Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Saturday, February 24, 2024

And then suddenly the Law of Unintended Consequences arrived at the party

The logic of it, even without reading the Alabama Supreme Court opinion, is clear.

Life begins at conception, and therefore embryos artificially conceived are alive, and entitled to teh same protection as other early infants.

It's not really that shocking, and frankly, I agree with that.

Hence the logcial question presented to the  Alabama Supreme Court by

This Court has long held that unborn children are "children" for purposes of Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, 6-5-391, Ala. Code 1975, a statute that allows parents of a deceased child to recover punitive damages for their child's death. The central question presented in these consolidated appeals, which involve the death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is whether the Act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children -- that is,unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed. Under existing black-letter law, the answer to that question is no: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children,regardless of their location.

It's a logical question, and it was brought by the upset parents.

The decision is lengthy, and involves a host of issues, but the basic conclusion is this:

Here,the text ofthe Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified. It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. Itis not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life"from legal protection. Art.I, 36.06 ,Ala. Const. 2022.1

The Court reached the right decision.

And now people are reacting in horror, including the putative nominee for the Oval Office on the GOP side, who has tweeted: 


Let's start with some obvious things.

Firstly, I don't know what Donald Trump thinks the "ultimate joy in life" is. Given as he's a serial polygamist who cheated on two spouses, I'm skeptical that it's a happy family life.

I'm frankly quite skeptical that Trump really is that against abortion in the first place, although that's just skepticism on my part.  I can't see where Trump really holds that many values on anything in particular, really.

He does value getting reelected however and now he, like a lot of Republicans, are scrambling to figure out how to react to this, in no small part because a large number of Americans are probably now looking at the actual meaning of what social conservatism, and I am a social conservatism, is, and they're now really uncomfortable with it.

Americans overall, or at least a lot of Americans, claim that they are all for traditional values and are conservatives, but what they mean is that they are in favor of marriage, sort of, and family life, sort of, as long as that means you can easily dump your spouse and get remarred as much as you want to, and kill your offspring in utero up to sixteen weeks. This applies as much to Republicans as it does to Democrats.  If you are looking at a GOP candidate, and they've been married more than once, it's frankly a perfectly fair question to ask them if they really believe in what they claim they do.

Indeed, the whole close embrace to religion the press claims is going on is really a close embrace to the American Civil Religion.  It's certainly not a close embrace of Apostolic Christianity.  At least Catholicism holds that artificial insemination of human's is morally wrong in the first instance, and this provides just one of the reasons why.  It's completely contra natural.

But here's the added deal. When people claim they're advancing values, how deep have they looked at their arguments and how far are they prepared to go, and are they willing to apply them, to themselves?

Are those on the right in favor of traditional values, really in favor of them. Are those on the left who claim to be in favor of nature, willing to really live with it?

Related Thread:

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

The Transitions Issue.


The February 2024 issue of Wyoming Lawyer was exceptionally good.  Its focus was on "transitions", by which it mostly meant career transitions (but also had some articles on the scary advances of AI).

The magazine usually good, frankly.  Indeed, a magazine that has such a limited circulation can't be expected to be great, but it actually is very, very good as a rule.

This issue was on transitions, as noted, mostly, and it had some truly excellent articles.  One was about retiring Wyoming Supreme Court Justice Keith Kautz, who was a great judge.  I liked the question he was asked about his favorite quotes, with the answer being:

I have two: 

1. Encouragement is the oxygen of the soul. 

2. The greatest day in your life or mine, the day we truly grow up, is the day when we take responsibility for our own attitudes.

Those are both pretty profound.  Nothing will burn a person out quicker than to work with people who only criticize them. And taking responsibility for your own attitudes is existentially a magnus opus.  I don't know that many people fully ever manage to do that, myself included.

Kautz is retiring as he's hit the statutory maximum for a judge of age 70.  He didn't seem bitter about it.  Justice Fox, who does seem bitter about the age limit being 70, mentioned it and Justice Kautz retiring in her State of the Judiciary speech.  She did reference it with her dry wit, referring to the age of 70 as "constitutional senility" and Kautz was in the audience.

An attempt at dry wit, I think, was made by the Bar President in her opening article of the issue, which was about a long time assistant retiring.  She had the line:

I always thought that money, fame, and power brought the greatest happiness, but according to the 80-year-old Harvard Study of Adult Development, close relationships with others is what really keeps us happy.

I'm pretty sure the first part of that was intended as a joke.

Her advice seems pretty standard, however, that being:

First, people have an innate desire to have a sense of purpose and meaning. When retirement comes, sometimes that sense of purpose can be lost. So, after taking some time off, it is good to start thinking about something meaningful that will fill the days. This could be volunteering, substitute teaching, or mentoring. It could also include learning a new skill (such as a new language), picking up a new hobby or seeing new places. 

Second, try to maintain and/or enhance social connections with others. I always thought that money, fame, and power brought the greatest happiness, but according to the 80-year-old Harvard Study of Adult Development, close relationships with others is what really keeps us happy. In fact, these ties help delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes.

Third, stay physically active as much as possible. Studies show that when someone retires, sedentary activities, such as watching television, increase dramatically. While watching extra television is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, much has been written about the link between longevity and good physical health. So, please try and enjoy our state as much as possible by spending time outside running, hiking or skiing.

Probably all solid advice. 

Indeed, it causes me to recall that I recently was speaking to a cousin of mine who is retired from Federal service and who is keeping pretty busy.  We were speaking on a grim topic, which caused me to joke that in old age I was going to take up grizzly bear wrestling.  He stated he was going to take up heavy drinking (he doesn't drink) as that's what so many of his retired colleagues seem to be doing, to the point of death.

Grim.

Another article was about retirement planning itself, which didn't mention grizzly bear wrestling or heavy drinking.  It was frankly really good, which is very much the exception to the rule in lawyers magazines. Usually in lawyer magazines and articles, the "planning" is about how you can go on practicing law for an additional ten years after you are dead.  The articles are about how in "retirement" you can go from litigation to some other field of law, or perhaps switch from defense to plaintiff's work, or something equally moronic.  This article wasn't that way at all.  Indeed, it acknowledged:

Arthur C. Brooks, former president of the American Enterprise Institute and now a Harvard Business School professor, concluded in a July 2019 Atlantic article that professional decline is inevitable sooner or later, simply as the result of aging.

About time somebody said that.  I've practiced against one lawyer who was a physical wreck and in clear mental decline, but was "never going to retire".  He did, but I think it was because his (family owned) firm basically gave him a back room and things to pretend to do.  Not very dignified. He probably doesn't actually know that he is retired.  I used to ask his son how he was doing and to say hello, but it was clear it was an embarrassing topic, and he didn't want to have it come up.

