One of four questions before the Supreme Court was whether the requirement that states expand eligibility for the Medicaid program to all persons below age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)-[$14,856 for an individual/ $30,656 for a family of 4] violates the 10th amendment to the Constitution. The Court found that Medicaid expansion is a valid exercise of Congress's spending power but that Congress cannot require states to accept the expansion (see article below). In other words the expansion becomes a state option. If the state chooses to expand Medicaid, the federal government must provide the promised funding and can enforce the rules for the expansion group. However, Congress cannot "coerce" the states into accepting Medicaid expansion by conditioning the receipt of funding for the current Medicaid program upon acceptance. The battle now shifts to the Governor and the Legislature as to whether Nevada will take advantage of the offered funding. I do not see ACA as coercion, but as a great deal for Nevada. The federal government will pay initially pay 100% of the cost for these newly eligibles (estimates range between 91,000 - 127,000 for SFY’ 2015). In 2016 when the state share will pay 5% which will gradually climb to 10% by 2020. The average benefit would be $3,600 per recipient per month ($350 million - $450 million annually). The only increased costs would be relatively small amounts for administration and to cover enrollment of persons already eligible for the program (the “woodwork”). The much larger influx of federal dollars will not only improve our health but decrease the cost of private insurance to all and boost our economy at a time when we desperately need it. Ironically, if Nevada rejects Medicaid expansion, we will create a two-tiered system of healthcare. Many below 100% of the FPL will remain uninsured with no financial help. Persons with incomes between 100%-400% of FPL will be able to purchase health insurance on our newly created exchange with a subsidy from the federal government. My hope is that we can all work together to make sure that Nevada does not blow this opportunity. GOVERNING The States and Localities Supreme Court Ruling: Uncertain Future for Medicaid Expansion? BY: Dylan Scott | June 28, 2012 One portion of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to effectively uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could have profound implications for the law’s goal of universal health coverage: it appears states could opt out of raising their Medicaid eligibility standards to 133 percent of the federal poverty level in 2014 without losing their existing federal Medicaid funding as a result. The ACA’s Medicaid provision is expected to extend coverage to up to 17 million people within the next decade. But the teeth of the provision, as originally conceived, was that the law gave the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to withhold some or all of a state’s federal Medicaid match (between 50 and 75 percent of each state’s spending for the program) if the state did not adopt the new eligibility standards. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 5-4 majority, declared that the Medicaid eligibility expansion is constitutional, but that it is unconstitutional for HHS to withhold existing federal Medicaid funding for states that don’t comply. That could neuter the Obama administration's ability to enforce the expansion. "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use,” Roberts wrote. “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." HHS will provide 100 percent of new spending for the newly eligible population, under the ACA, and that match declines to 90 percent by 2020. The expansion is a major part of the law's goal of universal health insurance, covering more than half of the 30 million people expected to receive coverage under the law as a whole. It would appear, however, that states could not participate in the Medicaid expansion without facing any financial penalty. "The ruling, in effect, makes the ACA’s Medicaid expansion optional for states," said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. "States will now have to make a series of decisions moving forward. Those include the political, fiscal and policy calculations of whether or not this particular expansion makes sense." The expansion's impact is substantial: some states, such as Nevada and Oregon, would experience up to a 60 percent increase in their Medicaid enrollment under the expansion. California and Texas would add up to 2 million new enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A few states—including Florida, Maine and Texas—have already floated the possibility of opting out of the Medicaid expansion. Applications from Florida and Maine to reduce their enrollment have already been rejected by the Obama administration, which cited the ACA. Given the wording of the Roberts decision, it would seem those states, and others, might now have an opening to pursue that option. On the other hand, eight states have already taken an offer of enhanced funding from HHS to implement the ACA's new eligibility standards early, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. It seems likely that at least some states will seize the opportunity for federal money to expand their Medicaid coverage. "For many states, it's going to be very difficult for them to leave that money on the table," said Linda Blumberg, health economist and senior fellow at the Urban Institute. "I think is going to be considerable financial pressure, both from providers and the reality of state budgets, to go with this."

