Mediaboss Marketing

As votes were tabulated Tuesday to determine the two Republican candidates for Westmoreland County commissioner in November, Democrats sat quietly on the sidelines, setting their sights on trying to regain majority control of county government this year.

The Democrats, Ted Kopas, who served more than a decade as a commissioner before he was ousted in 2019, and political newcomer Sydney Hovis were unopposed for Democratic nominations.

They will face incumbent Republicans Sean Kertes and Doug Chew in the fall.

The top three vote-getters will serve as county commissioners in 2024.

Im very pleased with the results last night. It sent a clear message from 24,000 Republicans who (did not vote for Kertes or Chew) think that county government can be better and can expect their leaders to be more accessible and honest, Kopas said.

Kopas received more than 24,600 votes, a number that exceeded every commissioner candidate on Tuesday ballots. Fellow Democrat Hovis, 28, of Scottdale, who is making her first bid for a county office, received just more than 14,200 votes.

Kertes and Chew, both first-term incumbents, finished as the top two vote-getters in the Republican primary that featured five candidates seeking two party nominations. Kertes led the GOP ticket with more than 17,900 votes. Chew garnered more than 11,400 votes, about 1,500 more than retired United Parcel Service security division manager John Ventre, who finished third behind the incumbents.

Retired Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County computer systems manager Paul Kosko finished fourth with about 7,800 votes, and former county Chief Deputy Sheriff Patricia Fritz finished last with fewer than 6,000 votes.

Kertes and Chew were endorsed by the county Republican committee. Meanwhile, GOP Chairman Bill Bretz filed unsuccessful lawsuits seeking to have Ventre and Kosko removed from the ballot.

The results reflect Republican vulnerability this fall, Kopas said.

I think voters from both parties think that Westmoreland County can be and should be better, Kopas said. Certainly the numbers speak for themselves.

Kopas comes into the fall race with a campaign war chest of more than $70,000 raised throughout the spring election season. Hovis raised just $1,500 and as of early May had just $500 in the bank, according to finance reports.

Hovis did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Democratic Committee Chairwoman Michelle McFall predicted Hovis story will resonate with votersl.

Sydney is coming in as a political outsider. Shes got an amazing story, shes a young mother of three children with a working background and a great message thats going to elevate her, McFall said. She is a unique candidate and she has a real shot.

Kertes and Chew ran separate but compatible campaigns this spring. At this point, Kopas said he does not envision running a joint campaign with Hovis.

Meanwhile, Bretz said he is not overly concerned that Ventres strong showing in the primary reflected a political weakness for the incumbents. He suggested ballot position and media attention on the legal challenges elevated (Ventres and Koskos) candidacies.

Its curious to me to see what will be revealed on the Democratic side. To me we have to go out and get folks engaged in the fall. We have to make sure we circle the wagon going into the fall because the stakes are too high, Bretz said.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich by email at rcholodofsky@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Read the original:
Democrats set sights on Westmoreland commissioner race - TribLIVE

Democrats in Lansing have had control of both chambers of the legislature and the executive office since January. They've moved quickly on new policies, including gun safety measures and the repeal of Michigan's right-to-work law.

Joe Tate is the Speaker of the Michigan House and represents the 10th District in Wayne County. Tate joined Michigan Radio's Doug Tribou on Morning Edition.

Doug Tribou: The legislature has passed a number of gun safety measures this year, one for universal background checks, another for safe storage requirements, and a third establishes a so-called red flag law that would allow a court to temporarily take away someone's guns when the person is deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. What other gun safety bills are you considering?Joe Tate: I think for us, the gun violence prevention bills that we passed really sets the foundation to lower gun violence across the state of Michigan. I think there are other opportunities. This is certainly the start and not the finish of it. And those deliberations are going to continue throughout the rest of the legislative session.

Joe Tate, Michigan's Speaker of the House of Representatives

DT: You served in the Marine Corps. You were deployed to Afghanistan twice. You've had weapons training, been around guns. What's your personal view of the ongoing debate about gun rights and personal safety?

