Amy Castillo is a MoCo pediatrician who unsuccessfully tried to get a final protective order against her abusive husband, who later drowned her three children. Castillo testified before the House Judiciary Committee in support of a bill sponsored by Delegate Sue Hecht (D-3A) and Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) that would have made it easier for abuse victims to obtain protective orders. Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) went after Castillo at the hearing and the committee killed the bill. Now Castillo is endorsing Simmons's Republican opponent, Dan Campos, in this mailer.
Showing posts with label Domestic Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic Violence. Show all posts
Monday, November 01, 2010
Domestic Violence Victim Takes on Simmons
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Campos Goes After Simmons on Domestic Violence
Republican District 17 House candidate Dan Campos has sent out the mailer below going after Democratic Delegate Luiz Simmons on domestic violence. Simmons is running on that issue, but Campos reminds voters of his introduction of the abuser expungement bill and his vote against a bill that would have made it easier for abuse victims to get protective orders. These sorts of votes are a big reason why Montgomery County NOW and NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland have endorsed Campos instead of Simmons despite Campos's running as a Republican.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Luiz Simmons Runs on Domestic Violence Issue
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) has sent out the following general election mailer touting his credentials in fighting domestic violence. We find his issue choice ironic given his introduction of a bill to allow accused abusers to expunge their court records, his vote against another bill that would have made it easier to obtain protective orders from abusers and his conduct in a hearing with a victim whose children were killed by an abuser.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Fact Check: Kramer’s Challenge to Navarro on Guns
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) has shown his displeasure with Nancy Navarro’s negative mailers in recent debates. But one reference to a gun vote has attracted special ire and caused Kramer to issue a dramatic challenge. At stake is Kramer’s entire candidacy – and that’s according to Kramer himself.
Kramer disputes this statement from one of Navarro’s mailers:NRA & the Gun Lobby: Ben Kramer sponsored pro-gun legislation, making it easier to buy handguns in Maryland, that was touted by a Republican blog as a “step in the right direction.” The Washington Post noted “adding guns to an already combustible situation is likely to lead to more violence.”
By the Riderwood forum last Thursday, Kramer began pushing back against this allegation. One of his volunteers quoted him as making the following challenge:If Nancy Navarro can find one bill that I sponsored or voted for that weakens gun control protections, I will resign from this race. But if she can’t, I want her to stand up on Election Day with a sign that says, “I apologize to Ben Kramer.”
I heard Kramer state the challenge in a slightly different way at Friday’s Leisure World debate:If Nancy Navarro can point to a single vote by me to make handguns easier to buy in Maryland, I’ll withdraw from the race. Otherwise, she should apologize with a sign on the street on Election Day saying that “I was wrong about Ben Kramer.”
So did Ben Kramer support weakening gun control protections or making it easier to buy handguns? What are we going to see on Election Day: a big withdrawal or a big sign?
The focus of the dispute is HB 359, a bill that was lead-sponsored by Republican Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A) and co-sponsored by Kramer and three others. The bill’s fiscal and policy note summarizes its purpose this way:This bill requires the Secretary of State Police to issue a handgun permit to a victim of domestic violence who has been issued a temporary or final protective order, assuming the individual meets other statutory handgun permit requirements. Specifically, the bill adds an individual who has been issued a temporary or final protective order to those individuals who, after meeting other statutory handgun permit requirements, are deemed to have a “good and substantial reason” to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.
The bill was extremely controversial. Advocates claimed it would help abuse victims defend themselves. Opponents claimed it would have unintended consequences. Consider these statements from one Baltimore City Delegate:Del. Cheryl D. Glenn (D-Baltimore), who last week rose on the floor to passionately recount her own experiences as the victim of violent beatings by an ex-husband in the 1970s, urged the bill’s defeat.
The Washington Post had these reservations about a similar Senate amendment:
“I can tell you as a victim, if I had had access to a gun at my most serious instances of domestic violence, I would have used it,” Glenn said. “Killing someone would have changed who I am today.”Victims’ advocates and law enforcement officers have serious concerns about the amendment. They worry that an abuser could discover a firearm hidden by a victim or wrestle away a gun during a dispute. It takes considerable training, police officials note, to be able to effectively wield a gun in self-defense. There’s another wrinkle: An abuser could misleadingly claim to be a victim of domestic violence and file for a protective order. This would rush a gun into the hands of someone capable of violence. And police officers called to domestic disputes could find themselves in greater danger.