SUPRME COURT DECISIONS Our system of government is based upon checks and balances. This week our third branch of government's highest court, the United States Supreme Court, has and will deliver decisions which are landmark. The constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is set for a decision this week. On Monday, the Supreme Court: Struck down, in a 5-3 vote, the Arizona Immigration law. Iimmigration is a contentious political issue. Governor Sandoval stated that there is no need for an 'immigration law ' in Nevada-- nevertheless immigration law is in need of reform on a federal level. In a "narrowly divided ' 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the landmark 'Citizens United 2010 decision which allows a " free- speech right of companies and unions to donate unlimited amounts of money for and against candidates with little as to framing transparency". This decision is a blow to campaign finance reform and transparency in campaign finance. In an ideological split decision 5-4 the Supreme Court decision said that federal judges and juries could allow consideration of a juvenile's age when sentences for some of the harshest crimes -- state judges could sentence a juvenile to life without parole, however federal laws cannot automatically impose a life without parole sentence.

LOBBYIST MESSAGE

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release	June 8, 2012
Contact Cynthia Sell, (702) 799-5304
CCSD Board of Trustees approves resolution for a capital improvement program request on the November ballot LAS VEGAS – At a special meeting on Friday, June 8, 2012, the Clark County School District (CCSD) Board of Trustees approved a resolution for a question to go before voters in the general election on Tuesday, November 6, for a capital improvement program (CIP) primarily to renovate older schools. The proposal will be for a program of up to six years, projected to raise $669 million for school rehab/modernization, HVAC, electrical, technology and other equipment needs. The funding would come from a $0.212 (twenty-one point two cents) increase in property tax per $100 of assessed valuation that would provide for school needs on a “pay-as-you-go-basis” as funds become available over time, if no further declines occur in local assessed property values. The proposed CIP would take effect July 1, 2013, and CCSD would begin to see revenues from the program in Oct. 2013. The trustees selected the “pay-as-you go” option, which will allow all the funds to go directly to school needs without the issuance of bonds or related debt. The board action comes at a time when school improvement funds are ending from the 1998 bond program, which provided 101 new schools, 19 replacement schools and more than $1.6 billion worth of school improvements. A School Improvement Committee, formed by former Nevada first ladies Sandy Miller, Bonnie Bryan, Dema Guinn and Dawn Gibbons, will lead the efforts to support the capital improvement program.         The list of schools targeted for the CIP, if it is approved, may be viewed at http://ccsd.net/resources/facilities/pdf/proposed-capital-improvement-plan-2012.pdf. If any new or replacement schools become feasible in the CIP, regulations and conditions at that time will determine the locations.
# # #
Office of the Superintendent - Communications Office - 5100 West Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89146