JT: You know, what really drives me the most is ensuring that we do have safe communities and we are doing things in Lansing. The last thing that I want to do is hear from a parent that has been impacted by gun violence, whose child has been impacted by gun violence, and comes to ask me, "What have you done?"

DT: If you were to have that conversation with someone affected by gun violence, do you feel like the measures that have been taken now would be enough for that person?

JT: I don't think that these are just one-time solutions, but we know that there's more that can be done. Obviously, supports around mental health as well as public safety. How are we supporting our public safety organizations? Another factor, too, is ensuring that people across the state have access to opportunities and being able to raise a family and having good jobs. I think that that all plays into this. I think there's more that can be done and we can take a more holistic approach as as we continue to work on this.

DT: Do you currently own a gun?

JT: I do not.

DT: The legislature recently passed a bill package that would require employer health plans that cover pregnancy care to also cover abortion services. Democrats have said it's part of the process of implementing the new abortion rights amendment that voters passed in November. What other bills do you expect related to abortion rights?

JT: The voters, they expressed their support at the ballot box last year, and it is up to the legislature to be able to identify what legislation has to go hand-in-hand with that to ensure that the intent of of the ballot initiative is met. So I think you'll see more of that and ensuring that there are lower barriers in terms of reproductive health. We want to make sure that there is access because reproductive health is a part of health care.

DT: In 2022, Democrats had their most successful state elections in a couple of generations, and it would be easy to see that as a mandate for your party's priorities. But as we've discussed, abortion was on the ballot in Michigan a huge issue that contributed to turnout across the political spectrum. With all of that in mind, what kind of mandate do you see in the results of last year's elections?

JT: There are a couple of things. One is residents of Michigan want to see their government functioning and working, and us moving to provide solutions, whether it's around targeted tax relief, which we did with the earned income tax credit expansion and repealing the retirement tax.

Also, making investments in economic development for job creation, making sure that people have opportunities to raise their families. I think that's what people want to see at the end of the day: "Are you working with my interests in mind and putting people first?" That's kind of our basic principle in our philosophy.

DT: I take your point. I think the Republican counterpoint would be that the government is functioning in much the same way it has in in other eras, say when there was a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature. Some of your Republican colleagues have complained that legislation is being pushed through with your very slim majority. Do you see a difference in the way you're governing now?

Joe Tate, Michigan's Speaker of the House of Representatives

JT: Yes, I think we are seeing a difference, Doug, in terms of legislation that that we have been moving out of the House and deliberations there. And I'll use gun violence reduction as an example. You know, that's an issue that bills have been introduced for almost a decade and there were no hearings on it when Republicans were in control. You saw with the issues around gun violence, that we saw across the state, and there was no action taken on it.

And we knew that in order for us to continue to build trust with the residents of Michigan, that we have to show that we are governing. And I think that's the contrast in terms of what Democrats have been doing with what you've seen in prior majorities in the recent past.

DT: The state is in the midst of the budget process. The two chambers are now beginning to reconcile their versions of the budget. In your view, what are the top two or three highlights from the version of the budget that the House has passed?

JT: I think for us, when you look at the investments in schools, that's incredibly important. We want to have a world-class education system in our state. Also, the investments that we're looking at around both mental health and public safety. And then finally, I'll touch on job growth and how are we supporting opportunities to expand job growth.

DT: What's your view of the situation with the Gotion proposal for Big Rapids, which would have some state investment? There are concerns about Gotion being a subsidiary of a Chinese company and some security concerns there. What is your view of the state supporting that project and the process that went into that?

JT: There has been a significant amount of time that has gone into, you know, locals and also state officials looking at, "Where's this opportunity? Is this opportunity feasible?" And and from what we've seen, it is.

DT: Do you share the concerns about security with the involvement of China?

JT: I do not share that concern. If you look, just for example, with our auto heritage and our supply chains, I think we have to be able to work together and to compete, in not only other states, but other countries as well. And this is something that we have done for for a number of decades. So, no.

