. Rather than raising voter turnout thresholds by 10 percentage points, HB 410 raises the thresholds by five percentage points. The bill is co-sponsored by Hertz, Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, and 17 other lawmakers. Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at hsmalley@
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Power grab' from the courts? Utah bill would raise bar to pause alleged unconstitutional laws
Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, works in the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) A wonky bill that could have big impacts on court cases challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislature is heading to the full Utah Senate for consideration after winning endorsement from a Senate committee on Wednesday. The bill's critics — including those challenging Utah's near-total abortion ban in court — argue it's part of a 'blatant power grab by the Legislature against the courts and the constitutional separation of powers in Utah.' Contending that Utah judges have too often blocked laws passed by the Legislature from taking effect while courts weigh their legal standing, Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, wants to raise the legal bar before laws can be put on hold. With SB204, Brammer wants to give state attorneys the ability to seek a 'suspensive appeal' to stop a court-ordered injunction from blocking enforcement of a law while the rest of the court case plays out. 'What that does is it says, 'Hey, you know, the law should not be set aside quite so easily,'' Brammer said Wednesday during the bill's first public hearing in the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'If they're going to enjoin a law that's been passed by the duly elected people, they are getting in the way of democracy on a lot of levels,' Brammer said. 'You know, there are times when that's appropriate, but they may have swung the pendulum too far. And so that's really the brunt of this. And this provides immediate relief to get that issue before the courts sooner rather than later.' If a trial court grants an injunctive order in a case with an underlying claim that the state law is unconstitutional, SB204 would allow state attorneys to file a motion to ask the court to decide whether the plaintiff challenging the law can 'establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim that the state law is unconstitutional.' The bill would then require the judge to issue a decision that 'resolves any doubts in favor of constitutionality' and 'states the facts, law, and reasoning that support the court's finding.' If a judge still issues an injunction, SB204 would then allow state attorneys to seek a 'suspensive appeal' to take the case straight to the state's highest court. The Utah Supreme Court would then weigh whether the law is unconstitutional and whether the injunction 'should remain in effect during the pendency of the civil action.' While the Utah Supreme Court weighs those questions, however, the injunction would be 'suspended until the appeal is resolved or the parties stipulate otherwise.' If passed by the full Utah Legislature, SB204 would take effect on May 7. Brammer argued courts should have a higher bar before pushing pause. 'Because we can't just run out the clock at the beginning without some really good reasons while the law does not go into effect,' he said. Brammer pointed to a ruling in December in which a judge granted a temporary restraining order against a recently-passed law to restrict flavored e-cigarettes. That bill, which he co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Jen Plumb, was blocked 'without even receiving the opposing brief from the state,' he said. 'That's taking our law quite lightly,' Brammer said. 'We do have some concern with the levity with which the courts appear to be restraining laws at the outset of cases so that they're not in effect until it gets to the Supreme Court.' Though he didn't point to them specifically, there are other more high-profile court cases that have fed tension between the Republican-controlled Utah Legislature and the Utah Supreme Court. One lawsuit in play that Brammer's bill could potentially impact is an ongoing court case challenging Utah's near-total abortion ban that was triggered when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Last summer, the Utah Supreme Court upheld an injunction that blocked enforcement of Utah's trigger abortion ban after Planned Parenthood of Utah sued, alleging the ban was unconstitutional. That injunction remains in place today as litigation continues to play out in 3rd District Court. In the meantime, abortions have remained legal in Utah up to 18 weeks of most pregnancies under a 2019 law. That Utah Supreme Court ruling upset Republican lawmakers, and in part has fueled lawmakers' frustration with the judiciary that continues to loom over the 2025 Utah Legislature. Citing 'frustrations' with the courts, Utah Republican lawmakers eye possible judicial reforms Brammer's bill is one of the first to be considered so far this session that could potentially give the Legislature more of an edge in court proceedings. He has another, SB203, that would restrict who would be eligible for third-party standing to bring civil actions against the state. That bill was held up in the Senate committee Wednesday after it failed to advance on a 3-3 vote. But the committee's chair Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said he'd put it on the committee's next agenda to reconsider it. To Kathryn Boyd, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, both of those bills raise a bigger issue than just the potential impact to the case holding up Utah's abortion ban. 