From the Dispatch - News

New Resource on How to Respond to Arizona Copycat Bills

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:18:28 -0400

To date, legislators in up to 22 states have expressed interest in introducing legislation based upon Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, despite a current federal court injunction barring implementation of many of its most draconian provisions.

Many anti-immigrant proposals have already failed this year in states across the nation including in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arkansas, and Kansas. Arizona's law is currently barred after a federal court decision. Yet even as the US Department of Justice continues to investigate SB 1070 for preempting federal immigration law and legal experts underline the law's unconstitutionality, anti-immigrant legislators and advocacy groups continue to attempt to bring similarly mean-spirited and regressive laws to other states.

A new briefing document, Fighting Back Against Copycat Immigration Laws Like Arizona's, prepared by Henry Fernandez of the Center for American Progress in close consultation with Progressive States Network; Immigration Policy Center; National Immigration Forum; Media Matters Action Network; and the Southern Poverty Law Center, provides a useful set of talking points and facts that outline how anti-immigrant proposals such as Arizona’s are misguided, unconstitutional, based upon fake data, and extremely expensive for states and localities. In addition to highlighting how advocates and state legislators can shift the immigration debate by introducing and advancing positive, pro-immigrant legislation, the briefing document is also designed to provide you with effective and well-researched arguments and talking points should an Arizona ‘copycat’ proposal come to your state.

Some additional resources to bolster the talking points, facts, and arguments outlined in the Center for American Progress memo include more on Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's anti-immigrant crusad e; how lawsuits against SB 1070 seek to maintain clear federal responsibility over immigration law; and more from PSN on how many anti-immigrant legislators falsely claimed crime rates in Arizona were soaring as the state's number of immigrant residents increased - thereby justifying the need for laws such as SB 1070.

States and legislators can provide a powerful counterpoint to anti-immigrant legislation by introducing legislation that provides solutions and expands opportunity for all residents, immigrant and native-born alike. Legislators can also join forces with other progressive elected officials to stand up against anti-immigrant politics and divisive rhetoric. Coalitions such as State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy, a dynamic and growing set of progressive elected officials from 32 states (affiliated with Progressive States Network), are calling for common-sense approaches to immigration policy via media briefings and introducing pro-immigrant legislation in states nationwide.

Progressive States Network encourages state legislators to support pro-immigrant policies and to join State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy (SLPIP) by signing on to our principles for Progressive Immigration Policy here.

Fremont, NE Considers Steep Property Tax Hike to Defend its Anti-Immigrant Law

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:18:28 -0400

Outlining just how costly it is for states and municipalities to be anti-immigrant, the City Council of Fremont, Nebraska is weighing a hefty 18% property tax hike to bankroll defending its controversial anti-immigrant local ordinance in court. The law was set to go into effect on July 31, but had been put on hold pending a lawsuit in federal court.

In June 2010, Fremont voters approved a local law that bars local landlords from renting to undocumented residents and also prohibits employers from hiring undocumented workers. The ordinance, the first and so far only successful anti-immigrant proposal to be approved in the wake of Arizona's infamous SB 1070, met with swift legal challenges from the ACLU of Nebraska and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and is currently being debated in federal court. In preparation, the town of 25,000 residents is aiming to raise roughly $750,000 to cover the legal fees to defend Fremont's anti-immigrant law - which have reportedly already been lowered by attorney and Kansas Secretary of State candidate Kris Kobach, who is the author of many state and local anti-immigrant bills and is affiliated with the controversial Immigration Reform Law Institute and its parent organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

As PSN has discussed in previous Dispatches, anti-immigrant laws at the state and local level have largely been struck down by the federal courts, which generally find these proposals to be unconstitutional. Arizona's SB 1070, by far the most sweeping and draconian anti-immigrant state law, made it a state crime to be undocumented; required all state and local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they believed were undocumented, ; prohibited individuals from seeking work on the street; and made it a crime to aid or transport undocumented immigrants in the state. Most of SB 1070's most troubling components, which effectively pre-empt the federal government's authority over immigration laws, were struck down in a federal court decision in late July. Many other similar local ordinances in relatively small towns were also struck down by the courts after protracted and costly legal battles. Hazelton, Pennsylvania's ordinance cost its taxpayers $2.4 million; the legal fees to defend Farmers Branch, Texas's anti-immigrant law cost its taxpayers $4 million; and Valley Park, Missouri's ordinance cost its taxpayers $270,000.

Department of Justice to States: Don’t Sue Polluters

Fabiola Carrion — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:18:27 -0400

In a blow to states’ leadership over clean energy, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that states cannot sue power plant operators that generate pollution. The Justice Department alleges that: (1) the Environmental Protection Agency has already started to regulate greenhouse emissions; and (2) states lack standing to assert a federal nuisance claim.

The brief was filed in connection with litigation where Connecticut and seven other states (New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) as well as New York City sued a group of utilities that emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. The suit contends that utilities are creating a “public nuisance” through their greenhouse-gas emissions, contributing to global warming, and consequently injuring the states in their capacities as sovereigns or property owners.

