The Thicket at State Legislatures

Concealed Carry: Lock and Load or Cease and Desist?

By Alex Fitzsimmons

Everyone remembers Virginia Tech, the 2007 massacre which claimed the lives of 33 people and sparked a national conversation about gun control. Since then, a number of states have considered legislation to address guns on college campuses.

For some, campus shootings underscore the role concealed weapons can play in preventing gun violence. For others, these tragedies demonstrate the need for stricter gun laws.

Most recently, the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs decided to segregate students with concealed carry permits, The Denver Post reported. The schools announced on August 16 that guns will be banned in all dormitories on both campuses, except for designated residential areas set aside for students who are over 21 and possess a valid permit.

NCSL does not know of any other American universities that segregate students who carry guns on campus.

The decision is seen as a reaction to the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled in March that the UC’s policy banning guns on campus violated state law. 

The interplay between states, courts, and university administrators is not unique to Colorado. In September 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Oregon University System’s longstanding ban of guns on campuses, allowing students with permits to carry concealed weapons. The court held that the university overstepped its authority, as state law says only the legislature can regulate firearms.

NCSL tracks developments in campus gun laws. Currently, 21 states ban concealed weapons on college campuses, while 24 states let universities decide how to handle the issue. Five states – Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin – have provisions allowing at least some degree of concealed carry on college campuses.

Mississippi’s law, enacted last year, created an exemption to allow concealed carry on campuses for those who complete a gun safety course. Also enacted in 2011, a Wisconsin law that requires colleges to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus grounds, with the caveat that schools can prohibit weapons from certain campus buildings. Utah is the only state to explicitly allow the unrestricted carrying of concealed weapons on college campuses.

In 2012, 16 states introduced legislation to allow some form of concealed carry on college campuses. Three states also introduced legislation in 2012 to bar concealed carry on campus. While none of these most recent bills have passed, concealed carry on college campuses will likely remain a hot state issue for the foreseeable future.

Supreme Court Takes on MS4s

By Lisa Soronen

The Supreme Court’s decision involving MS4s might be its easiest decision of the term.  But what is an MS4 and what do they have to do with state legislatures?  

An MS4 is short for municipal separate storm sewer systems.  MS4s are a system of sewers that collect stormwater.  State governments regulate stormwater runoffs in MS4s.  

The controversy in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council is over whether the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has violated a federal permit because of the level of pollutants from stormwater that it gathers in MS4s located in two California Rivers.  The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief in this case, which NCSL signed onto.         

Now, why might this case be so simple? The technical legal question the court agreed to decide in this case is whether the transfer of water within a single body of water through an MS4 constitutes an addition of any pollutant under the Clean Water Act.  In 2004 in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe the Supreme Court held an addition of a pollutant only occurs if a pollutant is transferred from one “meaningfully distinct” water body into another.  The SLLC’s brief argues that the segments of the rivers above and below the MS4s in this case aren’t “meaningfully distinct,” so no addition of a pollutant has occurred.  This seems like a foregone conclusion; the MS4s are parts of both rivers.   

As SLLC’s brief points out, the Ninth Circuit “failed to determine . . . whether the segments of the rivers above and below [MS4] were the same bodies of water or different bodies of water, and apparently attached no significance to the question.”  From the SLLC’s perspective, the Ninth Circuit simply ignored the Supreme Court’s holding in Miccosukee Tribe. 

It seems unlikely the court is going to say it didn’t actually mean what it said in Miccosukee Tribe.  After all, this isn’t one of those cases where changing social values or new information might convince the court to change its mind. 

The bottom line for states is that they regulate water quality in MS4s and federal regulation is redundant.  While all signs point towards the Supreme Court applying Miccosukee Tribe and concluding the CWA does not apply in this case, only time will tell.     

A date for oral arguments in this case has not yet been set.  The Supreme Court will issue an opinion in this case by June 30, 2013.

Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center located in Washington, D.C.

Hollywood on Location at the Statehouse

By Alex Fitzsimmons

Last December, NCSL’s Meagan Dorsch traveled to Virginia to conduct social media training for legislative staffers at the statehouse in Richmond. But when she arrived, she was surprised to find a group of familiar faces—Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, Steven Spielberg, James Spader and Daniel Day Lewis—had taken over the capitol.

The A-listers descended on the statehouse to shoot the new movie “Lincoln,” a film based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's novel, "Team of Rivals," starring method actor extraordinaire Daniel Day Lewis as Honest Abe.