'The real impact of these bills is on the rule of law and the judiciary because they represent a blatant power grab by the Legislature against the courts and the constitutional separation of powers in Utah,' Boyd said in a statement. 'Sen. Brammer is proposing an untested and fringe legal theory to wrest power away from the Courts because he is offended when Utah judges follow long-established rules and procedures to block unconstitutional legislation passed by lawmakers.' Brammer, through a statement issued by a Senate spokesperson earlier this week, did not answer a question from Utah News Dispatch about whether his bill is at least in part aimed at trying to enact Utah's abortion ban while the court case plays out. His statement explained the bill from a broader level. 'In this state and in our courts, it has long been the policy to presume laws are constitutional, with doubts resolved in favor of constitutionality,' he said. 'SB204 seeks to ensure that legal tools are used in a way that respects the roles of all three branches of government while also addressing concerns about the overuse of injunctions by courts to block laws passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. I believe this will help protect the integrity of the process of upholding the rule of law in Utah.' David Connors, a former district court judge who spoke on behalf of the Utah State Bar Commission before the Senate committee, said the bar has voted to oppose the bill in its current form, though he said the commission welcomes further discussion to address concerns. Currently, though, Connors said Brammer's bill 'raises some interesting and serious issues regarding the checks and balances within our constitutional form of government.' Utah Supreme Court upholds pause on trigger law that would ban almost all abortions Connors noted that under Utah's existing rules of civil procedure, before issuing an injunction on a law, a judge already needs to determine 'there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant would prevail on the merits of the underlying claim.' He noted that the Legislature changed that standard roughly a year ago to raise that bar. 'And that's important,' he said. 'Because what's being asked to be done in this case is, one assumes the judge has already made that particular determination. If the party opposing doesn't like the determination, it can then go back and make a motion and ask the same judge to make an additional ruling the same issue … and then asking the court not only to find that it's likely to be unconstitutional, but also to find that likelihood by a standard we call clear and convincing evidence, which is a heightened standard.' That's an 'odd' standard to require at that point in the case, Connors said, because at that point the case would not have yet reached evidentiary proceedings. 'Clear and convincing evidence is a question that the court has to determine when it weighs evidence at the conclusion of a case,' Connors said, not at the beginning. On top of that is the question of allowing a 'suspensive appeal' to bring the case directly to the Utah Supreme Court. Connors said then the bill appears to 'take away from the Supreme Court any option to allow the injunction to stay in place.' Connors then questioned whether the law could apply to not just the Legislature or the state government, but 'any city' that could try to invoke the SB204's provisions. He warned against 'unintended consequences' of potentially empowering other legislative bodies, like cities, to enact clearly unconstitutional laws — such as a law to seize and destroy gun owners' guns. Linda Smith, an attorney and retired law professor, also spoke against the bill, saying it would 'vastly change how courts deal with injunctions.' She argued the courts must already weigh high standards before issuing an injunction on a law, including whether a person seeking the pause will suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, and that the 'threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause the party restrained or enjoined,' and that the injunction 'would not be adverse to the public interest.' 'Those other points robustly cover whether this injunction is appropriate in the setting where there's a question about a law's constitutionality, and the judge thinks it's likely unconstitutional,' Smith said. CONTACT US She argued Brammer's bill goes too far. 'I think that's very poor public policy, to require that a statute that a judge has found likely unconstitutional to go into effect just because there's an appeal,' Smith said. Brammer disagreed with Smith and Connors. He argued his bill would only apply to state law and not cities, though he agreed the Legislature should be wary of 'unintended consequences.' 'That's been one of the problems with the courts kind of being very loose on enjoining laws,' Brammer said, adding that he believes judges have been 'getting the analysis wrong' and that's led to them frequently issuing injunctions. 'We are very concerned with the levity by which the courts are treating the laws in the Legislature. And they're setting themselves up to be antagonistic,' Brammer said. 'It seems to be the standard is let's enjoin any law and we're going to go through the entire process, and then we'll figure it out at the end at the Supreme Court level. I don't think they should be doing so so lightly.' The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 to endorse the bill. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