I know another lawyer here in town, who is very physically fit I'll note, who is practicing law actively, not part-time, in his early 70s and declares that he'll never retire.  How boring can you be?

I get that with certain occupations that are real vocations. But let's face it, most of the professions aren't.  People may declare that they love being an accountant, or they love being a lawyer, or they love being an actuary, but they are lying.  Shoot, they probably are lying if they say that about engineering.  Farming, teaching, maybe medicine, the ministry, those are intrinsically different.  

Indeed, because, in my arriving old age, my health has taken a beating the last few years one of my newer doctors, whose son was a high-powered lawyer in California and is now a Federal District Court judge in that state, asks me every time about my work.  "You are a lawyer?".  And he always asks, in the form of a statement, "And you love it".  I'm not sure why that question is necessary to my medical treatment, but as its asked every time, maybe it is.  Maybe it's because lawyers are so famously associated with depression, alcoholism and drug abuse that the medical profession regards it as necessary.  Who knows. Anyhow, after doing it for over 30 years it'd be surprising if I broke down and started sobbing about it or something, but there are a lot of other things I'm interested in too.  Having said that, I don't want to chat to somebody I barely know about those topics either.

Going back for a second, on vocations that make sense that people keep on keeping on in them, at least some of those actually have mandatory retirement ages, where the law allows it.  I don't know about physicians, I think not, but there aren't that many that practice into old age, and I've been told that's because there's a general feeling that mental acuity decline in the late 40s and the practice advances so fast that you start to become dangerous to your patients.  That's particularly true of surgeons, not all physicians, so you will see some practice into relatively old age.

In our diocese, Catholic Priests must retire at 70.  We hear a lot about there being a shortage of Priests, although the reasons for that are debatable (Wyoming has never produced sufficient numbers of Priests for its own needs) but the Diocese nonetheless feels that 70, they need to retire, which usually means being quasi part-time.  They can't be the pastors at a parish, for example.  

Under Canon 401 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law all Catholid bishops must submit their resignation to the Pope at the age of 75.

It's a good policy.

Changing gears, even the back page interview, which is always of a practicing lawyer, was good for a change.  It is occasionally, I'll admit, but more often than not it's an interview of somebody who just graduated from law school and is touring Patagonia or something. . . i.e., they haven't practiced law yet.  This one was of a lawyer who has over 30 years under his belt and noted:

I was the only kid in my elementary school (and perhaps the only attorney in Wyoming) whose  dad has been a matador de toros.

I'll bet that's right. 

The Next Trump Administration, Part 2. The Insurrection Act.

Lex Anteinternet: The Next Trump Administration, Part 1.

The Next Trump Administration, Part 1.

Trump's promises:

Trump on his actions upon becoming President.

Like Mein Kampf, this should be taken seriously.

And like that, here's something extremely disturbing to note. Trump has made clear indications that he'll invoke the Insurrection Act.  One of his primary advisors, Russell Vought, Trump’s former Office of Management and Budget Director, and a Christian Nationalist, has been suggesting he should do so as soon as he takes office.

Trump has indicated he'd be dictator "for just one day".  Well, that first day, if Vought has his way, the Insurrection Act would be invoked to stop protests. 

It provides:

10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335

Sec. 331. Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Sec. 334. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

Sec. 335. Guam and Virgin Islands included as “State”

For purposes of this chapter, the term "State" includes Guam and the Virgin Islands. 

It's generally held there's no recourse to the Courts, although this would surely spark litigation, probably by Congressmen amongst others.

The Insurrection Act is one of the badly drafted Reconstruction Era statutes that the country should dump entirely.  There's next to no reason to ever deploy military force inside the US borders in peacetime. But my prediction is Trump will do it.

He'll do it to deploy Federal troops to the border. He'll do it to hit drug cartel targets in Mexico.  He'll do it to suppress protests in the U.S. and he'll do it to seize voting devices where the results aren't what he wants, and beyond that.

And that will make him a type of dictator, and not just for one day.

Monday, February 19, 2024

Soap Blindness. Being careful about what you are wishing for.

Independent truck drivers, whom share nothing in common with Donald Trump whatsoever, are claiming they'll boycott New York State today due to the judgment against the serially indicted former President.

In the Gene Shepherd classic A Christmas Story, Ralphie imagines that he'll get "soap blindness" and live on the streets, to the regret of his parents, for having his mouth washed out with soap.  No such thing exists, of course, but in reality, if it did, it'd be worse than the remorse the parents would feel for the person enduring it.

In other words, a person needs to be careful for what they wish for.

Truck drivers, or at least American independent truck drivers, are heavily invested in the belief that "America needs us".  They're also heavily invested in a myth of manly, rugged independence.  The reality of the situation is quite different, however.

The United States went to a semi tractor supply distribution system through the short sightedness of Dwight Eisenhower, who backed the massive Federally funded expansion of the US highway system during his administration.  Eisenhower, impressed with the Autobahn, which he'd seen while the Supreme Commander of Allied Expedition Force in Europe, wanted them here.  It was really an example of the American System at work, and while I'm generally a proponent of the American System, it shouldn't have happened in this example.

Coming right at the same time that the American love of automobiles really took off, it caused a massive ongoing subsidy of the highway system, and by extension, the expansion of over the road trucking, at the detriment of the railroads.  I've posted on that here before, stating:

Trucking is a subsidized industry, but people don't think of it that way.  Its primary competitor is rail. Railroads put in their own tracks and maintain their own railroad infrastructure. When you see a train, everything you were looking at, from the rails to the cars, were purchased by private enterprise. When you seem a semi tractor, however, it's always traveling on a public conveyance.


It's doing that fairly inefficiently compared to rail.  Rail is incredibly cheap on a cost per mile basis, and it's actually incredibly "green" as well.  It's efficient.  Trucks are nowhere near as efficient in any fashion.  Not even in employment of human resources.  Trains have, anymore, one or two men crews, the same as semi trucks, but they're hauling a lot more per mile than trucks are with just two men.

And, as we also stated:

Following the Second World War the U.S. saw a rising expansion of over the road trucking.  By the late 1950s the US was, additionally, overhauling its Interstate highway system via the Defense Department's budget with new "defense" highways, which were much improved compared to the old Interstate highway system.  With the greatly improved roads, by the 1960s, interstate long haul trucking was in an advance state of supplanting the railroads for a lot of American freighting.  At the same time, the diesel engine supplanted the gasoline engine for semi tractors.  A very uncommon engine for motor vehicles in the United States prior to the 1950s, diesels started coming in somewhere in that period and by the 1960s they'd completely replaced gasoline engines for over the road semi tractors.  Now, of course, diesels have become fairly common for heavy pickups as well, and are even starting to appear in the U.S. in light pickup trucks in spite of the higher cost of diesel fuel.


