The day after we noted Virginia GOP state Senator Tommy Norment’s connection to ongoing pay-for-play scandals among Republican state legislators, Jon Cawley of the Hampton Roads Daily Press noted an odd piece of legislation filed by Senator Norment – seemingly for the benefit of a single individual:

At issue is Senate Bill 1190 that Norment introduced Wednesday. The bill, that has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, would introduce new regulations regarding aquaculture and silviculture.

But that's not the rub. Some residents and at least one county official contend the bill benefits a particular York County resident — Greg Garrett.

In part, the bill states that "no locality may restrict shellfish aquaculture operations on privately-owned riparian land…"

But what's that have to do with Garrett? (…)

"Upfront, I must say that Bill 1190 appears to be an unnecessary intrusion into local government," [county Supervisor Tom] Shepperd wrote, in an e-mail to Norment. "Also of concern is, why this bill now? It follows on the heels of a York County rejected special use permit, which can easily be interpreted as a slap in the face of local government and a special action for a single resident."

That permit had been requested by – you guessed it – Greg Garrett. But that doesn’t answer Supervisor Shepperd’s question, “why this bill now?” We decided to find out.

A quick check of campaign finance reports reveals that Sen. Norment received a campaign contribution from Mr. Garrett just three weeks before Norment filed the bill to allow Garrett to circumvent the judgment of his local zoning officials.

What’s more, we quickly discovered that Garrett has actually donated to Norment’s campaigns for years. There were at least four other donations over the course of the 2007 cycle, as well. And since the campaign finance reports covering January of 2011 are not yet due, it’s possible that Norment took more money from Mr. Garrett even closer to the date he introduced this legislation.

Senator Norment is quickly becoming the Virginia Senate’s most ethically-challenged member. He’s already been caught taking a $160,000 salary from the College of William & Mary and then trying (and failing) to send the school $20 million in taxpayer money, despite written warnings from then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell that the law required him to stay out of those discussions. Now there’s evidence that he may be using his office to do special favors for longtime campaign contributors.

At what point will the stench of corruption surrounding Senator Norment be too much for Virginia voters to tolerate?

Ask any unemployed or underemployed Iowan what their elected officials should be focusing on, and the answer should be obvious: Jobs and the economy. But with each passing day in Iowa’s state legislative session, it’s becoming clearer and clearer which party is making jobs its priority…

Senate Democrats offered new initiatives Wednesday for small businesses to lower employee health insurance costs, provide easier access to credit, cut bureaucratic red tape and provide resources to revitalize run-down business districts.

State Sen. Steve Sodders, D-State Center, estimated the price tag to state government to implement the four-step plan would be about $8.4 million, which he called a "relatively modest" way to help small businesses recover from the economic recession and resume hiring.

"If more Iowa small businesses are working again, more Iowans will be working again," he said during a Statehouse news conference. (…)

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said job creation is the Senate Democrats' top priority for the 2011 session. They intend to offer two more proposals to assist small businesses, including an effort to improve opportunities for education and job training that will be unveiled next week.

…and which party is wasting its time on divisive social issues:

Republicans were working this evening planning how to “mount a battle for marriage” at 7 a.m. tomorrow in the Iowa Senate, according to an action alert from a conservative group. (…)

Danny Carroll, chairman of the Iowa Family Leader, said tonight that Sen. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, “is preparing his plan as I am writing this email. He intends to file numerous amendments and use any other tactic at his disposal to keep Gronstal from barring debate on marriage.”

The best thing Iowa can do to protect families is to make sure jobs are available and health care is affordable. As usual, Iowa Democrats clearly get it, while the Republicans keep playing games.

Iowa Tea Party extremists have a new top target for 2012: DLCC Chairman and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal. Ever since November, Gronstal has been using his office to keep the state’s focus on jobs and economic growth, which hasn’t left much room for the GOP’s attacks on the judiciary, its plans to dismantle public education, or for the GOP’s divisive social agenda that should rightly take a back seat to getting the economy back on track.

In response, the Tea Party and its GOP legislative allies have pledged to turn Pottawattamie County, home to Senator Gronstal’s Council Bluffs-based district, “into ground zero in 2012.”

Mike Gronstal, take notice: The Iowa Tea Party is out to get you.

Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat who is the majority leader in the Iowa Senate, was targeted during a "Stop the Stalemate" rally Saturday. (…)

"We're looking to put Mike Gronstal out to pasture," said Jeff Jorgensen, chairman of the Pottawattamie County Republican Party. "I'm here to tell you money is not going to save him in this election. Pottawattamie County is going to be ground zero in 2012 because of Mike Gronstal."