For League Members - Grassroots Advocacy/Activism Report 2012 LWVNV has earned our political reputation based upon grassroots community activism. Our philosophy is study, "show up," listen, and give voice to our positions. LWVNV is respected for our nonpartisan advocacy and voter services work. As a volunteer organization, we work with like-minded organizations and elected officials. Over the first six months of 2012, League activism reflected the fact that this is an election year. The political climate locally, state-wide and nationally is polarized and at times discouraging, nevertheless the high stakes outcomes are worth our efforts to find consensus. Nevada is a swing state in national politics. 2012 provides an opportunity for Nevadans to make a positive proactive difference. Locally, politics have the same high stakes in forming the direction Nevada will take as to the role of government, public services provided, and our quality of life. The economy holds center stage in election 2012. How Nevada addresses business, both in the private and public sectors, will be the linchpin to our future. Hopefully those who win the 2012 elections will find balance between fiscal conservative agendas and progressive social policy. Moderates will struggle to find traction. League supports weighing all sides of an issue, finding consensus or not. League also supports balance between majority rule and minority rights. League believes in the democratic process, representative government and the rule of law. Grassroots participation is a fundamental principle of democracy. League supports policy grounded in civic virtue and fundamental rights. League is monitoring voter registration regulations, campaign finance, and transparent open government. At this point, legislation is being formulated and political agendas are taking shape. Whether League supports or opposes policy will depend on our LWVNV positions and how proposed policy impacts elections, education, our economy, our environment, social programs including health care, and effective governmental operations. Nevada state governance operates as defined in the Nevada Constitution through three branches of government; a biennial legislature, checked by a full-time executive branch and a two tiered judicial branch and voter political will. Nevada has a unitary system of government whereby local governments exist under state oversight- not through home rule. Home rule may again be a consideration in 2013. Nevada lawmakers are not in session annually, however legislative operations through interim committees meet in even years and legislative sessions convene in odd years. The fact that legislators meet and make fiscal decisions annually is somewhat of a constitutional irregularity. Annual sessions have been discussed for decades. There is little to support a full time legislature due to cost and the tradition of a citizen legislature, nevertheless annual sessions are a common sense reform. League has testified in favor of annual sessions. The 2011 session approved a study of annual sessions to consider cost, effectiveness, other state organizations, overall accountability and responsiveness to governance. League testified in support of reforming the process of calling special sessions with the legislative branch having more control over the agenda, rather than the Governor having all the control. Special sessions have been the norm during the last ten years. The addition of appellate courts is something League and the voters support. Actions passed in the 2011 session expanded the role the Governor has overseeing K-12 public education reform, including the fact that the State Superintendent is chosen by the Governor, and the role of the State Board of Education.The State Superintendent will now serve as a member of the Governor's Cabinet. Given that public education is a fundamental right and a considerable state expense, how education reform is shaped is critical to the future of Nevada. League supports public education accountability and is monitoring the reform process. All government operations are influenced by revenue and expenses. Nevada revenue has limited both government operations and government services. The uncharted economic recession is forcing a review of revenue sources, transparent government expenses and tax policy. League is monitoring all of this. The current political climate has been contentious regarding public sector jobs, benefits, contracts and collective bargaining. Legislation to address the process was on the table in 2011. League is monitoring the issue. League has long supported reform to the Nevada Tax structure based upon a League study which found the present tax structure unstable and insufficient regarding government services including education and social services. Neither of which are supported at adequate and equitable levels. The economy, unemployment and diversifying industry within our state must be addressed. League actively supports conservation of our environment and is on the record in support of protecting Gold Butte. Gold Butte, our corner of the Grand Canyon, is a source of natural beauty and an untapped economic source as a means to expand international tourism in Nevada. League supports policy which taps non fossil energy, preserves and provides equitable allocation of water and ensures clean air policies. Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Power Community continue to be at odds. League does not support nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. League is on the record ensuring that voters are informed and have the ability to vote.The League, in partnership with the Brennan Center for Justice, used the legal system to improve Nevada's compliance with the Voter's Registration Act of 1994. League, working with the Secretary of State's office and the Department of Motor Vehicles, pushed to modernize voter registration by requring the state to install programs so that electronic updates to voter registration are available. The issue has stalled, however we continue to advocate for compliance. Money in campaigns is a long standing issue with regards to transparency in government. Last session there were several bills supported by League to improve campaign finance reporting and to provide information on contributions so voters were able to research the candidates and their supporters in real time. Assemblyman Hickey has come out early with a proposal to address open and timely campaign disclosure and lobbying regulations in the 2013 session. Public Education reform is on the front burner as Nevada struggles to improve the system and manage the cost while moving forward to meet the needs of the 21st century and our global world. The right to have an equitable and adequate education is a civil right. Last session the Governor and legislature worked on education reform. During the interim there have been discussions and studies on the existing public education funding formula and ways to balance the system and enhance funding without negatively impacting other services. The Nevada Plan meets standards, however it does not address equity in the true sense of the word. Add to this the fact that education revenue is often redirected to fund other services and that education funding with respect to reform is not meeting the needs of the students in the classroom, settling the funding issue is critical. There are those who support school choice. Charter Schools, distance learning, home schooling options and alternative programs are part of education reform. Those who look for more choice and support vouchers are looking at a change to the Constitution. The League does not support vouchers. Higher Education funding reform is on the table. Nevada has north / south/ rural/ urban issues. League supports an educational system which provides life-long learning necessary to improve our quality of life and the economy. The housing crisis has been critical to the continuing recession in Nevada. Home owners are looking to their Congressional representatives and state legislators for help. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto won a legal battle to get assistance for Nevadans. League has been monitoring regulations which impact home mortgages and foreclosures. League supported the Domestic Partnership Legislation passed in 2011. Civil rights are still in dispute which led to a lawsuit to settle the issue. League is monitoring the process. Women's rights are fundamental to civil rights for all. League supports equal rights and equal opportunity for all. Clark County School District is looking to bridge their capital funds. Maintenance requirements have replaced projects funded by the 1998 bond to address growth. The district may have a ballot question requesting a tax increase to fund Capital Projects adding to property taxes. Capital project funding was part of the 2011 budget debate which included a Nevada Supreme Court decision. League is monitoring all tax initiatives. The next six months leading up to the 2013 legislative session will require active grassroots activism. Respectfully, Sam King, LWVNV Director Grassroots Advocate.