In the end, the House bill was defeated 86-51. Kramer and Luiz Simmons (D-17) were the only Montgomery Delegates who voted for it.
Let’s evaluate Kramer’s challenge.
1. Does the bill make it easier to buy guns?
The bill never uses the term “buy.” It does require the Secretary of State Police to issue a permit to “carry, wear or transport a handgun” to applicants who have received a protective order from a judge. (An amendment changed the language to allow the Secretary to “consider” those protective orders as criteria for the permits.)
The bill’s fiscal and policy note states that 17,427 temporary protective orders and 9,104 final protective orders were granted by Maryland judges in fiscal year 2007. The note assumes that 10% of eligible individuals would apply for permits if the bill was passed, resulting in 1,700 to 1,800 additional applications per year. The bill estimates that the state would earn $130,500 more per year in permit application fees but would pay out an extra $240,600-$306,800 annually for the hire of two additional state troopers to process the applications.
Guns can only be obtained in one of two ways: by purchase or by theft. Most abuse victims are incapable of conjuring guns out of thin air. (If they could do that, there would be a lot less abuse!) Furthermore, individuals who steal guns rarely apply for permits for them. It defies common sense that a bill allowing thousands of people to more easily obtain permits would not result in more gun purchases.
Kramer is splitting hairs. Plain and simple, this bill would have allowed more people to legally buy guns – 1,700-1,800 in all per year. Whether those guns would have served a good purpose is a legitimate subject of debate.
2. Does the bill weaken gun control regulations?
Buried in the fiscal and policy note is this statement:DSP [Department of State Police] has questioned whether, after an order has expired, a handgun permit properly issued under the bill would still be valid. If not, the permit and the weapon might have to be forfeited. Because it takes about 120 days for the actual issuance of a printed permit, and because temporary protective orders can only be issued for 30 days, it would seem likely that those persons not issued a subsequent final order will have had the basis for issuance expire.
This is an important point that received no attention during the debate over the bill. A temporary protective order only lasts 30 days, but a gun permit takes 120 days to process. What happens if a temporary protective order expires but the gun permit is issued anyway? The individual who receives the permit would no longer have a legal basis for possessing it. The prospect of hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals obtaining gun permits without a current legal basis for having them is definitely a weakening of gun control regulations.
Kramer’s challenge fails. Will he withdraw?
Update: Ann Marimow really fell down on the job this time. Her rushed Washington Post article makes no reference to the above facts. She did not bother to read the bill or its fiscal and policy note, a serious disservice to her readers.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Ben Kramer and the Issue of Domestic Violence
By Eric Luedtke.
In politics there are issues on which it is OK to be on either side and issues in which it is not. Domestic violence is not an issue on which it is OK to be on the fence. It is a profound social ill that tears apart families, damages its victims both physically and mentally, and can result in horrific acts of violence. So any politician worth their salt will be on only one side of the issue: do everything possible to stop it. That’s something I appreciate as a husband, a father, and as a teacher who has seen firsthand the effects of domestic violence on students I’ve taught.
Which is why I remain baffled by Ben Kramer’s support for a bill in the General Assembly that would have made it possible for accused perpetrators of domestic violence to have their records expunged if there was not enough evidence to warrant a protective order. Baffled because, quite frankly, Kramer’s entire family tends to be very much politically astute. And I’ve waited to see how Kramer would deal with it in the County Council election. That last question has now been answered, as the mailing Adam posted from the Kramer campaign shows him with a number of prominent women in the county, including former chair of Maryland NOW Duchy Trachtenberg (although I think it’s probably another political misstep that the people in the mailing are, for lack of a better word, monochromatic, given the diversity of the population of District 4).
Now to be up front about it, I’m not a supporter of Kramer’s. I’ve endorsed Nancy Navarro because I believe she’ll be the best person to help protect the public services that underlay the wealth and success of Montgomery County , including our public schools. That said, my vote has always been for Navarro, rather than against Kramer. But Kramer’s position on this issue raises some questions for me, both about his political common sense and his position on domestic violence itself.