Their “ground zero” metaphor may be in poor taste, but it very aptly describes the priorities of Iowa’s Tea Party Republicans, who clearly don’t care about what’s best for struggling families in Iowa and are instead pouring all their energy into satisfying political vendettas.

Meanwhile, Senator Gronstal and his Democratic Senate colleagues will continue focusing on what their constituents really want: more jobs, better schools for their kids and grandkids, and real plans to make Iowa a destination for innovation and new industries.

The Republican agenda is to dismantle all such efforts, and that’s what’s made Senator Gronstal such a thorn in the Tea Party’s side. But so long as leaders like Senator Gronstal are willing to stand up against extreme special interests, well-financed smear campaigns are the inevitable response.

And we’ll be ready for those attacks.

On January 19th, 2008, Republican state Senator James Alesi attempted to enter a home under construction but found the front door locked. So, without the knowledge or permission of the homeowner, Alesi wandered around back to the basement door; entered the home; and, finding there was not yet a completed staircase, attempted to climb a ladder to the next floor.

And like Humpty Dumpty before him (both were someplace they clearly shouldn't have been), Alesi fell from the ladder and broke his leg.

The homeowners, realizing that a criminal trespassing charge could potentially end the career of a public official like Alesi, took pity on the injured Senator and decided not to press charges.

But Alesi, who refers to himself as “Gentleman Jim” in campaign literature, responded to the homeowners’ graciousness… by suing them:

Setting aside Alesi’s blatant hypocrisy – filing a frivolous lawsuit of exactly the sort he attempted to outlaw through legislation – Alesi’s action is even more insidious than usual.

The statute of limitations in New York for both criminal charges and civil actions stemming from the incident was three years. That means both parties had until the close of business on January 18th, 2011 to file either a criminal trespassing complaint (by the homeowners against Alesi) or a civil personal injury lawsuit (by Alesi against the homeowners).

So Senator Alesi filed his lawsuit seeking at least $50,000 in damages at 10:13AM on the 18th – early enough to just make it under the deadline, but late enough to make it pretty much impossible for the homeowners to press charges against Alesi for trespassing.

Alesi’s delay means it’s now doubtful whether a jury will ever hear that Alesi, in fact, broke into the house in which he injured himself.

New York’s Irondequoit Democratic Committee summed up the incident in their periodic “WOW!!” segment:

As inconcevable [sic] as it may be Republican State Senator Jim Alesi is suing a local homeowner, a couple that he represents in Albany, because he broke his leg while committing an unlawful act on their property!! This is the same Republican Senator Alesi who sits on the State Senates ethics panel and proposed tort reform to preclude this type case from going forth. He never included any clause about law breaking public servants who would wait out the statute of limitations like a jackal in a hen house and then pounce on a person he is sworn to represent.

[emphasis in original]

Sadly, if Senator Alesi had injured himself just a few months earlier, voters this past November would have known exactly what type of character he has (or lacks) in time for the election. Instead, they’ll have to wait until November 2012 to pass judgment.

In that case, time may be on his side, but it’ll take more than all the king’s horses and all the king’s men to put Senator Alesi’s reputation back together again.

If you: (A. support progressive candidates, (B. care about issues, or (C. are younger than 25; then the new GOP Speaker of the New Hampshire House doesn’t think you should have the right to vote.

Not content to show his utter contempt for the delicate separation of powers that protects all of us from tyranny, Speaker William O’Brien is now also admitting that his proposed changes to voting laws are meant specifically to disenfranchise progressive voters:

Turning to the issue of voter fraud prevention, O'Brien said his party will "tighten up the definition of a New Hampshire resident."

He said that Plymouth, a college town, experiences 900 same-day voter registrations.

"They are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience," he said.

[h/t Blue Hampshire]

Rarely has a Republican leader been so transparent about his desire to game the election laws to benefit his own party. Usually, Republicans focus on the largely non-existent spectre of voter fraud, hoping no one will notice the thousands of legal, eligible voters who would be disenfranchised by the GOP proposals. That’s the pattern we’ve already seen in Wisconsin, Texas, and other states where Republicans hope to throw up as many new barriers as possible against voters.

But not in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, GOP leaders are saying explicitly that if you vote against the GOP, your right to vote is open for debate.