LOBBYIST MESSAGE

 

Women represent nearly half of the workforce today, but many women who become pregnant face losing their job when requesting maternity accommodations.

That's why I hope you'll ask your representative to co-sponsor the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that was introduced in the House of Representatives last week by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)—a bill that will ensure pregnant workers are able to maintain their jobs without limiting their ability to work and support their family.

Under this bill, pregnant women will be able to request reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions without the fear of being fired—a privilege which isn't included in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. These changes are long overdue, and we need to make sure the House passes this important bill.

Approximately 75 percent of women who enter the workforce will become pregnant at some point during their employment, and it's something that our workplaces should embrace. The problem is, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act that's currently law is more than 30 years old—when working mothers were a much smaller fraction of the workforce.

By urging your representative to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act you are helping protect women against discrimination and ensuring a safe and healthy work environment for all working mothers.

Sam

LOBBYIST MESSAGE

During the 2011 Legislative Session, LWVNV supported AJR5 as it applies to the intent of legislative responsibilities. Please review proposal below as it may appear on the ballot. There will be several ballot questions this election

 

Regards,

Sam

QUESTION NO. ____

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5 of the 75th Session

CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to expressly provide that the Legislature may, on extraordinary occasions, convene a special legislative session upon a petition signed by two-thirds of the Legislators of each House; to limit the bills passed at a special session; to limit the duration of a special session to 20 consecutive calendar days except for proceedings involving impeachment, removal or expulsion from office; and to require the Legislature to adjourn all sessions on their final day not later than midnight based on the actual time on the clock?

Yes No

EXPLANATION

This ballot measure would amend the Nevada Constitution to expressly provide that the Legislature may call itself into special session on extraordinary occasions by a petition signed by two–thirds of the members of both the Assembly and Senate. Extraordinary occasions may include instances when it is necessary to address unexpected conditions or emergency situations, to conduct impeachment, removal or expulsion proceedings for misconduct in office, or to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor after the adjournment of a regular session.

This measure provides that the Legislature may not introduce, consider or pass any bills at a special session, whether convened by the Legislature or the Governor, except for bills related to the business specified in the petition or Governor’s proclamation and bills necessary to pay for the cost of the special session. This measure also limits a special session to 20 consecutive calendar days unless the special session is called for the purpose of impeachment, removal or expulsion from office. Under these circumstances, an exception is provided to allow sufficient time for due process considerations.

Currently, the Nevada Constitution provides that regular sessions of the Legislature must be adjourned on the final day of the session not later than "midnight Pacific standard time." The Nevada Supreme Court has held that when the State is observing daylight saving time on the final day of a session, the Legislature is not required to adjourn the session when the clock strikes midnight, but may continue the session until 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time because such time is equivalent to "midnight Pacific standard time." This measure supersedes the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision by providing that regular sessions and special sessions must be adjourned on the final day before "midnight Pacific time," which is defined to mean the actual time on the clock.

- 1 -

A "Yes" vote would amend the Nevada Constitution to: (1) give the Legislature express power to call itself into special session on extraordinary occasions; (2) limit the bills passed at a special session; (3) limit the duration of a special session except for a special session called to conduct proceedings for impeachment, removal or expulsion from office; and (4) provide that regular and special sessions must be adjourned on the final day not later than "midnight Pacific time," which is defined to mean the actual time on the clock.

A "No" vote would retain the provisions of the Nevada Constitution in their current form, which give only the Governor express power to convene the Legislature into special session and which provide that regular sessions of the Legislature must be adjourned on the final day not later than "midnight Pacific standard time," which has been interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court to be 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time.

ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

Because there are extraordinary occasions when immediate action is critical, it is imperative for the Legislature to have express power to call itself into special session. A governor may not respond quickly enough to unexpected conditions or emergency situations or may act in self-interest or defy the will of the people. It is unwise for only one elected official to have the express power to convene special sessions. If a Nevada governor were accused of egregious misconduct like former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, it is highly unlikely that the accused Nevada governor would convene a special session for his or her own impeachment. Under such circumstances, the accused Nevada governor could remain in office until the next regular session, which could be a period of nearly 20 months. This measure would ensure that such a dangerous and repugnant situation never occurs in Nevada.

