Session Might Be Rated Special

Details: 02 December 2011

From this observer’s perspective, reflective of the fact that the Nebraska Catholic Conference had no particular, substantive stake or interest in the outcome, it appears that the Nebraska Legislature had a remarkably successful special session during November. Perhaps it will be judged historic, given the nature and scope of the interests and issues.

The 49 legislators spent 15 legislative days, between Nov. 1 and Nov. 22, addressing "the pipeline issue." They ended up passing a bill, LB 1, which creates a regulatory framework for the future siting of oil pipelines in the state; and another bill, LB 4, which authorizes the state Department of Environmental Quality to do a supplemental environmental impact study (EIS) for any oil pipeline project, in collaboration with the federal government.

This legislative activity happened as a result of concerns about the location of TransCanada Corporation’s Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska. Landowners and environmentalists in particular had a strong outcry against routing the pipeline through the Sandhills region, over the precious resource that the Ogallala aquifer is. The concerns rose to a level that Governor Heineman viewed as extraordinary circumstances, triggering his authority to call the Legislature into a special session.

Leading to action by the full Legislature, more than 150 people testified during 25 hours of public hearings conducted as part of the special session.

All of the circumstantial details seem heavily complicated, but apparently there was a seismic breakthrough on day nine of the session. That’s when the Legislature’s top officer, the Speaker, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, announced that TransCanada had agreed to move the Keystone XL pipeline route out of the Sandhills.

With that development, LB 1 became feasible and LB 4 became the vehicle for the state to have a role in determining the substitute route. Both bills then moved quickly through the legislative process. LB 1 passed on a 48-0 vote—one legislator was absent, but entered a statement for the record that he would have voted "aye." LB 4 passed on a 46-0 vote; two senators abstained and the absent member again recorded that he would have voted "aye." Both bills quickly received the Governor’s approval.

Two other bills were passed by the Legislature without opposition and approved by the Governor as part of the special session. These bills spend money, giving state taxpayers a role in the special session. LB 4A appropriates $2 million from the General Fund to pay for the upcoming EIS, in order to ensure its independence and credibility. LB 2 appropriates about $143,000 to pay for the costs of the 15-day special session.

The special, perhaps historic, process had a cost, but the elected officials, even the most fiscally conservative, concluded that success was worth it.

***************

Add Utah to the list of states being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice on grounds that "it is clearly unconstitutional for a state to set is own immigration policy." Other states with such laws under challenge are Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina.

Three parts of Utah’s laws are being challenged. One is the requirement that law enforcement officers verify the legal status of all who are arrested for felonies and high-level misdemeanors. Another is the authorization of warrantless arrests of suspected unauthorized immigrants. The third is the new state crime for harboring or transporting any unauthorized immigrant.

Sections similar to all three of these constitutionally suspect provisions are included in Nebraska’s LB 48, which is held by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

The lawsuit filed against Utah’s legislation does not include its unique guest-worker permit, or its provision that allows employers to sponsor immigrant workers. These provisions are constitutionally problematic as well, for entering a realm preempted by federal law, but DOJ has concluded that they are not yet ripe for challenge.

Meanwhile, Alabama’s "tough new immigration law" recently added a new twist to its growing notoriety.

Several years ago, Alabama used tax incentives to lure the first Mercedes-Benz production plant to the U.S. Two weeks ago, a company executive had only his German ID card when he was stopped for a traffic infraction. That card was insufficient under the new law to document legal presence in the U.S. So, in accord with the law, the executive was taken into custody—put in the pokey—until someone retrieved his passport.

And finally… Among several smug assertions in his "Midlands Voices" op-ed article supporting proposed eligibility for University of Nebraska employment-benefits for domestic partners of unmarried employees, a UNO professor included this: "If…President Milliken’s proposal takes effect, no one will be forced to do anything. Those who do not support same-sex or opposite-sex partnerships need not adopt one."

Nebraska taxpayers would be forced to pay for the state’s subsidization of the cost of the expanded benefit, as well as costs of litigation if the suspect policy is challenged for violating the Nebraska Constitution. Nebraska citizens would be forced to accept their state university system holding up cohabitation and domestic partnerships as the equal of marriage.