I suppose one could argue that it’s a complex issue, that there is the possibility that a person could be wrongly accused of domestic violence, but I think that argument’s a red herring. The consequences of protecting perpetrators who may actually have committed such a crime are far more severe than that of a court record of an accusation lying in a back room somewhere. And I suppose it could be excused if this were part of the normal backroom Annapolis deal-making, as in, “My colleague on such and such committee asked me to co-sponsor.” But, well, there’s video, sent to me by a friend in the women's movement:
I showed this to some friends over the weekend, and their responses were interesting. One called him prosecutorial, another said he simply seemed aggressive. A third pointed out that he was being pretty hostile to people testifying who deserved at least a modicum of respect because they were, in the end, only doing what they thought necessary to end domestic violence.
All that aside, there’s a fairly simple question which Delegate Kramer has yet to answer during the course of the campaign: Why does he think it necessary that the law should lean towards protecting those accused of committing domestic violence instead of the victims of it? I think his constituents in District 19, his potential constituents in Council District 4, and victims of domestic violence across Maryland deserve an answer.
Editor’s Note: Eric Luedtke is a board member of MCEA, a former blogger on Free State Politics and a resident of District 4.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
What We Are Watching in Annapolis
While the mainstream media titillates itself with the University of Maryland porn scandal, here’s what we have our eyes on in the rest of the General Assembly session.
Misclassification Bill
Despite heavy lobbying by anti-union hired guns Lisa Harris Jones and Sean Malone, the O’Malley administration introduced a bill to crack down on tax cheating by employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors. Other states have found that they are losing tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in income taxes and unemployment revenues every year due to such scams. The bill was nearly crippled by two poison pill amendments adopted by the Senate. The bill is now in conference and if the Senate’s amendments survive, the odds of any actual crackdown on tax cheats will be very low.
Prince George’s Stadium
Marc Korman says the stadium is a bad deal for Maryland and he’s right. But it could be a good deal for Prince George’s County if only they could get the rest of the state to pay for it. After all, with Senator Ulysses Currie (D-25) chairing the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, you might figure the county could grab a bit of cash for it. Instead, the Prince George’s County Council voted against the stadium, pulling out the rug from delegation supporters and throwing the whole plan into limbo. It seems that the Prince George’s politicians can’t work together even to implement bad ideas, which may actually be a good thing.
Expungement Bill
Delegate Lou Simmons’ (D-17) odious abuser expungement bill is technically still alive in the House Judiciary Committee but we have not heard about it in awhile. We hope that it will not re-emerge from its lair.
Bill Frick’s Credit Card Bill
Delegate Bill Frick’s (D-16) bill to crack down on credit card abuse has passed the House 136-1 and is now before the Senate. We ask the Senators to read Marc Korman’s excellent post praising the bill.
WSSC
Several months after the disastrous pipe break on River Road, the momentum for structural reform at WSSC has petered out. If nothing emerges from the General Assembly, the Montgomery and Prince George’s delegations will have to flee to Antarctica when the next pipe inevitably explodes.
Reregulation Bill
The bill to reregulate new power plants is the ultimate “do-little-but-hype-a-lot” bill. It will have virtually no impact on electric bills and distracts attention from real measures that could make a difference. The Senate passed it but some members of the House Economic Matters Committee dislike it. The General Assembly would do well to return to the issue with different legislation next year.
MCPS Disclosure
Delegate Al Carr’s (D-18) local bill requiring online vendor disclosure by the Montgomery County Public Schools passed the House on a 139-0 vote. This bill is badly needed and we hope the Senate supports it.
Will Anything Positive Happen on Transportation?
The Governor and the General Assembly are doing nothing to raise revenue for transportation even though the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) even though its money is disappearing before our eyes. A bill by Delegates Susan Krebs (R-9B) and Brian Feldman (D-15) limiting raids on the TTF was killed by the House Appropriations Committee. Senator Rob Garagiola’s (D-15) task force bill may or may not get a vote from the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. Even if it does, time is running out on a House vote.
We’ll report back on how all of this turns out. In the meantime, don’t forget to check out Senator Andy Harris’s (R-7) latest anti-porn coverage.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Abuser Expungement Bill Rises From the Grave
Yesterday, we reported that a bill sponsored by Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) allowing accused domestic abusers to expunge their records was defeated. But we spoke too soon: the House of Delegates acted today to revive the bill and send it back to the Judiciary Committee to be re-worked.