The change was dramatic, although few people can probably fully appreciate that now, as we are so acclimated to trucking.  Thousands of trucks supplanted thousands of rail cars, and entire industries that were once served only by rail came to be served by truck.  The shipping of livestock, for example, which was nearly exclusively a railroad enterprise up into the 1950s is now done entirely by truck, a change which had remarkable impacts as rail shipping required driving the livestock to the railhead, whereas with the trucks they are simply scheduled to arrive at a ranch at a particular time.  Likewise, businesses that at one time located themselves near rail lines, so that they could receive their heavy products by rail, no longer do, as they receive those items by trucks.  For example, pipeyards, once always near a railhead, are not always today.


One semi truck does as much damage to the highways as 2,000 passenger cars, or some I'm told.  I was told that by the owner of a company that has semi trucks.

On top of it, truck driving isn't something Americans want to do anymore, something the independents who are protesting seem to be missing.  As we earlier noted:

There are presently 11,000,000 unfilled jobs in the United States.  These are jobs that were filled before the COVID Recession.  People aren't going back to work.

And laborers are also demanding better wages and benefits in order to do the work they're doing.

This represents a dual fundamental shift in the thinking of the American work force.  Part of it is old-fashioned, and part not so much.

As for better wages and benefits, following the Reagan Administration and the economic woes of the 1970s, American labor really faded from the scene as an organized entity.  Of course, we lost a lot of labor to overseas as well.  Now the remaining labor is fed up and taking advantage of the situation, for which it cannot be blamed.

The second part of this situation, however, is remarkable.  Forced out of work during the pandemic, stay homes, lots of people discovered that modern American work sucks. They don't want to go back, as their lives were better without the work.

Some of those who don't want to go back are truck drivers. The country is short 20,000 truck drivers right now.

In recent years the country has actually imported a lot of truck drivers, something the general public seems largely unaware of.  Anymore, when I read the names of people involved in truck driving accidents, I expect the drivers to be Russian, and I'm actually surprised when they are not.   What happened here overall isn't clear to me, but over the last fifteen years technology has developed to where it's much easier for trucking companies to keep tabs on their truckers while on the road and things have gotten safer. At the same time, this means, as it always has, but perhaps more so, that these guys live on the road.  According to Buttigieg the industry has an 80% annual turnover rate.

An 80% annual turnover rate doesn't sound even remotely possible to me, but that there's a high one wouldn't surprise me.  It's a dangerous job and contrary to what people like to imagine, it doesn't really pay the drivers that well as a rule, or at least fairly often.  Often the drivers are "owner operators" who own their own super expensive semi tractor and who are leasing it to the company they are driving for.  That in turn means that they're often making hefty payments on the truck.  I don't blame anyone for not wanting to do it.

I can blame the nation for putting itself in this situation, however.

Drivers can make a lot of money, for sure, but their paychecks often go towards paying for their trucks and the like.  Modern trucks are automatic transmission vehicles and the days of really highly skilled teamsters who knew how to double clutch and shift two gear shifts at once (which I've seen done), are long gone.  The job has become one where temporary immigrants and immigrants from the Third World are incredibly common.  

So sure, while there are Trump loving independent teamsters out there, there are a lot of drivers from India, Somalia, Russia or Mexico who no doubt have little Trump love.

And motorists have little truck love.  That's part of the reason that teamsters feel compelled to attempt to remind people that things move by truck.  The problem is, they don't have to.

Had the Defense Highway System not been built, things would move by rail, except locally. There's no reason that couldn't happen again, and if the Federal Government suddenly decided, for whatever reason (and expense would be a good one) to end the funding system, the result would be just like what happened when it quite subsidizing housing the mentally ill back in Reagan's day.  States wouldn't pick it back up.  It'd take awhile, but not as long as supposed, before rail picked its old role back up, but it could and would.  

Beyond that, rail transportation is already very "green", as noted above, compared to truck transportation.  It could be made much more so by electrifying the system, which is a proven system.  Trains engines are also more capable of readily being made in alternative fuels than semi trucks are.  Short haul trucks, from rail to consumer, are also relatively easy to make the conversion to electricity.

Up until after World War Two, most things moved by rail, and trucking was local.  The highway system, while the Federal Government was already in it, was much more local.

So, want to show how valuable you are to the economy?  Going on strike or into a boycott may do it.  Perhaps you are like the railroader of World War One and World War Two and can't be ignored.  Perhaps you are an economic Lysistrata and people won't want to ignore you.

Or perhaps people figure they're better off without you and they don't want to be taxed to support your industry anymore and they'll look forward to not seeing trucks in their rear view mirror.

Related Threads:

Supply Chain Disruption and Other Economic Problems







Seats for female employees.

§ 5815. Failure to provide seats for female employees.  

Every person or corporation employing females in any manufacturing , mechanical or mercantile establishment in the state of Wyoming shall provide suitable seats for females so employed, and shall permit the use of such seats by them when they are not necessarily engaged in the active duties for which they are employed. Any person or corporation who shall violate the provisions of this section, shall upon conviction thereof, be considered guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars, nor more than thirty dollars for each and every offense . [ L. 1901 , ch . 33 , §§ 1 , 2. ] 

Wyoming Statutes, 1910. 

Sunday, February 18, 2024

Legislatures. Back to the future and other diversions?

A scene from the early 1970s Wyoming legislatures at the Hitching Post?  See below.

Former Wyoming Legislator Tom Lubnau, who was truly one of the great ones in the old school Wyoming way, has taken up writing columns for The Cowboy State Daily. That's to the CSD's credit and shows its effort to become a real electronic journal, something that's impressive considering it was set up as a right wing organ.  Lubnau is a conservative Wyoming Republican, but a conservative Wyoming Republican, something that's becoming increasingly rare.  

Or maybe not.

He's not afraid of poking at the wolverine.

He recently wrote this interesting item:

Tom Lubnau: Legislating Private Parts Is Popular This Legislative Session

This op ed is written from the point of view that virtually defined Wyoming Republicans for my whole adult life, up until the Obama/Trump Era, when things began to get really radical in the legislature.

His article is illuminating and I'm linking it in for several reasons.