The much-anticipated biopic, which is scheduled for release on Nov. 9, 2012, is the latest of many motion pictures to have scenes shot at one of our nation’s 50 state capitols.

“Traffic,” a 2000 crime drama starring Michael Douglas that earned numerous Oscar nominations, was filmed in Columbus, Ohio. Scenes from a press conference take place on the steps of the Ohio Statehouse.

As NCSL’s Tim Storey pointed out in a 2007 blog post, filmmakers spent 10 days at the Louisiana state capitol shooting scenes for “All the King’s Men,” a 2006 movie about the life of fictional politician Willie Stark, a character loosely based on the populist Governor Huey Long.

Boston is popular capitol city for Hollywood filmmakers, but one of the most famous films set in the Massachusetts capitol wasn’t even shot in the state. The scene from “The Departed” in which Matt Damon can be seen looking at the Massachusetts Statehouse through his apartment window was actually faked. That apartment doesn’t exist and that picturesque view was an effect shot from the roof of Suffolk University Law School, where Damon’s character says he is taking night classes.

Even though “The Departed” was set in Beantown, producers opted to shoot the film in the Big Apple because New York State offered a 15 percent tax credit. This is a common practice. According to NCSL data, 45 states and Puerto Rico currently offer motion picture incentives, including tax credits, rebates, and exemptions.

A number of films have used state capitols as substitutes for prominent federal buildings like the White House and the U.S. Capitol. Even though “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde” was set in Washington, D.C., the filmmakers used the Utah State Capitol for exterior and interior shots of the U.S. Capitol.  Scenes from the 2000 film “The Contender,” a political thriller starring Gary Oldman and Jeff Bridges, feature the Virginia capitol doubling as exterior shots of the White House.

Though not a movie, an episode of NBC’s “Parks and Recreation” was shot at the Indiana Statehouse. The popular comedy series takes place in the fictional town of Pawnee, Indiana. In the episode, the show’s main character, Leslie Knope, played by “Saturday Night Live’s” Amy Poehler, gets an award at the statehouse.

By my count, there are at least three films shot at state capitols that either haven’t been released or were never finished. Scenes from “Better Living Through Chemistry,” which is scheduled for release in 2013, were shot on the street that encircles the statehouse in Annapolis, Maryland. The dramedy includes Olivia Wilde and Ray Liotta.

Also set to be released in 2013, “R.I.P.D.” is an action-comedy crime film with Ryan Reynolds, Jeff Bridges, and Mary-Louise Parker. Scenes were filmed at the Old State House in Massachusetts, which was the seat of the state legislature until 1798.

You probably haven’t heard of the movie “Nailed,” but don’t fret. Starring Jessica Biel and Jake Gyllenhaal, this romantic comedy was filmed in and around the South Carolina Statehouse in Columbia. The only problem: It was never finished. Financial troubles forced filmmakers to abandon the project with only one scene remaining.

Although many movies have been filmed at state capitols, very few of them are actually about state government. Maybe Hollywood doesn’t think state politics is a juicy enough subject for summer blockbusters, but renowned documentarian Frederick Wiseman saw potential. In 2004, Wiseman devoted two months to filming the inner workings of the Idaho Legislature. The finished product was “State Legislature,” a 3-hour documentary released in 2007 to positive reviews at the Berlin International Film Festival.

It would be a Herculean task to figure out exactly how many films were shot at state capitols (if you know of any more, please let us know). But one thing is for certain: As long as our spectacular statehouses exist, Hollywood filmmakers will make movies there.

2012 Pre-election Turnover is Typical for a Redistricting Year

by Karl Kurtz

Ballotpedia, the useful wiki on state elections, recently published a paper, "Anti-Incumbency Voting Patterns in State Legislative Elections," that makes much of an apparently significant increase in primary election defeats of incumbent legislators in 2012 compared to 2010:

Anti-incumbent animosity is making itself felt in state legislative elections. Incumbent members of state legislatures in 2012 are being defeated in primary elections at a rate far higher than in 2010.... [I]n 2010, 8.38 percent of incumbents who faced a challenger in their primary were defeated, while the comparable figure for 2012 is 14.8 percent, for an increase of 76.7 percent.

This makes for a nice trend headline, and Ballotpedia has some great data on incumbent primary defeats to back it up. Trouble is , we know that 2012 is a redistricting year and that the years ending in "2" in every decade have significantly higher rates of turnover. Turnover is greater because more incumbents, faced with the challenge of contesting a newly-drawn district, are likely not to run again, and those who do are more susceptible to primary or general election defeat in their altered districts.

