Friday, 27 January 2012 00:00
State Supreme Court on Senate Maps
This morning, the California Supreme Court directed election officials to use the state Senate maps certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission (Commission) for this year’s elections even if a referendum qualifies for the ballot. The issue before the state’s high court was which Senate district boundaries should be used if a pending referendum qualifies for the November ballot.
A referendum, sponsored by the Republican-back organization Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR), to overturn the new Senate maps drawn by the Commission will likely qualify for the November General Election ballot. While the referendum sponsors needed to collect 504,760 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot, they submitted almost 711,000 to elections officials. County elections officials are in the process of determining whether FAIR's petition has sufficient valid voter signatures and are not expected to complete their signature verification process until late February. However, the filing deadline for prospective candidates to run in these Senate districts is February 13th.
The political stakes are high since political experts believe that with the redrawn state Senate district boundaries, Democrats are likely to pick up at least two seats, thus giving them the minimum 27 needed for a super majority to raise taxes and approve urgency legislation without having to win any Republican votes.
Friday, 20, Janaury 2012
HHS “Modifies” Preventive Services Mandate
The Obama Administration announced today that it was providing religious employers, who do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans an additional year to comply with the Department of Health and Human Services preventive services mandate. 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (Aug. 3, 2011). In a news release, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated, “After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation.” Moreover, the Administration will require religious employers, exempt from the mandate under the Department’s very narrow definition of religious employer, to refer employees to providers that will provide contraceptive and sterilization services – “[The Department] intend[s] to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”
Remarkably, Secretary Sebelius claims that the administration’s proposal “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” In fact, this is not a modification of the rule, only a delay in the implementation of the mandate.
|
The Administration did nothing to address the fundamental flaw of the interim rule relative to its very narrow definition of “religious employer.” Unchanged under the rule, a “religious employer” is exempt from the mandate to provide contraceptive and sterilization services if that religious employer is one that: 1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; 2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; 3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and 4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). This HHS exemption entirely excludes the Catholic health care ministry, social services and educational institutions.
It is important to note that while California was the first state to enact this definition of “religious employer,” the California law is a more narrowly focused mandate than is the federal rule. California law requires health care and disability insurance plans to cover FDA approved prescription contraceptive methods only if they also provide coverage for outpatient prescription drug benefits.
The new federal regulation creates an unprecedented mandate for all types of employer-sponsored health plans – including ERISA plans – to cover all FDA-approved contraceptive methods regardless of whether or not they cover outpatient prescription drugs, and broadens the mandated services to include sterilization procedures, as well as patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.
In a statement on the “revised” HHS regulation, Bill Cox, President/CEO of the Alliance of Catholic Health Care, stated, “The Department of Health and Human Services’ definition of religious employer is an unconstitutional encroachment on the authority of the Church. For the first time in U.S. history, the rule places the federal government in the untenable position of defining what is or is not a religious employer. In essence, the Obama Administration is saying, ‘We don’t agree with certain of the Church’s moral beliefs, so we will use state power to simply redefine what we consider a religious employer.’ Thus, religious employers the Administration now essentially views as ‘secular’ will have to comply with the new government mandates, whether or not they conflict with the authentic religious employer's deepest moral convictions.”
Mr. Cox further noted, “Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution the federal government does not have the authority, nor does it have the competence, to troll through the religious beliefs and practices of the Church and determine which of its elements are religious and which are secular, and then impose on the ones it defines as ‘secular’ mandates that violate the Church’s religious and moral beliefs. This seriously flawed precedent set by Administration’s definition of religious employer must, at the earliest opportunity, be reversed by the Congress, the federal courts, or both.”
Friday, 13 January 2012
LAO Releases Budget Summary
On Wednesday, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) released its overview of Governor Brown’s 2012-13 budget proposal. While acknowledging that the Governor’s plan moves the state budget closer to balance over the next several years, the LAO’s revenue estimates – including estimates of the state revenue gains from the Governor’s proposed tax initiative – are lower than the Administration’s revenue estimates.
|
The Governor’s 2012-13 budget projects a shortfall of $9.2 billion and is based on the assumption that voters will approve his ballot measure to raise $6.9 billion a year for five years by increasing personal income tax rates on the state’s “wealthiest taxpayers,” and a one-half percent increase in the state’s sales tax. The LAO, however, projects that the Governor’s ballot proposal on average would create about $5.5 billion, with only $4.8 billion for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
The LAO estimates that the state revenues will be around $86 billion, which is about $3.2 billion lower than the Governor’s revenue estimate of $89.2 billon. Most of the difference in the baseline revenue projections is attributed to the LAO’s forecasting models that assume the high-income tax filers will receive significantly less income than what is assumed in the Department of Finance models.
If the LAO’s estimates are closer to the target than those of the Administration, the Legislature will have to pursue billion of dollars more in budget-balancing solutions. Also, if the voters do not approve the ballot measure, then the Governor proposes $5.4 billion of trigger cuts, which would take effect on January 1, 2013. Most impacted would be K-12 and community college Proposition 98 funding.
Regarding the Governor’s Medi-Cal and Healthy Families Program (HFP) proposals, the LAO’s report observes that while a number of the proposals have merit, the Legislature will need more information and details before taking action. Examples include the Brown Administration’s money-saving proposals to move Dual Eligibles into Medi-Cal managed care, and to transfer HFP enrollees to Medi-Cal.
The full LAO report can be found at: http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/bud/budget_overview/budget-overview-011112.pdf
|
Friday, 06 January 2012
State Budget
On Thursday, January 5, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown unexpectedly released his proposed 2012-13 state budget instead of on Tuesday, January 10, as originally planned. He explained that he was releasing the budget five days early because it had inadvertently been placed on a public website.
Click here for full details.