One of those is that Lubnau give a really nice discussion of the law as it used to be, on some of the same topics that I addressed here:

Until Death Do Us Part. Divorce and Related Domestic Law. Late 19th/Early 20th Century, Mid 20th Century, Late 20th/Early 21st Century. An example of the old law, and the old customs, being infinately superior to the current ones and a call to return to them.


I note this, in particular, from his article:

I guess in thinking about it, I came of age in the Disco Era and that's the law I'm familiar with.  Lubnau is right, the GOP in this state, from the 70s on, really didn't care what you were doing, with whom, behind closed doors, as long as you kept your business to yourself, and it also didn't really care if your marriages broke up, etc., as a result of it, or anything else.  I'd assumed it had long been that way, but as Lubnau's quote from the Wyoming Compiled Statutes, 1910, shows, that's not the case.

I looked it up in the actual 1910 Code, and Lubnau was a little off.  He must have been reading the 1970s vintage codification, or miscited it.  The provison, and those otherwise cited in this thread, were still there in 1957, the last version of the by then much expanded Wyoming statutes I had handy, and they were almost certainly there up until the early 1970s.  In 1910, it was a different statutory section that the cited number (and the number was different in 1957), but here, right from the 1910 book, is what it states.


This is in a section of the statutes on offenses to public morality, and in looking at it, I found that something else I had thought to be illegal, but couldn't later fine, was in fact illegal, that being cohabitation without being married.


So, in my earlier statement that I had thought it was illegal, was in fact correct.  It was illegal.

Seduction of minors, keeping in mind that the age of majority, was a crime, but not quite in the fashion modern statutes provide for it, which would now be a species of rape. At the time, seduction of underage women, at least "older" ones, was a misdemeanor, although this raises interesting questions given that women could clearly marry at 18, or younger, at the time. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had, in the threat noted above, regarding Seduction at law.


At the same time, however, Section 5803 of the 1910 Code provide that rape, conventionally defined, was a felony, as well as having carnal knowledge of a female under age 18.  The dual age of majority, long a feature of Wyoming's law, was apparently already there.  Particularly notable, however, is that the law didn't distinguish between rape and statutory rape, they were the same.

It did distinguish between male and female.  A man could not be a victim of rape under the statute, although that would have constituted assault in any event.

Lubnau goes on in his article to comment:
It seems, now, there is a trend to sponsor legislation to invite the State of Wyoming back into the bedroom.

One has to wonder if regulating bedroom conduct is the pressing issue of the day, or if there is some other motive such as creating a campaign issue for the election season, that is driving the legislation.  In other words, how many people do you meet every day whose biggest concern is lack of regulation of private parts? 
Following that, he takes a look at HB 50 (What is a Woman Act) HB 68 repealing the obscenity exception for school, college, university, museum or public library activities or in the course of employment of such an organization, HB 88 making it illegal to “publicly communicate” obscene material, Democratic HB 76, making it illegal to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion if the fetus is not viable*, or in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother., HB 137 requiring a pregnant mother to receive an ultrasound prior to receiving a chemical abortion “in order to provide the pregnant woman the opportunity to view the active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible.”

And that's probably not all of these.

They all did fail, fwiw, most failing to secure introduction.  The reasons vary, including procedural, but it might actually show that more of the old style, post mid 1970s Republicans remain in the legislature than might be supposed.  For that matter, however, it might also show that a lot of the populist legislators everywhere, at the state and Federal level, aren't hugely familiar with the legislative process.  In Wyoming trying to advance a bunch of these bills in a budget session, after declaring that you had the strength to advance them, was likely a mistake.

The obscenity one is interesting, as the 1910 Code had a section on that, providing:


The failed proposed statues state:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0068

Obscenity-impartial conformance.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Hornok, Angelos, Bear, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Strock, Trujillo and Ward and Senator(s) Ide

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; repealing an exception to the crime of promoting obscenity regarding possessing obscene materials for specified bona fide educational purposes; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6-4-302(c)(ii) is repealed.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2025.

And:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0088

Public display of obscene material.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Ottman, Davis, Hornok, Penn and Strock

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; prohibiting public communication of obscene material; providing a definition; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑4‑301(a) by creating a new paragraph (vi) and 6‑4‑302(a)(iii) are amended to read:

6‑4‑301.  Definitions.

(a)  As used in this article:

(vi)  "Publicly communicate" means to display, post, exhibit, give away or vocalize material in such a way that the material may be readily and distinctly perceived by the public at large by normal unaided vision or hearing.

6‑4‑302.  Promoting obscenity; penalties.

(a)  A person commits the crime of promoting obscenity if he:

(iii)  Knowingly disseminates or publicly communicates obscene material.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

The abortion bills, of which we have now had a variety, are interesting too, as I ran across the original 1910 statutes on that, which may well have been modified before 1973 (I don't know). Abortion was still illegal in 1973, I just don't know if the exact same text remained until then. In 1910, the law provided:
§ 5808. Attempted miscarriage. 
Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be preg- nant , any drug , medicine , or substance whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage of such woman ; or with like intent uses any instrument or means whatever, unless such miscarriage is necessary to preserve her life, shall if the woman miscarries or dies in consequence thereof , be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than fourteen years .
§ 5809. Woman soliciting miscarriage . Every woman who shall so- licit of any person any medicine , drug or substance or thing whatever , and shall take the same , or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever , with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage (except when necessary for the purpose of saving the life of the mother or child), shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months ; and any person who , in any manner whatever, unlawfully aids or assists any such woman to a violation of this section , shall be liable to the same penalty.
I'm not going to comment on any of these, but I'm only noting that this provides a really interesting example of the evolution of the Legislature, and for that matter a Western legislature that's been Republican controlled the entire time. Republicans of the 70s and 80s would have a hard time recognizing the party today if they hadn't been there for the evolution.  I suppose that's true of the Democrats then and now as well.

I'm also noting it as I earlier quixotically argued that the heart balm statutes and accompanying provisions ought to be restored.  Lubnau has gotten into the weeks and found one of the statutes of that era that I didn't address, §7206 of the 1910 code.

Going back to that code, a fair amount of it would be unconstitutional today, as the United States Supreme Court had found that the sodomy provisions are contrary to some vague unwritten stuff in the penumbra of the Constitution having to do with privacy.  "Privacy" doesn't actually appear in the text of the Constitution.  The last crime noted, and the one about animals, is probably still capable of being illegal, and actually the last one, which would have to do with adults in relation to minors is probably actually still illegal elsewhere.  To some degree, with this statute, you have to read between the lines, but to some extent you do not.  The law basically criminalized anything contrary to nature, and it was pretty clear that there was an accepted concept of what nature, in this context, meant.  Frankly there still really is, although now, save for minors and "beasts" we license it societally.