For this reason, I wished that Ballotpedia had compared 2012 primary election defeats to the last redistricting year, 2002, in addition to 2010. When I set out to do this myself, I discovered that we at NCSL do not have data on 2002 primary election defeats (and Ballotpedia wasn't around at the time). But we do have numbers for 2002 pre-election turnover--the combination of incumbent retirements and primary election defeats. By recalculating Ballotpedia's data for 2012, I came up with this table showing pre-election turnover for the 35 states that had held primaries as of Aug. 15, 2012:

8/22/12 correction: The following table has been changed from the original posting to correct data for North Dakota.

Sources: 2012 data from Ballotpedia.com recalculated by NCSL. 2002 data from NCSL.

 This analysis showing a marginal one percent nationwide difference in pre-election turnover between the two redistricting years results in a rather different headline: 2012 pre-election turnover in state legislative races, whether due to retirements or primary election defearts, appears to be typical for a redistricting year.

There are interesting state-to-state variations in these data. First of all, California, which has the highest rate of pre-election turnover, did not have a single incumbent primary election defeat--all of its turnover is due to term limits and retirerments. The effects of term limits (the "TL" column) on turnover are clearly evident in this table as eight of the top 10 states in 2012 have term limits.

In the term-limited states, the cycles of the limits come in different waves, which explains why Michigan and Missouri have much lower pre-election turnover in 2012 than in 2002. Perhaps this also explains how low the term-limited states of Ohio and Oklahoma are on the list in both 2012 and 2002, but I'm not entirely certain.

Kansas' high ranking on the list in 2012 is due to the extraordinary number of incumbent primary election defeats within the Republican party. But why are the rates of turnover in North Dakota more than twice as great in 2012 compared to 2002, given that only four incumbents lost in their recent primary? [8/22/12 correction] In Oregon the reverse is true--the turnover rate in 2002 was nearly twice as great as it is in 2012--but I don't know why.

Readers' contributions on these and other anomalies in the data are welcome.

Citizens Invited to Tackle Red Tape in Texas

by Pam Greenberg

“In the good old days, we did not have to compete in a world market. We did not have to keep up with technology, that changes daily, or learn skills that even seasoned teachers did not have, in order to be the innovators and inventors of the 21st century,” says Christy Garcia, a participant the Texas Red Tape Challenge. The Red Tape Challenge is an innovative site created by the Texas House Government Efficiency and Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Bill Callegari.

Garcia’s comment, in response to a discussion topic about assessments of academic readiness (or “Testing, Testing and More Testing,” according to another participant) is part of an active crowdsourcing site that encourages public input. In addition to posting comments, participants can vote on others’ ideas with an “agree” or “disagree” vote.

The web-based project, which was launched in early July, currently focuses on four topics: public school mandates, state agency rulemaking, manufacturing in Texas, and occupational licensing (there’s a lively debate going on about the licensing of geoscientists).

According to Callegari, the challenge is "an extension of my longstanding philosophy that good ideas may be found within the wealth of expertise and experiences of all Texans. And that those ideas may contribute to meaningful changes in our laws and regulations."

There’s also room for “Off Topic Ideas” like the top-ranked “Put lawmakers’ financial disclosures online” suggestion, with a feedback score of +15, or the suggestion to "Eliminate the Texas Senate" (score: 0).

According to Jeremy Mazur, Chief of Staff for Rep. Callegari and site moderator, the rate of public participation on the site has exceeded their original estimates, and continues to climb. The committee will consider ideas and recommendations from the project in a formal hearing in the Texas Capitol in November.

House Speaker Joe Straus is encouraging Texans to visit the site, which he says will “help the Legislature make state government more efficient, accountable and responsive to taxpayers. ”

2012 State Legislative Election Preview

Over at State Net Capitol Journal (SNCJ), Lou Cannon has a preview of the 2012 state legislative elections based entirely on his interview with NCSL's Tim Storey. The article provides a succinct summary of the politics playing out in 15 chambers in 11 states where partisan control could change.

Scroll down a little further in that publication and you'll find a summary of this week's primary elections in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota and Wisconsin, Here in The Thicket, we had the best intentions of covering all state legislative primary elections but have fallen woefully behind over the last three weeks. Fortunately SNCJ and ballotpedia.com have our backs covered for those legislative junkies who want to track every primary election.