Simmons’ bill would allow people accused of abuse who had their civil protective orders dismissed or denied by a judge to get those records expunged. Simmons and other bill supporters claim that the existence of these records caused problems for the accused in seeking employment and housing even though they were not upheld in court. Opponents responded that nearly all other civil defendants do not have the right of expungement and questioned why that right should be given to accused abusers alone. Others, including Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D-45), claimed that abused spouses are often reluctant to press charges in court, so their abusers should not be rewarded with expungement rights.
The expungement bill’s 64-69-8 defeat attracted substantial coverage from the Post and the Sun yesterday. But in a startling reversal, the House of Delegates reconsidered its vote on the bill today by a 76-63-2 margin, sending it back to the Judiciary Committee for revamping. The bill’s resurrection is due to the following group of 16 Delegates who voted against it yesterday but then voted to revive it today:
Saqib Ali (D-39)
John Bohanan (D-29B)
Rudolph Cane (D-37A)
Virginia Clagett (D-30)
Steven DeBoy (D-12A)
Adelaide Eckardt (R-37B)
Donald Elliott (R-4B)
James Gilchrist (D-17)
Guy Guzzone (D-13)
Marvin Holmes (D-23B)
Stephen Lafferty (D-42)
Murray Levy (D-28)
James Malone (D-12A)
Shane Pendergrass (D-13)
Justin Ross (D-22)
Frank Turner (D-13)
How could these legislators change their opinion on one bill that was not amended in just 24 hours?
Another fact worth noting is that support for the bill split partially along gender lines. On the first vote, female legislators voted against the bill 15-29-4 while male legislators voted for it 49-40-4. On the second vote, female legislators voted against the bill 17-30-1 while male legislators voted to reconsider it 59-33-1.
Among Montgomery Delegates, Luiz Simmons (D-17), Brian Feldman (D-15), Ben Kramer (D-19) and Henry Heller (D-19) voted for the bill both times, Kumar Barve (D-17) voted for the bill the first time but voted against reconsideration, Saqib Ali (D-39) and James Gilchrist (D-17) voted against the bill but then voted to revive it and the rest of the delegation opposed it consistently.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Luiz Simmons’ Abuser Expungement Bill (Updated)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who is a trial attorney, has introduced a bill enabling accused domestic abusers to expunge their court records. No, folks, we are not making this up.
HB 1181, sponsored by Simmons, states the following in its header:For the purpose of authorizing a respondent in a certain domestic violence proceeding to file a written request to expunge court records relating to the proceeding under certain circumstances; providing that a certain request for expungement may not be filed within a certain time except under certain circumstances; requiring the court to order the expungement of all court records relating to the proceeding under certain circumstances; providing a certain exception; requiring certain custodians to notify the court and the respondent of compliance with the order; defining certain terms; and generally relating to domestic violence and the expungement of certain court records.
According to this bill, if an abused spouse petitions a court for a protective order and that petition is dismissed or denied, the accused abuser can have the records expunged after three years. This is a rare protection under civil law. If a defendant is sued for fraud, breach of contract, negligence, defamation or just about anything else, the court records are preserved even if the case is settled or thrown out. But this bill would give accused abusers a special ability to expunge denied to almost all other civil defendants.
This bill also gives tremendous leverage to abusers over victims. Suppose a victim tells an abuser she wants to seek court protection. The abuser can say he will hire a lawyer, get the court to deny the petition and expunge his records. The abuser can then claim that any action by the victim to pursue court protection will be futile and produce zero consequence to the abuser. The victim could then very well be deterred from seeking a court order.
On February 27, the House Judiciary Committee voted 18-3 to approve the bill. Among Montgomery's Delegates, Simmons and Ben Kramer (D-19) voted in favor and Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Susan Lee (D-16) and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) voted against.
The bill is now moving along with the Governor’s two bills protecting domestic violence victims. If the House passes this bill but stalls the Governor’s efforts to prevent domestic abuse, the chamber will be drenched in shame.
Update: The expungement bill was defeated today on a 64-69 vote. Four Delegates were present but did not vote and four were excused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