The provisions on rape and abortion could probably have just been left alone, keeping in mind that abortion was legalized under Roe, and then taken back to the state under Dodd's.  Had that been all left untouched, the law would arguably have been clearer now than it is.  Interestingly, the statute drafters of that era tended to use an economy of words which tended to make their intent quite clear.

What about the statutes pertaining to "heart balm" and, well, sex?

Today's legislature of the Freedom Caucus variety, all over the country, clearly looks backwards to restoring society to what they imagine it was. This actually shows what it was.  And not just that, but the statutes regarding divorce as well.

Let's look once more.


"Shacking up" was illegal.  Given the present state of Constitutional Law, I doubt it could be made illegal (I'm quite certain it couldn't be).  Would the social warriors be game for trying?

This concept, quite frankly, underpins everyone other one regarding marriage.  It was designed to prevent what the 1910 statues called "bastardy" and the burden it created on society, and it grasped what marriage really was.  For that reason, quite frankly, I'd be for its return (although as stated, I don't think it can be under the current interpretation of the Constitution.  Those populist right-wingers who would not go that far, probably ought to reconsider their positions on things

Those who would be horrified by such a proposal, and frankly that's probably most people now, ought to reconsider their support for populism, if they are populists.

And then there is this:


Would the legislature of today go that far?  Again, this is clearly unconstitutional under the current law, and it would in fact outlaw homosexual conduct, as well as a bunch of non-homosexual conduct.  Presumably no modern legislature would be comfortable with what the pre 1970s Wyoming legislature, and pre 1970s Wyoming society, was in this era.  Probably nobody ought to be, as this is really invasive.

What about divorce, the subject that the other thread was sort of on, and this one sort of is on as well, and which again gets to the heart of the topic.

Ealier in the state's history, the legislature barred remarriage within a year, which is signficant if we consider that cohabitation without being married was flat out illegal.  The 1910 statutes provide:
§ 3951. Remarriage prohibited within one year . 
During the period of one year from the granting of a decree of divorce , neither party thereto shall be permitted to remarry to any other person . Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor , and shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty - five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars , or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding three months , in the discretion of the court.
Frankly, I'd think this a worthwhile provision and it likewise, like the staute on cohabitation, ought to be restored.

Going from there, I'd note that in 1910 the statutes on dissolving marriages started off iwth annullement, which is now an afterthough in the statutes.  It wasn't theen, and was relatively extenisvely addressed, indicaditng that hte drafteres thought that a more likely event, potentially, then divorce.

Divorce required cause, those being:
§ 3924. Causes for divorce . 

A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties , or one of them reside , on the application of the aggrieved party by petition , in either of the following.cases : 
First - When adultery has been committed by any husband or wife . 
Second - When one of the parties was physically incompetent at the time of the marriage , and the same has continued to the time of the divorce . 
Third - When one of the parties has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment therefor in any prison , and no pardon granted , after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights . 
Fourth - When either party has wilfully deserted the other for the term of one year . 
Fifth - When the husband or wife shall have become an habitual drunkard . 
Sixth - When one of the parties has been guilty of extreme cruelty to the other . 
Seventh - When the husband for the period of one year , has negected to provide the common necessaries of life , when such neglect is not the result of poverty, on the part of the husband, which he could not avoid by ordinary industry . 
Eighth - When either party shall offer such indignities to the other , as shall render his or her condition intolerable . 
Ninth - When the husband shall be guilty of such conduct as to constitute him a vagrant within the meaning of the law respecting vag- rancy . 
Tenth - When prior to the contract of marriage or the solemnization thereof, either party shall have been convicted of a felony or infamous crime in any state , territory or county without knowledge on the part of the other party of such fact at the time of such marriage . Eleventh - When the intended wife at the time of contracting mariage, or at the time of the solemnization thereof shall have been pregnant by any other man than her intended husband and without his knowledge at the time of such solemnization . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1571 ; R. S. 1899 , § 2988. ] 

 Evidence was required:

§ 3947. Corroborating evidence required . 

No decree of divorce, and of the nullity of a marriage, shall be made solely on the declara- tions , confessions or admissions of the parties , but the court shall in all cases require other evidence in its nature corroborative of such declarations , concessions or admissions . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1597 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3011. ] 

§ 3948. Proof of adultery insufficient when . 

In any action brought for divorce on the ground of adultery , although the fact of adultery be established , the court may deny a divorce in the following cases: 

First - When the offense shall appear to have been committed by the procurement , or with the connivance of the plaintiff . 

Second - When the offense charged shall have been forgiven by the injured party and such forgiveness shall be proved by express proof , or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with the knowledge of the offense . 

Third - When there shall have been no express forgiveness and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties but the action shall not have been brought within three years after discovery by the plaintiff of the of fense charged . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1598 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3012. ] 

Provisions were provided for to restrain and examine the husband during divorce proceedings, but not the wives.

Again, the old law here would work, or at least it would with modification. Would anyone be bold enough to suggest it be restored.

I doubt it, and therein lies an element of built in hypocrisy of the modern populist social warrior.  To really get at the core of this, you have to get to the core of it.  But hardly anyone is willing to even contemplate what that means.

Lubnau has pointed out that, at one time, the laws were much more restrictive in conservative Wyoming.  In the 1970s, the Republican Party, not the Democrats, radically liberalized them.  But not only did the US become much more liberal, all society did as well, for good or ill (probably mostly for ill).  Many of those who carry the banner for a return to what they regard as having been great aren't prepared to go back to what that really meant, but like Dr. Zhivago states in the novel, an operation cutting out corruption, if that's what you are really doing, is a deep operation.  

Put another way, you can't really address these social issues unless you are prepared to go to the very core of them, and that would mean addressing male/female, male/male, female/female "adult" relationships at their core.  The only thing that the populist far right is really willing to do is to address homosexuality in its various expressions. But that's relatively rare, and if you aren't willing to go further, and say that those relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that you marry once and for life, well then, you really are just pointing fingers.

Our perfunctory favorite couples again.

Footnotes:

* This bill provides an example of  why the Wyoming Democrats go nowhere.  There's no reason for the Democratics here to be the party of death, like they insist on being elsewhere, and bills like this keep moderate Republicans who would cross over from doing so.  This is particularly the case as this bill stands less than 0 chance of being introduced.



Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 58th Edition.Counting Chickens


I'm seeing a lot of comments in the ether to the effect of "Trump's fortune destroyed" and the like.

Don't bank on it.

There are judgments against him.  And they are huge.  They'll be appealed.  The appeals will not be fast.

Now, in order to avoid paying the judgment, he'll either have to move that it be stayed (and on the part of the order enjoining him from conducting business he'll do just that), pay the money into Court, or post a supersedeas bond.  He'll post the pond, and, assuming that he has at least $500,000,000 in assets, which he says he does, and which he likely does, he'll get the bond.

I don't know the timeline in other states, but my guess is that after a plethora of post trial motions, appeals will come, and they'll be heard some time in 2025.  At that point in time we'll learn if the judgment holds up, and if the amount of damages holds up, assuming that it isn't settled in the meantime.

What isn't going to happen, however, is that the Fred Trump Empire that his son built his fortune on is going to evaporate due to the judgment.  For that matter, it's unlikely to evaporate at all.

Last prior edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 57th Edition. Tucker Carlson.


Saturday, February 17, 2024

The 2024 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part 2 Appendix. The start of the budget session.

 February 17, 2024

Bill status after week one.  Only bills that have advanced, failed, or didn't get introduced are listed here, for the most.

You cannot read too much into this, as getting a bill introduced during the budget session is difficult by design.  But of note, almost all of the populist bills backed by the Freedom Caucus, if in fact not 100% of them, failed.  The group predicted that it woudl be more effective this legislature than last, but it has not proven to be the case so far, in so far as advancement of their legislative agenda via bills is concerned.

HB0001 General government appropriations. Appropriations H COW:Passed

HB0002 Nonresident fishing license fee increase. Travel H Failed Introduction 39-22-1-0-0

HB0005 Behavioral health redesign amendments. Labor H Failed Introduction 40-21-1-0-0

HB0006 Light and high profile vehicle closures. Transportation H Failed Introduction 41-20-1-0-0

HB0007 Alternative fuel tax-electricity amendments. Transportation H Failed Introduction 40-20-1-0-1

HB0010 Grace period-state land lease renewals. Agriculture H 3rd Reading:Passed 61-0-1-0-0

HB0011 State land lease amendments. Agriculture H 3rd Reading:Passed 61-0-1-0-0

HB0014 Prior authorization regulations. Labor H 2nd Reading:Passed

HB0015 Health insurance-reimbursement of overpayments. Labor H 3rd Reading:Passed 61-0-1-0-0

HB0016 Sutton state archaeological site-legal description. Travel H 3rd Reading:Passed 60-1-1-0-0

HB0017 Fishing outfitters and guides-registration of fishing boats. Travel H Failed Introduction 38-22-2-0-0

HB0019 Education savings accounts. Education H Failed Introduction 41-19-2-0-0

HB0020 School finance-regional cost adjustment study. Education H 2nd Reading:Passed

HB0021 Charter school leasing. Sel Sch Fac H 2nd Reading:Passed

HB0022 Sales tax revisions. Revenue H Failed Introduction 1-59-2-0-0

HB0026 Emergency protective services-effective period. Judiciary H 3rd Reading:Passed 44-17-1-0-0

HB0027 DFS and law enforcement-cross reporting. Judiciary H 3rd Reading:Passed 44-17-1-0-0

HB0028 Interference with parent-child contact. Judiciary H Failed Introduction 41-19-2-0-0

HB0032 Geologic sequestration-unitization amendments. Minerals H 3rd Reading:Passed 61-0-1-0-0

HB0034 Solid waste municipal cease and transfer funding. Minerals H 2nd Reading:Passed

HB0037 Election offenses-intimidation. Corporations H Failed Introduction 36-24-2-0-0

HB0039 Campaign reporting. Corporations H Failed Introduction 37-23-2-0-0

HB0040 School district trustee oath of office. Corporations H 2nd Reading:Passed

HB0041 Candidates for state legislature-residency requirement. Corporations H Failed Introduction 40-20-2-0-0

HB0047 Solid waste-illegal dumping remediation grants. Penn H Failed Introduction 28-33-1-0-0

HB0049 By the people act. Penn H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0050 What is a Woman Act. Ward H Failed Introduction 37-24-1-0-0

HB0051 Public indecency-intimidation. Neiman H Failed Introduction 36-25-1-0-0

HB0053 Public health emergency-definition amendments. Ward H Failed Introduction 27-34-1-0-0

HB0055 State budgeting and reserves-account repeal. Cap Fin & Inv H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0056 State budgeting and reserves-general funds. Cap Fin & Inv H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0057 Parental rights regarding vaccination. Ward H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0059 Prohibiting mask, vaccine and testing discrimination. Ward H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0061 Fiscal accountability and transparency in education. Penn H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0062 Local impact assistance payments-percentage discretion. Larson, JT H Failed Introduction 35-26-1-0-0

HB0063 Sex and gender changes for children-prohibited. Larsen, L H Failed Introduction 33-28-1-0-0

HB0065 Public officer fiscal training-amendments. Sommers H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0068 Obscenity-impartial conformance. Hornok H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0069 Mine permit and reclamation plan changes-landowner approval. Hornok H Failed Introduction 20-41-1-0-0

HB0071 Broadband development subaccount-amendments. Appropriations H 2nd Reading:Passed

HB0076 Reproductive Freedom Act. Yin H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0078 Pornography and obscenity-crimes and penalties. Penn H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0080 School finance-dates for fund transfers. Larson, JT H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0082 Cities and towns-abandoned and nuisance buildings. Sherwood H Failed Introduction 38-23-1-0-0

HB0084 High Plains Research Station and Arboretum-historic site. Appropriations H Failed Introduction 41-20-1-0-0

HB0085 Social media-parental consent for minors required. Harshman H Failed Introduction 36-25-1-0-0

HB0087 Brucellosis testing amendments. Davis H Failed Introduction 41-20-1-0-0

HB0088 Public display of obscene material. Ottman H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0091 Health mandates-CDC and WHO jurisdiction in Wyoming. Ward H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0094 Net metering. Heiner H Failed Introduction 35-26-1-0-0

HB0095 Health care providers-submission of insurance claims. Stith H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0097 Forcible entry and detainer amendments. Stith H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0098 Duties of registered agents-amendments. Crago H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0099 State funds-prohibition for slave or child labor. Bear H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0100 Critical infrastructure resiliency. Bear H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0101 Attorney general opinions. Mgt Council H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0102 School safety and security amendments. Bear H Failed Introduction 35-26-1-0-0