States have been able to sue harmful emitters under the nuisance theory since a 1907 Supreme Court decision that required Tennessee copper companies to reduce emissions that were damaging to Georgia farmers’ crops. Should the DOJ’s second legal reasoning of standing be adopted by the courts, the 1907 decision would be trumped and federal nuisance law will not be able to act as backstop against carbon dioxide emissions.

Environmental organizations have criticized the Department’s stance and acknowledge states’ actions to combat climate change in the absence of legislation from Washington DC. Further, they note that although the EPA has adopted regulations to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, the agency has not defined how it expects power plants, factories and other stationary sources to control their greenhouse-gas emissions. Moreover, they point out, EPA’s regulation over greenhouse gas is still not in effect and is only applicable for the largest and newest sources of pollution.

As we have discussed in previous Dispatches, states are often the laboratories where good policies are first created; and clean energy reform is undoubtedly one of them. If the federal government were to prevent states from exercising their authority over environmental policy, this decision could have detrimental effects on further policy innovation at the state level.

California Progressives Score Key Transparency Victory

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:18:27 -0400

In August, California lawmakers approved AB 2666, a bill sponsored by Asm. Nancy Skinner that requires the state's Franchise Tax Board to compile information on corporate tax expenditures and publish the information on California's Reporting Transparency in Government website. Pedro Morillas, a Consumer Advocate with CALPIRG, commented on the bill's movement, “[c]orporate tax breaks will no longer be a bottomless pit for taxpayers. We’ll still be sending money down the hole, but now we’ll be able to see where it lands.” In 2009 alone, the state spent $14.5 billion on corporate tax expenditures with no oversight or accountability mechanisms.

In recent years, California has taken steps to improve transparency of state spending, but significant work still remains. In U.S. PIRG's Following the Money: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Governm ent Spending Data - a comprehensive analysis and ranking of each state on the development of comprehensive, one-stop, one-click budget accountability and accessibility - California's online transparency efforts received a "D" for poor search-ability and lacking complete information about current and past contracts. The report also discusses some of the major benefits of corporate transparency, which can promote sound fiscal practices, identify spending inefficiencies, reduce corruption, and encourage a more focused budget process.

The legislation now awaits the signature of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been a strong advocate for accountability throughout his gubernatorial tenure. For instance, in June 2009, the Governor signed an executive order that augmented the scope of the state's transparency website. He emphasized, "[t]he people of California have a right to know what they are getting for their money. In this time of deep recession, it is more critical than ever that state government operates efficiently and is accountable to the people."

A confluence of factors have contributed to greater legislative and activist interest in pursuing transparency, including: the lingering effects of the economic downturn, budget shortfalls and plummeting revenues, the abuses of the financial sector and their major role in the recession, and the transparency requirements in the Recovery Act. Within this framework, progressive state legislators have been advancing transparency and accountability initiatives in order to safeguard taxpayers, foster better budgeting practices, promote good jobs, and garner savings. As part of our 2010 Shared Multi-State Agenda, the Progressive States Network has been working with lawmakers nationwide to promote Corporate Transparency in State Budgets policies.

Private Tax Filing Firm Lobbying to Scrap Successful State Tax Preparation Services

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:17:37 -0400

Intuit, a private firm that manufactures TurboTax, has pushed California lawmakers to eliminate the popular, successful, and cost-effective public tax filing services, ReadyReturn and CalFile. These two programs offer millions of low- and middle-income Californians a free and reliable method to calculate and file taxes. They are also wildly popular - ReadyReturns's user satisfaction rate reaches above 98 percent. The state's Franchise Tax Board estimates that in total, ReadyReturn and CalFile save taxpayers between $4 million and $10 million in filing fees and reduces the state's processing and administrative costs by $500,000 a year. Considering the depth of the state's fiscal and economic woes, these savings are sorely needed.

Intuit has spent over $1.25 million in the past five years on lobbying efforts to kill the programs and provided right-wing politicians with over $2 million in campaign support. Their efforts have had a visible impact: conservative state lawmakers have withheld support for domestic violence shelter and police department funding in an attempt to force the elimination of the programs.

In their crusade against government and public structures, the anti-tax movement is joining the opposition to these types of tax preparation programs because a dependable, popular, and cost-effective government service does not suit their hackneyed and hollow messaging.

As Professor Dennis J. Ventry Jr. of the UC Davis School of Law notes, "[a]bolishing ReadyReturn and CalFile would hurt Californians. Intuit's alternative would cover fewer taxpayers and provide fewer services; it would cost individuals millions of dollars in preparation fees (much of which Intuit wants to pocket); and it would kill two programs that actually save the state money. It doesn't add up for anyone. Except Intuit." Accordingly, this effort to eliminate a successful government program that saves money and assists millions of taxpayers follows the pattern of right-wing behavior at both the state and federal level -- placing the interests of large corporations and the very wealthy over middle class families and effective economic and fiscal policy.

Resources

California Budget Bites - Summer Doldrums Reveal Yet Another Threat to Ready Return
Progressive States Network - Right-wing Budget Hypocrisy: Taking Recovery Funds, Denouncing Deficits and Promoting Costly Tax Cuts
The Los Angeles Times - Intuit just won't quit