The Hawaii Legislature's Website No ka `oi (the best)

The website for the Hawaii state legislature, which was redesigned and upgraded less than a year ago, earned the Online Democracy Award as the nation's top legislative website this week during the National Conference of State Legislatures' 2012 Legislative Summit in Chicago, Ill. NCSL's Online Democracy Award is given each year to a legislature, legislative chamber or caucus whose website stands out for making democracy user-friendly.

“Through public input and the teamwork of our diligent staff, the Hawaii State Legislature’s website has become a more user-friendly, accessible portal for citizens of all ages wishing to participate in or learn more about the legislative process,” said Senate President Shan Tsutsui. “The website helps citizens from all islands throughout Hawaii to connect to information and policy issues that directly impact their lives and communities.  We are greatly honored to be recognized for these efforts.”

The Hawaii state legislature, stood out to the panel of judges for the extensive amount of information available on the website. Features such as the guide for first-time users, explanations about how to use various features, a citizens guide and a legislative glossary allows citizens of all ages to participate in the legislative process.
The judges also noted:  

• Additional features that invite citizen involvement, such as a “Submit Online Testimony” link on the home page and on bill summary pages, and a flexible “Find Your Legislator” feature.
• Easy and accessible links to calendars, caucus sites, and committee hearings.
• A simple, clean and consistent layout, with the most frequently-used items in the center of the home page and a consistent search function on left and navigation tools on the right.

"As a state comprised of islands, access to legislative information online is critical, and encourages greater participation by the public in the legislative process," said Hawaii's Speaker of the House Calvin Say.  "We are so proud of our team in being recognized through the Online Democracy award.  Their excellent work in redesigning the website promotes greater openness and transparency.   With rapid changes in technology, we understand that people are constantly seeking information in new ways, and this website has now become an invaluable tool for lawmakers, staff, the media and citizens of all ages." 

The Online Democracy Award is sponsored by two of NCSL's staff organizations: the National Association of Legislative Information Technology (NALIT) and the Legislative Information and Communications Staff (LINCS).

Previous winners of the NCSL Online Democracy award include the Florida Senate, Washington Legislature and Tennessee General Assembly.

Taxing Victory is in Question at State and Federal Levels

by Caitlin Rossiter

U.S. swimmer Michael Phelps displaying some of his many gold medals. Credit: Forbes.com

As you watched those spectacular athletes competing in the 2012 Olympic Games in London, were you thinking about the consequences of winning an Olympic medal? It turns out that there is a cost—and I don't mean the many hours of grueling and expensive training—for American athletes who win Olympic medals: they pay taxes on their awards. At least a few members of Congress and state legislatures think this is unfair and are trying to do something about it.

The United States Olympic Committee pays athletes cash awards of $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze. According to the United States Tax Code, athletes (just like Nobel or Pulitzer Prize winners) must add cash awards to their taxable income on Line 21 of Form 1040.

The United States is one of only a handful of countries, including the Philippines and Eritrea, that tax their Olympic athletes on medals won according to a recent British Broadcasting Corporation publication.

Athletes devote considerable time to training and may face difficulties in balancing jobs and their athletic endeavors. Most U.S. national sports organizations cover training and travel costs for those who make the national team. Some athletes accept endorsements to help compensate for expenses. But American athletes who accept endorsements are no longer eligible for scholarships through the National Collegiate Athlete Association because they are no longer classified as amateurs.

Given the sacrifices that athletes must make to win honor for themselves and their country, some legislators think their medals and proceeds should be tax exempt.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) proposed SB 3471, and Congressman Aaron Schock (R-Illinois) introduced HR 6267, both bills to amend the 1986 Internal Revenue Code and exempt Olympians from paying taxes on their winnings. The proposed bills have bipartisan support, including both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The United States Olympic Committee has not stated their position.

Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico base their income taxes on the federal income tax code. To date, no states exempt Olympic medals from state income tax. However, in 2012 legislators in at least three states have introduced bills to do so. A bipartisan Olympic coalition of five California legislators—two Democratic senators and three Republican Assembly members—introduced legislation that is working its way through the Senate after passing unanimously in the Assembly. New Jersey Senators Stephen Sweeney (D) and Thomas Kean (R) have introduced SB 1855. Ohio Representative Andrew Brenner (R) plans to introduce HB 583 when the General Assembly reconvenes next session.

Lessons in Leadership From Theodore Roosevelt

By Ed Smith

“Living with dead presidents”–along with baseball–is the great love of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s life.

She shared that love, and some of the lessons she’s learned along the way, at the closing General Session of NCSL’s 2012 Legislative Summit in Chicago Thursday.

Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, is best known for her books on Lyndon Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, the Kennedys and Franklin D. Roosevelt. But it was Theodore Roosevelt, the nation’s 26th president, who was the focus of her talk. Her biography of TR will be published in the fall of 2013.

Roosevelt, who became president following the assassination of William McKinley, took office at a time of “great economic unrest.”

“Our states, at the turn of the 20th century, faced threats very similar to the ones states are facing today. The country struggled to deal with the massive changes wrought by the new industrial order and great disparities in wealth.”

The ability to overcome significant challenges early in life shaped all the presidents about whom Goodwin has written. Lincoln, she noted suffered from crippling depression. For a young Theodore Roosevelt, it was physical frailty. 

“The crucible that defined Theodore Roosevelt was the life-threatening asthma that he suffered when he was young,” Goodwin said.

To say that he overcame those limitations would be a significant understatement. Theodore Roosevelt is remembered as the nation’s most physically robust president, one who delighted in dragging everyone from cabinet members to foreign ambassadors on hikes through the woods around Washington and on hunting trips.

More substantively, he’ll be remembered for curbing the power of large corporations, allowing labor a seat at the table, reforming working conditions and championing the rights of women. He was, of course, also the nation’s first great conservationist president. He also had a knack for a catchy phrase: the “bully pulpit,” “speak softly and carry a big stick” and even came up with the Maxwell House slogan, “good to the last drop.”

(Goodwin did not bring it up in her talk, but she has a very personal connection to state legislators. Her son, Joe Kearns Goodwin, is running for the state Senate in Massachusetts. He faces a September primary.)

Summing up Roosevelt’s accomplishments, Goodwin told the lawmakers and legislative staff in the audience that they can take a lesson from his life.

“The man who counted, he always said, was not the critic but the man in the arena,” Goodwin said. “So all of you here today who have chosen similarly, to fight in the arena, to struggle to make lives better for your towns and your cities and your states can feel similarly. By doing so, you will make memories that can be handed down over time.”

Industry Leaders Shed Light on the Business of Job Creation

By Alex Fitzsimmons

If the question is job creation, the answer is education. That’s the major takeaway from a wide-ranging discussion on jobs and the economy at a general session of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ 2012 Legislative Summit on Thursday.

The CEOs of two of America’s most recognizable companies repeatedly cited an inadequate workforce as the most important factor driving long-term job creation in America.

“We are failing really big,” said Douglas Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar Inc., which employs about 50,000 people across the United States. Oberhelman said his company rejects six out of 10 job applicants for lacking basic education skills.

State Farm Mutual CEO Edward Rusk Jr. echoed Oberhelman’s sentiment, saying, “Our students lack the skill sets required by business.” Rusk also waded into the ongoing debate over common core standards, expressing his support for national baseline standards in critical areas such as reading and arithmetic.

To address the shortage of qualified labor, the business leaders suggested a partnership between business and government that emphasizes vocational education and community colleges.

“Business plays a key role with you,” said Rusk.

While the CEOs stressed education, they also touched on debt, competition between states, and business friendliness, each of which contributes to the business of job creation.

“Revenues have to be raised, expenses have to be cut,” said Oberhelman, referring to state and federal budgets. Rusk agreed, noting that government debt “is a growing concern.”
The moderator of the session, John Engler, called on states to increase fiscal transparency: “I think there is a need for states to step up and mandate transparency.” Engler draws on experience from both the private and public sectors as a former Michigan governor and current head of the Business Roundtable.

Agreeing with the moderator’s assessment, Rusk cautioned that time is not on our side. Nevertheless, all three agreed lawmakers must engage in the difficult conversations about debt.

“Let’s get it on the table and deal with it,” said Oberhelman.

The panelists stressed that while serious debt reduction is a “painful” process for lawmakers, the business community stands ready to support them.  Oberhelman in particular spoke of “impactful partnerships to address these issues.”

Even though the speakers said workforce development is the most important issue related to job creation, the CEOs also mentioned competition between states and business friendliness as contributing factors.

While many states “roll out the red carpet” for businesses, as Oberhelman put it, the panelists lamented what they referred to as a hostile relationship between business and government.

“We are welcomed in many other places around the globe,” said Engler, but not as much in America.

It’s a “competitive advantage issue,” noted Oberhelman.

Despite this sometimes icy relationship, the panelists encouraged the state legislators and legislative staff in attendance to partner with the business community to forge a better future.

“We must be all in” it together, said Rusk.