This measure includes strict checks and balances to ensure that the Legislature does not abuse the special-session power. It is extremely difficult to reach a two-thirds supermajority of the members from both Houses, especially to take extraordinary action to convene a special session. The supermajority would have to specify in the petition the business to be transacted at the special session, and the Legislature could not pass any bills except those related to the business specified in the petition and those necessary to fund the session. The Legislature also could not stay in session longer than 20 consecutive calendar days except for proceedings involving impeachment, removal or expulsion from office. These safeguards will make such special sessions rare.

Finally, this measure would provide that regular and special sessions must be adjourned on the final day before "midnight Pacific time," which is defined to mean the actual time on the clock. Like Nevada’s citizens who must conduct their business and social affairs in accordance with the time on the clock, the Legislature should have to adjourn on the final day of the session in accordance with the time on the clock. Midnight means midnight, not 1:00 a.m. The Legislature should not be allowed to follow a different clock than all of the citizens of this state.

- 2 -

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

There is no great need for the Legislature to have express power to call itself into special session. When extraordinary situations have arisen in the past, Nevada’s governors have convened 26 special sessions to address those situations. The Legislature has never had to impeach a Nevada governor, and this measure is not limited to situations involving impeachment, removal or expulsion from office.

This measure is an attempt to get around the voters’ past opposition to annual sessions. Nevada’s biennial regular sessions are intended to curtail the amount of time the Legislature may engage in law-making. The framers of theNevada Constitution created a part-time "citizen Legislature" by limiting the occurrence of regular sessions to once every two years. This measure may move Nevada away from the tradition of a part-time Legislature. Although the length of any one special session is limited to 20 consecutive calendar days, this measure does not limit the number of special sessions that can be called by the Legislature. Nevadans may be subject to the passage of an increasing number of laws if the Legislature can call itself into special session.

Lastly, the Nevada Constitution gives the Legislature 120 consecutive calendar days of 24 hours each to complete its legislative business during a regular session. When Nevada advances its clocks to daylight saving time during a regular session, one of those days is shortened to 23 hours. To account for the lost hour because of the time change, it makes sense for the Legislature to adjourn on the final day of the session one hour later at 1:00 a.m. Pacific daylight saving time.

FISCAL NOTE

Financial Impact—Cannot Be Determined

The proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution would expressly provide a method for members of the Nevada Legislature to convene a special session of the Legislature. If this proposal is approved there would be costs associated with convening and holding a special session called by the Legislature, but the financial impact cannot be established with any degree of certainty because the number and duration of such special sessions cannot be predicted. It should be noted that the costs to organize and hold a special session convened by the Legislature would be the same as a special session convened by the Governor. The State may incur minimal costs to develop and circulate the petition required to convene a special session under the proposal, which should have no adverse fiscal impact on the State.

- 3

CO-PRESIDENTS MESSAGE

The League of Women Voters was founded by Carrie Chapman Catt in 1920 during the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. The convention was held just six months before the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote after a 72-year struggle.

The League began as a "mighty political experiment" designed to help 20 million women carry out their new responsibilities as voters. It encouraged them to use their new power to participate in shaping public policy. From the beginning, the League has been an activist, grassroots organization whose leaders believed that citizens should play a critical role in advocacy. It was then, and is now, a nonpartisan organization. League founders believed that maintaining a nonpartisan stance would protect the fledgling organization from becoming mired in the party politics of the day. However, League members were encouraged to be political themselves, by educating citizens about, and lobbying for, government and social reform legislation.

This holds true today. The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public. The League has a long, rich history that continues with each passing year. -----LWVUS

A fundamental principle of the League is that we are a non-partisan organization. "Non Partisan" is not just empty words. These words say who we are, and what we should look like to the people we reach out to. It is a unique feature of our organization, as opposed to the other organizations in the political arena, and we should be proud of our nonpartisan status, and not allow any candidate for office or political party to get special treatment from us.

We stand by our commitment of not bringing campaign literature to our meetings and the wearing of political buttons. By the way the Veterans Centers standing rule of no political or religious literature in their building is strongly enforced. Our roster is confidential. While wearing of the League outerwear, pin, hat, or working in any League endeavors to bring a bias or personal preference of those running for office. What an individual member participates in politically is their choice as long as they keep it separate from the function as a member of the LWVM.

Our members are our greatest strength. It is important that every member practices the principles that are the bedrock of what the League stands for. When we keep true to the principles of our organization, we are at our best.