MEDIA ADVISORY

National Redistricting Seminar Democratic Planning Meeting

Presented by DLCC and the Foundation for the Future

The Foundation for the Future and DLCC are hosting a meeting to prepare Democratic legislative leaders for the 2011 redistricting. After the meeting, certain participants will be available to the media for interviews and comments.

What: Media availability following Democratic redistricting strategy meeting

When: 4:00 p.m., Friday, January 21st

For more information or to RSVP, please contact Carolyn Fiddler at fiddler@dlcc.org.

### 

One of the most frightening and unexpected results of the Republican wins this November has been a proliferation of legislative assaults on the independence of state judges.

Several weeks ago, a group of Republican state House members in Iowa announced they would spearhead an effort to impeach all four members of the state Supreme Court, simply because of a single ruling the legislators disagreed with for ideological reasons.

The impeachment effort got a boost Wednesday when Speaker-elect Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha) said if he thought Iowans wanted the four justices removed, he would not stand in the way. A few days earlier, state Sen. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), who will sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he will also push for impeachment proceedings.

Paulsen was immediately criticized by LGBT-rights group One Iowa, who called his remarks “reckless.” Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) said unless Paulsen has some evidence that the justices committed a “misdemeanor or malfeasance,” the legislature should focus its efforts on job creation, not impeachment.

Iowa House Democrats have pledged to block the GOP assault on judicial independence at all costs, noting that none of the four justices has ever even been accused of any sort of malfeasance.

But if that weren’t enough, late last week the new GOP Speaker of the New Hampshire House told a gathering of conservative activists that the impeachment of judges would be an effective way to produce more conservative court rulings:

Asked what he thinks about "legislation from the bench," (when judges create law rather than interpret existing law) [Speaker William] O'Brien suggested that the Petition for Grievance procedure would perhaps lead to a Bill of Redress or a Bill of Impeachment.

O'Brien surmised that if one judge was removed from his/her position, "it will calm the rest down."

[h/t Blue Hampshire]

O’Brien’s shocking comments were made amid another impeachment controversy in the state House, in which O’Brien and other House Republicans are attempting to expel Democratic Rep. Mike Brunelle for the “crime” of advocating progressive legislation in the state House while also serving as Executive Director of the New Hampshire Democratic Party:

Bettencourt said Brunelle has filed legislation that would serve as a platform for Democrats. Bettencourt gave as an example legislation to raise the minimum wage which he said is a Democratic initiative.

The impeachment of public officials purely because of philosophical differences is not acceptable behavior in the American political system. This is especially true when judges are the targets, because judges have a duty to uphold the constitution no matter which direction public opinion has turned.

To turn the discharge of that duty into an impeachable offense would set a dangerous precedent. But the fact that GOP leaders are now openly advocating this strategy is just further proof of how arrogant and extreme the modern Republican Party has become.

Louisiana’s redistricting session early this year will play out as a microcosm of the many political battles likely to rage around the country as new district lines are drawn.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune’s Tim Morris and Bill Barrow recently posted a video explaining the enigma set to be unraveled in a special legislative session this March:

Questions to be answered in the special session include:

• Which two incumbent congressmen will be drawn into the same district as Louisiana drops from seven districts to six?
  

• Will regional loyalties supersede partisan ones when it comes to congressional districts?
  
• How will population changes – the effects of Katrina in New Orleans, the expansion of Baton Rouge, and the growth of suburban parishes near both cities – be reflected in the new redistricting plans?
  
• How competitive will the district maps be for a legislature with both chambers narrowly divided?

Most states will grapple with just one or two of these questions. Louisiana features all of them, in addition to being a Voting Rights Act preclearance state.

And since the Louisiana legislature is one of four up for re-election in 2011, all of these questions must be answered definitively within a few short months. If the legislature is unable to do so, the state Supreme Court is responsible for enacting redistricting plans.

Without a doubt, other states with more time to draw their plans will be watching very closely.

Pay-for-play scandals among GOP legislators were a major issue in the 2009 Virginia legislative races, leading directly to the defeat of disgraced GOP delegate Phil Hamilton. But just as the 2011 campaigns are getting started, the Hamilton scandal is back in the news, now that Hamilton has earned a federal indictment.

The Washington Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman and Anita Kumar explain the charges against Hamilton:

A powerful former member of the Virginia House of Delegates was indicted Wednesday on charges of bribery and extortion, as federal authorities allege that he sought a job at Norfolk's Old Dominion University in exchange for obtaining state funding for the school.

According to the indictment, issued by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, Phillip A. Hamilton and ODU officials agreed in 2006 that Hamilton would be hired as director of the new Center for Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership if he arranged for state funding to help launch the center, which trained urban school teachers.