HB0105 Insurance payments-not taxable. Slagle H Failed Introduction 35-26-1-0-0

HB0106 Hemp-limitations on psychoactive substances-2. Lawley H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0107 Commercial driver license-medical certificate downgrade-1. Styvar H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0108 Protection of health care providers. Zwonitzer, Dn H Failed Introduction 41-20-1-0-0

HB0109 Wind tax exemption-repeal. Slagle H Failed Introduction 36-25-1-0-0

HB0110 Wyoming Underground Facilities Notification Act-exemption. Slagle H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0111 Restricted class C and M driver's licenses-amendments. Slagle H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0112 Real estate transfer tax to offset property tax. Yin H Failed Introduction 8-53-1-0-0

HB0113 Hathaway scholarship program. Henderson H Failed Introduction 40-21-1-0-0

HB0114 Wyoming teacher shortage loan repayment program. Henderson H Failed Introduction 39-22-1-0-0

HB0115 Donated blood-mRNA disclosure. Penn H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0117 Bond elections-voter threshold requirement. Styvar H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0118 American rescue plan act appropriations-amendments. Appropriations H Failed Introduction 37-23-2-0-0

HB0119 School finance-mental health service grants. Sommers H Failed Introduction 38-23-1-0-0

HB0120 Interactive gaming. Davis H Failed Introduction 25-36-1-0-0

HB0121 Kelly parcel-sale and leasing requirements. Walters H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0122 Carrying of concealed weapons-age requirement. Haroldson H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0123 Mandatory immunizations-repeal. Haroldson H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0124 Vaccination for smallpox-repeal. Haroldson H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0127 Property tax exemption-specified real property. Locke H03 - Revenue:Do Pass Failed 3-6-0-0-0

HB0128 Wyoming Freedom Scholarship Act. Andrew H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0129 Statutory standing committees-federal review. Pendergraft H Failed Introduction 25-36-1-0-0

HB0130 Driver's license renewal amendments. Jennings H Withdrawn by Sponsor

HB0132 Ban on teaching and training critical race theory. Bear H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0133 Property tax-holiday. Locke H Placed on General File

HB0135 State funded capital construction. Appropriations H Failed Introduction 37-23-2-0-0

HB0136 Gender identity-definition repeal. Hornok H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0137 Chemical abortions-ultrasound requirement. Neiman H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0139 Denturist practice act. Winter H Failed Introduction 31-30-1-0-0

HB0140 University of Wyoming governance-elected trustees. Rodriguez-Williams H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0142 Peace officer standards and training commission-funding. Provenza H Failed Introduction 19-42-1-0-0

HB0146 Property tax relief program-rental property applicants. Henderson H Failed Introduction 31-30-1-0-0

HB0147 Electrical generation tax. Larsen, L H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0149 Hit and run-responsibility and penalties. Smith H Failed Introduction 28-33-1-0-0

HB0150 Protecting religious assembly in states of emergency act. Smith H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0151 Firearms merchant category code-prohibition. Crago H Failed Introduction 37-24-1-0-0

HB0152 Sex offenders-child care facilities. Ottman H Failed Introduction 37-24-1-0-04

HB0153 Sex offender registration requirements. Knapp H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0155 Newborn safety device funding for safe haven providers. Rodriguez-Williams H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0156 Best interests of a child-gender affirming treatments. Rodriguez-Williams H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0157 Use of full fair market value in taxation. Locke H Failed Introduction 30-31-1-0-0

HB0158 Refugee resettlement plan accountability. Locke H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0159 Prohibition on unauthorized fees-veterans benefits. Knapp H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0160 Protect Firearms Rights Act. Jennings H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0161 Appointment by judge for vacancies in office-amendments. Jennings H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0162 Public meetings-executive sessions amendment. Jennings H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0163 Data privacy-government entities. BlockChain/Technology H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0164 Alcohol infused foods. Zwonitzer, Dv H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0167 Restoring state sovereignty through nullification. Strock H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0170 Administrative procedure-regulatory costs. Western H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0171 State land exchanges-public notice. Western H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0172 Purple Heart Memorial Trail. Neiman H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0173 Pharmacy benefit manager amendments. Zwonitzer, Dn H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0174 Paid family and medical leave. Sherwood H Failed Introduction 41-20-1-0-0

HB0176 Restoration of civil rights-amendments. Haroldson H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0177 Natural asset companies prohibition. Slagle H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0178 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Washut H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0179 State park peace officers-definition and scope of authority. Niemiec H Failed Introduction 41-20-1-0-0

HB0180 Freedom from government seizure act. Provenza H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0181 Coroner's inquest-amendments. Oakley H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0182 Firearm purchase protections. Allemand H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0183 Prohibiting foreign property ownership in Wyoming. Allemand H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0184 Legislative order-department of education rules. Mgt Council H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0185 Enhanced oil recovery-severance tax exemption. Burkhart H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0187 Historic horse racing amendments. Walters H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0188 Centralized electronic notice system. Singh H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0189 Generation facility closure requirements-natural gas. Burkhart H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0190 Parental rights in education. Bear H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0191 American rescue plan act appropriations-amendments-3. Sommers H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0192 County and municipal roads on state lands-easements granted. Locke H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0193 Ban on sanctuary cities and counties. Singh H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0194 Statewide student assessment system-amendments. Andrew H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0195 Defend the guard act. Singh H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0196 Sales of real property to the federal government. Northrup H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0198 Court automation fees-assessment on filings. Nicholas H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0199 Election ballots. Zwonitzer, Dn H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0200 Electricity generation-equity and consumer protection. Burkhart H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0201 State Auditor payment transparency. Hornok H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0202 Unemployment compensation-promoting a drug-free workforce. Hornok H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0204 Decriminalization of cannabis. Provenza H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0205 Development agreements. Storer H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0206 Pari-mutuel wagering activities-amendments-2. Newsome H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0207 Moose and bighorn sheep hunting license-restrictions repeal. Newsome H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0208 Hydrogen severance tax. Tarver H Failed Introduction 39-21-2-0-0

HB0209 Possession of alcohol-amendments. Andrew H Failed Introduction 21-39-2-0-0

HB0210 Checking account disclosures-repeal. Jennings H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0211 Property tax-acquisition value. Jennings H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0212 Poverty level specificity in Wyoming law. Ottman H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0213 Wyoming preschool provider grants. Storer H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0214 Trailer permanent registration-amendments. Tarver H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0215 Integrated test center-governance. Conrad H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0216 Advanced practice registered nurses-certification. Trujillo H Withdrawn by Sponsor