DT: Speaker Tate, I want thank you very much for your time today.

JT: Thank you so much, Doug. Have a great day.

Editor's notes: Some quotes in this article have been edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full interview near the top of this page.

Read more here:
As MI Democrats move on party priorities, House Speaker Joe Tate ... - Michigan Radio

Governor Glenn Youngkin is taking final action this week on a number of bills from the General Assembly. That includes one about power lines.

Earlier this year, members of the General Assembly gave unanimous approval for funding an underground transmission line in Fauquier County and an underground distribution line in Fairfax County. But Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed that bill a shock to Senator Jill Vogel, a Republican from Fauquier County.

"The governor vetoed a bill that was passed unanimously out of the House and unanimously out of the Senate," Vogel says. "And the rub is that the governor took a very strong position on behalf of ratepayers. But the people in my district care very deeply about the impact of this in the community that I represent."

That community is Fauquier County, although the bill also had funding for an underground distribution line in Fairfax County. Here's Senator Scott Surovell, a Democrat from Fairfax County.

"I was really dumbfounded by the fact that he vetoed it," Surovell says. "This was a bill that was carried by the majority whip in the House, Delegate Webert. Senator Vogel in my chamber, a pretty senior Republican senator. And I had worked with both of them on a bipartisan basis to get a bill that we could all agree on that would do good things for all of us."

The governor says hes looking out for ratepayers, but Senator Vogel and Senator Surovell say they are looking out for their constituents.

This report, provided byVirginia Public Radio, was made possible with support from theVirginia Education Association.

Read the original post:
Republicans and Democrats are confused by one Youngkin veto - WVTF

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Texas House Democrats successfully delayed debate Thursday on the Houses version of a bill meant to put guardrails on faculty tenure at public universities, kicking the legislation back to the Higher Education Committee.

Just as Rep. John Kuempel, R-Seguin, started to lay out his version of the legislation, Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, raised a point of order a parliamentary procedure used to delay or kill legislation on a technicality arguing that the analysis of the legislation was misleading.

In their point of order, Democrats argued that the bill analysis says that university governing boards must file a copy of their policies and procedures related to performance reviews of tenured faculty to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. But the new legislation would also require university system leaders to provide their tenure policies on other areas like granting tenure, reasons for dismissal and due-process procedures, which is much broader information than the analysis states.

After the House recessed for the day, the Higher Education Committee voted the bill out of committee again along party lines. The bill now heads to the Calendars Committee to get back on the House floor for a vote. The House has until May 23 to give preliminary approval to Senate bills.

If the legislation goes back to the House floor and is voted out by the full chamber, the House and Senate would have to agree on the version that emerges from closed-door meetings before sending the bill to Gov. Greg Abbott. The two chambers have until May 26 to come to agreement.

The Senate, led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, voted on a version of the bill that would eliminate tenure altogether, arguing that it has allowed woke faculty to spew ideology because they feel they are protected by tenure, which provides continuous employment. The House version, as approved by the Higher Education Committee, instead enshrines tenure policies in state law.

Faculty have largely opposed both versions of the bill, arguing that while the House option is better than the Senate proposal, it includes various provisions that could effectively gut tenure protections, making it difficult to recruit and retain top faculty who help the states universities rise in prestige and national rankings.

A robust system of tenure is the surest means of protecting academic freedom so that truth might be pursued in the classroom, in the archives, and in the lab, leaders of the American Association of University Professors wrote in a news release. The tenure system remains the foundation of academic freedom in the United States, and is as important to students and society at large as it is to the faculty who work under its protection.

Tenure is a nearly century-old practice used by universities across the country that provides professors with continued employment, allowing them to pursue long-term, independent research and teaching free from political or administrative interference. Tenured faculty cannot be fired without good cause, and they must receive due process if they are terminated.

Patrick vowed to ban tenure in Texas last year after a group of University of Texas at Austin faculty issued a resolution in defense of academic freedom, the idea that faculty can teach and speak freely about their fields of study without political or outside influence. Specifically, their resolution was in response to the Legislatures decision in 2021 to ban the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools. Patrick has repeatedly accused the faculty of stoking societal division, claiming the professors felt they were above the law.

Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, carried the Senate legislation, which would eliminate tenure for all professors who have not received the status by Jan. 1, 2024. He described tenure on the Senate floor last month as outdated, saying it allows faculty to ruin the brand of a university.

The House version of the bill approved by the committee replaced the Senate version with a proposal that would instead enshrine tenure in state law.

Kuempel said during the House committee hearing on the bill last week that he believed tenure needs to be offered. His bill defines tenure in state statute as the entitlement of a faculty member of an institution of higher education to continue in the faculty members academic position unless dismissed by the institution for good cause in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted by the institution, which reflects the common definition of tenure in higher education.

Under Kuempels bill, much of how universities currently award tenure would remain intact. University regents would have to clearly lay out how they grant tenure and how they evaluate tenured faculty, and include required reasons to terminate a professor such as professional incompetence, conduct involving moral turpitude or unprofessional conduct that adversely affects the institution.

But faculty have raised concerns about a portion of the bill that they worry might gut the long-term job security that tenure provides. Under the 14th Amendment, Americans are entitled to due process if the government tries to take away their property. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a tenured faculty members right to continued employment qualifies as property interest, meaning it cant be taken away without a documented reason for the termination, a hearing and an opportunity to appeal.

But the House version of Senate Bill 18 includes a provision that says tenure creates a property interest equivalent only to one years salary. Faculty and Constitution experts worry that would mean a university could fire a professor without due process if they paid them a years salary, which faculty and constitutional experts have flagged as a potential erosion of their rights.

[T]he protection provided by the committee substitute for SB 18 would be tenure in name only; and could have the same consequences as the elimination of tenure itself, leaders of the Texas Conference of the AAUP wrote in a news release.

Faculty from across the state warned lawmakers in committee hearings in the House and Senate that universities already have rigorous systems in place to grant and revoke tenure. They also expressed concern that the acceptable reasons listed in the House version to terminate a professor are vague and could be easily weaponized to fire faculty who say or do something state or university leaders disagree with a situation that tenure is supposed to protect faculty from.

SB 18 is one of a few of Patricks legislative priorities that was watered down by the House. The lower chamber also made changes to Senate Bill 17, which would ban diversity, equity and inclusion offices in state colleges and universities. Kuempels version of that bill would allow for such programs when they are required by a private or federal grant or an accrediting agency. The House is expected to take a vote Friday on the version of SB 17 that the Higher Education Committee approved.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribunes journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 21-23. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

Link:
With clock ticking on legislative session, Texas Democrats delay ... - The Texas Tribune

Democrats in the General Assembly this week lined up to push a measure that would allow state courts to award punitive damages in wrongful death lawsuits a departure from the status quo for more than a century in Illinois.

Illinois is one of 16 states that does not allow for the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death cases, though the state does allow for plaintiffs in personal injury cases to seek punitive damages.

It's only when the plaintiff has died from his or her injuries that punitive damages are precluded, Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, said Thursday during a brief debate on House Bill 219. The awarding of punitive damages should not turn on whether the injuries were severe enough to kill the plaintiff.

HB 219 would take the standards for seeking punitive damages in personal injury cases and apply them to Illinois Wrongful Death Act. The bill is an initiative of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, which has historically been an ally to Democrats.

The states business community mounted a swift but ultimately ineffective opposition campaign against the bill after it popped up earlier this week, citing increased liability costs. The bill passed with only Democratic votes in both the Senate and House this week and will soon be sent to Gov. JB Pritzker for his approval.

ITLA President Pat Salvi Jr., a managing partner at prominent Chicago-based personal injury law firm Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, told a Senate panel this week that allowing punitive damages only when a victim survives is a defect in the law.

We believe it is time to fix what the Illinois Supreme Court noted is the often-repeated adage that it is cheaper to kill your victim than to leave him maimed, Salvi said, quoting from a 1983 opinion from the states high court that affirmed punitive damages are not allowed in wrongful death cases. That cannot be.