Authorities also say that Hamilton, 58, tried to hide the relationship and asked an ODU official to falsely say that he was the center's director instead of Hamilton - a year after Hamilton had been hired.

Hamilton lost his re-election campaign to Democratic Delegate Robin Abbott. Abbott was widely credited with running an effective and energetic campaign, but the local media’s comprehensive coverage of Hamilton’s misdeeds cannot have helped his reelection effort.

Interestingly, Hamilton was hardly the only Virginia Republican engaged in some shady dealings. At least one GOP state Senator, Tommy Norment was also accused of conflicts of interest, and it will be interesting to see if the Republicans’ culture of corruption in Richmond earns continued public scrutiny in 2011.

In the wake of Saturday’s horrific events in Arizona, the thoughts and prayers of all of us here at the DLCC go out to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the other victims of this tragedy, and all of their families and friends.

Rep. Giffords’ accomplishments and record as a member of the U.S. House are being widely discussed as the country eagerly awaits news on her progress and recovery.

Rep. Giffords was elected to Congress in 2006, but her career in public service began when she was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2000, where she served until she was elected to the Arizona Senate in 2002. She resigned from the state Senate in 2005 to focus on her run for the congressional seat she now holds.

Her career path began in the private sector. She was working for Price Waterhouse in New York City when she decided to return to her hometown of Tucson to help her ailing father and his struggling business. She rescued El Campo Tire Warehouse and sold it to Goodyear in 2000. She was elected to the state House later that year. Two years later, she became the youngest woman elected to the state Senate.

During her time in the state legislature, Rep. Giffords pushed for bills related to mental health, earning a designation as 2004 Legislator of the Year by the Mental Health Association of Arizona. She also worked on the bipartisan Children’s Caucus to improve education and healthcare for Arizona’s kids.

While serving in the state legislature, Rep. Giffords was repeatedly recognized for her accomplishments. Such accolades include Tucson Business Edge 40 Under 40, Arizona Planning Association Legislator of the Year, Scripps College Alumna of the Year, and Sierra Club’s Most Valuable Player, among others.

Rep. Giffords carried her commitment to her state and her constituents with her to Congress, where she is a champion for solar energy, border security, and military families and veterans.

Recent news regarding Rep. Giffords’ condition is positive, and we wish her all the best in her recovery.

There is ongoing debate about what this November’s results really turned on – was it the economy, or frustration with the slow pace of change, or is it altogether unrealistic to claim that any one single issue is responsible for the results we saw?

What is beyond dispute is that whatever voters’ reasons were for their decisions this year, those decisions will have consequences across a range of issues where Republicans are growing increasingly out of step with the broader American public.

One of those issues is equal rights. The last two years saw incredible progress at the state level on equal rights, and with a few critical exceptions, it seems likely that progress can be protected:

California: Equality supporters scored a symbolic victory in Democrat Richard Pan’s Assembly victory over Proposition 8 author Andy Pugno in a conservative-leaning GOP open seat. The nature of the district and the GOP candidate’s close identification with the anti-equality movement sent a clear signal that even in a Republican year, voters do not want to be governed by right-wing ideologues.

Thanks to Dr. Pan’s win, California Democrats increased their majority in the Assembly by one seat and held their margin in the Senate. With these majorities and the Democrats’ gubernatorial victory, further progress on equality appears likely in the coming years.

Connecticut: Democrats suffered minor losses in both the state Senate and state House, slipping barely below veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But a Democratic gubernatorial win means the returning Democratic majorities are more than sufficient. Connecticut already became a marriage equality state through a 2008 court decision and legislative action in 2009, but progress on other equal rights issues is still possible.

Delaware: This state passed its first anti-discrimination law in 2009, and it was another state where Democrats increased their state House majority, picking up three seats to take a 26-15 majority. They lost a seat in the Senate, dropping to 14-7, but both majorities are now over the 3/5 margin needed to overturn vetoes. Regardless, with a popular Democratic governor elected in 2008, further progress on equal rights seems likely.

Hawaii: Site of the cycle’s last major battle over equal rights – a civil unions bill ultimately vetoed by the Republican Governor, thus breaking her earlier promise – Hawaii Democrats lost only two state House seats and captured one of the GOP’s only two state Senate seats. Both chambers remain the most lopsidedly Democratic in the country, and incoming Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the civil unions bill if passed again.