HB0217 American rescue plan act appropriations-amendments-2. Heiner H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0218 Semitrailers-maximum trailer length. Allred H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0219 Business reporting to secretary of state. Knapp H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0220 K-12 school facilities appropriations. Sel Sch Fac H Did not Consider for Introduction

HB0221 Wyoming Community Development Authority-bond investment. Harshman H Did not Consider for Introduction

HJ0001 Property tax-classes of property and residential value. Revenue H Failed Introduction 34-27-1-0-0

HJ0002 Political expenditures. Corporations H Failed Introduction 35-26-1-0-0

HJ0004 Right of health care access-constitutional amendment. Chestek H Failed Introduction 7-54-1-0-0

HJ0005 Support of Israel. Sommers H Did not Consider for Introduction

HJ0006 Convention of states. Olsen H Did not Consider for Introduction

HJ0007 Individual right to privacy-constitutional amendment. Provenza H Did not Consider for Introduction

HJ0008 Prohibition of carbon taxes. Singh H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0001 General government appropriations-2. Appropriations S COW:Passed

SF0004 Rehiring retired firefighters-continued retirement benefits. Labor H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0005 Organ transplant recipient protection. Labor S COW:Passed

SF0007 Behavioral health redesign-vulnerable adults. Labor S COW:Passed

SF0008 Health insurance for volunteer emergency responders. Labor H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0009 Parental rights in education-1. Education S 2nd Reading:Passed

SF0010 Eminent domain-energy collector systems. Agriculture S Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0011 Eminent domain energy collector systems amendments. Agriculture S Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0012 Meat processing plants-hides and carcasses. Agriculture H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0014 State fair board-powers and responsibilities. Agriculture H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0015 Acceptance of retrocession-federal military installations. Transportation H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0017 Plane coordinates system-amendments. Transportation H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0020 Electricity rates for costs that do not benefit Wyoming. Corporations H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0028 Federal natural resource management coordinator. Fed Nat Res S Failed Introduction 10-21-0-0-0

SF0029 Major political parties-state central party voting members. Case S Failed Introduction 8-23-0-0-0

SF0031 Sex offender registration-promoting obscenity. Judiciary S COW:Passed

SF0033 Wyoming rural attorney recruitment program. Judiciary S Failed Introduction 16-15-0-0-0

SF0038 Financial reporting amendments-2. Mgt Audit S 2nd Reading:Passed

SF0040 Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trust Fund Administration. Travel S Failed Introduction 18-13-0-0-0

SF0043 Pore space-severances and separate conveyances prohibited. Minerals S Failed Introduction 10-21-0-0-0

 of action-2. Nethercott S Introduced and Referred to S01 - Judiciary 31-0-0-0-0

SF0046 Compulsory school attendance-minimum age. Schuler S Failed Introduction 7-24-0-0-0

SF0047 Law enforcement retirement-contributions. Appropriations H Did not Consider for Introduction

SF0056 Special districts-limit on tax levy. Revenue S Failed Introduction 9-22-0-0-0

SF0060 2024 large project funding. Nat Res Fund S 2nd Reading:Passed

SF0062 State Parks-recreation management authority. Mgt Audit S Failed Introduction 15-16-0-0-0

SF0065 Temporary water use agreements amendments. Water S COW:Passed

SF0070 Investment modernization-state nonpermanent funds-2. Cap Fin & Inv S 2nd Reading:Passed

SF0078 Carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery stimulus. Minerals S Failed Introduction 20-11-0-0-0

SF0081 Hospital or healthcare district created entities-immunity. Baldwin S COW:Passed

SF0084 School facilities-use fees. Brennan S COW:Passed

SF0087 Boutique hotel liquor licenses. Gierau S Failed Introduction 20-10-0-0-1

SF0088 State law violations by counties, cities and towns. Ide S Failed Introduction 19-12-0-0-0

SF0090 State-managed local government equity investment pool. Gierau S 2nd Reading:Passed

SF0091 Regulatory reduction task force. Gierau S Withdrawn by Sponsor

SF0093 Wyoming dividend account. Ellis S Failed Introduction 12-19-0-0-0

SF0099 Chloe's law-children gender change prohibition. Bouchard S Introduced and Referred to S10 - Labor 25-5-1-0-0

SF0101 Low-carbon energy standards-repeal. Steinmetz S Failed Introduction 15-16-0-0-0

SF0104 Wind and solar facilities-state lands amendments. Boner S Failed Introduction 8-21-0-0-2

SF0108 Protecting water from chemical abortion waste. Biteman S Failed Introduction 16-15-0-0-0

SF0111 Mule and whitetail deer-separate hunting seasons. Driskill S Introduced and Referred to S06 - Travel 31-0-0-0-0

SF0112 Wyoming Freedom Scholarship Act-2. Boner S Withdrawn by Sponsor

SF0116 Wind tax moratorium exemption-repeal. Jones S Failed Introduction 18-13-0-0-0

SF0117 Education-retention for reading failure. Scott S Failed Introduction 20-11-0-0-0

SF0122 Disposition of water rights-amendments. Kinskey S Failed Introduction 17-14-0-0-0

SF0124 Teachers' labor organizations-strike prohibition. Hicks S Failed Introduction 17-14-0-0-0

SF0127 Sales tax distribution rates. French S Failed Introduction 16-14-1-0-0

SF0129 State funded capital construction-2. Salazar S Withdrawn by Sponsor

SJ0001 Resolution demanding equal footing. Ide S Failed Introduction 17-14-0-0-0

SJ0003 Constitutional amendment vote requirement. Laursen, D S Failed Introduction 14-17-0-0-0

SJ0004 Convention of states-2. Brennan S Failed Introduction 17-14-0-0-0

February 21, 2024.

House Bill 203, paased the House Revenue Committee. The Bill exempts $200,000 of the fair market value of the assessment of single-family residential properties for this current tax year and $1,000,000 of fair market thereafter in exchange for an additional 2% sales tax.

I have mixed ffeelings about this bill, and I'm mostly mixed against it. Wyomingites fail to appreciate how much they actually depend on tax revenues simply for local governments to function and also are in the odd situation of not equating a host of things that encourage property value inflation with things they don't like.  Basically, a lot of Wyomingites would like the state to remain what it was in some priro decade (and I confess I hold those views) while also having booming local economies and the like.  Things have to give somewhere, and where they've been giving is in inflating property values.  Removing $1M in valuation in this fashion will actually encourage that, and bring about additional problems.

Most people will like the bill, however, until they pay the sales tax, and then they'll be made about that.

And also:

House passes bill to rein in insurance providers