Punitive damages exceedingly rare

While compensatory damages are meant to compensate a victim or victims family for anything from lost wages and hospital bills to pain and suffering, punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant and deter the type of reckless action that led to injury or death.

Punitive damages are rarely asked for and even more rarely granted. According to ITLA, in the last decade, Illinois juries have awarded punitive damages of more than $10,000 in only 18 personal injury cases.

The most recent nationwide study on the matter from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2005 found that, among successful cases, punitive damages were awarded in just 3 percent of the most common types of personal injury cases.

Punitive damages for product or premises liability and car crashes were awarded in 1 percent or fewer cases according to the DOJs report. The study was based on a survey of courts in the nations 75 most populous counties, including Illinois Cook and DuPage counties.

At the time of the DOJ report 18 years ago, the median punitive damage award in all successful tort cases was $55,000; adjusted for inflation, that figure would be just under $85,000 now.

Still, business groups said increasing opportunities for punitive damages could deter companies from moving to or expanding in Illinois due to increased liability. The insurance lobby also registered its opposition to the bill, and Republicans repeated the groups concerns during House and Senate debates this week.

We could end up shutting down a business because of one or two bad actors, Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, said during debate in the House. And Im not defending the bad actors at all. Im just saying theres other people to consider here.

Ugaste went on to imagine the ripple effects of shuttered businesses on workers and their families. But he also lamented that HB 219 didnt contain any caps on punitive damages.

The Supreme Court in Illinois has ruled that theyre unconstitutional, Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Swansea, told Ugaste, saying the legislatures hands were tied as to including hard caps in the bill.

But Hoffman did note that the states high court has ruled that any punitive damages exceeding 10 times the amount of compensatory damages would be considered a violation of due process, in essence putting a soft limit on punitive damages.

According to ITLA, caps are in place in only nine of the 34 states that already allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases.

Grisly mathematics

Even if placing caps on punitive damages was constitutionally feasible, Harmon maintained that writing caps into state law would set up a perverse incentive system for companies to do the grisly mathematics of a cost-benefit analysis. He cited the legal debacle over the Ford Pinto in the 1970s, when the company delayed recalling 1.5 million cars despite knowing about a dangerous design defect that caused gas tanks to explode even in low-speed crashes.

The companys apparent cost-benefit analysis found it would be less expensive for the company to settle cases with victims than to recall the cars and prevent the deadly explosions they were causing.

Imagine someone sitting in a corporate boardroom saying we can kill 127 drivers before it's more expensive to recall the car than it is to simply pay the capped punitive damages, Harmon said.

In September, a Cook County jury granted $325 million in punitive damages on top of $38 million in compensatory damages to Sue Kamuda, who developed breast cancer in 2007 after living near the Willowbrook Sterigenics medical supply sterilization plant for years. It was the states largest punitive damage award in recent history.

The jury found the Oak Brook-based company did not invest in emissions-curbing technology, which would have reduced the amount of carcinogenic gas emitted from its Willowbrook plant, despite knowing the cancer risk ethylene oxide posed to neighbors.

Kamuda is one of hundreds of nearby residents whove filed similar claims since 2018, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published research that found people who lived in the area around the facility faced some of the highest cancer risks in the U.S. The state of Illinois ordered the plant to close temporarily in early 2019, and Sterigenics later voluntarily shuttered the plant permanently.

Salvi represented Kamuda in the case, and in an interview with Capitol News Illinois this week, he said despite the eye-popping figure his client was awarded in punitive damages, her case was one of only five or six times in his 16-year legal career that hes filed for punitive damages.

And if punitive damages had been an option in wrongful death cases over that same time period, Salvi said hed likely only have sought punitive damages in less than five additional cases, nearly all in suits involving deaths due to drunk drivers.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of print and broadcast outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.

Original post:
Democrats move to allow punitive damage awards in wrongful death ... - WGLT