As an added bonus, Democratic state Rep. Blake Oshiro, the driving force behind last year’s civil unions bill, was re-elected in a landslide, ensuring that equal rights will continue to have a strong champion in the legislature. Further progress on equality appears extremely likely.

Illinois: Democrats retained their majorities in both Illinois legislative chambers, while the gubernatorial election delivered a popular mandate for the state's incumbent Democratic Governor. Following those results, legislators passed the state's first law providing for same-sex civil unions, which will be signed early this year.

Iowa: Despite losing the state House, Iowa Senate Democrats led by DLCC Chairman Mike Gronstal have maintained their majority in the state Senate. As Senate Majority Leader, Gronstal has the sole authority to decide which bills are brought to a vote, and Senator Gronstal has already reiterated his 2009 promise that he will “Never” allow a vote on a constitutional amendment repealing civil marriage equality.

This adds at least another two years to the timeline for any state constitutional amendment in Iowa – even if Republicans re-take the chamber in 2012, the first election after redistricting, the earliest an amendment could reach the ballot would be 2015. With a Republican House and Governor, further progress on equal rights appears unlikely, but thanks to Senator Gronstal, backsliding looks all but impossible.

As an added bonus, openly-gay Senator Matt McCoy was re-elected despite enduring an outrageous smear campaign by his GOP opponent, who labled McCoy the Senate’s “chief sodomite” and accused him of trying to spread HIV through handshakes (which, by the way, is medically impossible). Bigotry may not be gone, but it was certainly dealt a setback with McCoy’s landslide re-election.

Maine: Democrats were dealt major setbacks in Maine, losing control of both the state House, state Senate, and the Governorship. But the state House margin is an extremely narrow 72-78-1, and since Maine voters already narrowly approved a ballot measure repealing the state’s marriage equality law in 2009, it’s unclear how aggressively Republicans will go in seeking to repeal other laws important to the LGBT community, such as the state’s civil unions law, its law permitting joint adoptions, or its hate crimes statute. This is a state of concern.

Maryland: Maryland Democrats actually expanded their majorities in both legislative chambers and re-elected the state's Democratic governor by a wide margin. Because of those results and some internal changes to the legislature's committee membership, equality advocates believe they are in a strong position to push for full civil marriage equality. Further progress here appears extremely likely.

Nevada: After overturning a gubernatorial veto to enact the state’s first civil unions law, Democrats maintained their majorities in both legislative chambers – a narrow 11-10 lead in the state Senate and a wider 26-16 lead in the state Assembly. But without their previous veto-proof Assembly majority and facing a larger, more conservative GOP Senate caucus, further progress will be difficult but not impossible.

New Hampshire: This state formed the tip of the spear for the Democrats’ 2006 rout, delivering major upsets and gains of 6 seats and 84 seats in the state Senate and House, respectively. That was again the case this year, except in the other direction, leaving Republicans with a 5-19 majority in the state Senate and a 102-298 majority in the state House, more than enough seats to overturn vetoes by Democratic Governor John Lynch.

That makes New Hampshire an area of extreme concern for equal rights, because the state’s marriage equality law was only enacted in 2009. And with so many GOP defections needed to sustain a veto, Republicans could potentially target any of the state’s laws that are important to the LGBT community, including adoption laws, hate crimes laws, and anti-discrimination laws. This is a state of concern.

New Jersey: The only competitive legislative election in New Jersey was a state Senate special election in which Democrat Linda Greenstein, a marriage equality supporter and frequent target of social conservative organizations, defeated a GOP appointee who opposes marriage equality. If there was going to be a backlash against the state Senate’s January marriage vote, which unfortunately failed, it would have been felt in this race. And while that bodes well for future votes on equality, the presence of a Republican governor will make further progress difficult.

New York: Republicans won control of the New York Senate by a single seat this year, and Senate Republicans unanimously opposed marriage equality in 2009. Nevertheless, it is believed that the returning Democratic caucus is more cohesive on Equal Rights, and the possibility of a more favorable Senate redistricting plan for 2012 make progress over the intermediate term much more likely.

Rhode Island: Despite losing a relative handful of legislative seats, Democrats retained their commanding majorities in both legislative chambers. And now that the state's GOP governor (who vetoed even a modest bill to grant funeral planning rights to same-sex domestic partners) has been replaced with an Independent governor calling for full civil marriage equality, progress on equal rights seems extremely likely here.

Vermont: One of several states to pass full civil marriage equality in 2009, Vermont re-elected overwhelming Democratic majorities in both state legislative chambers in 2010, as well as electing a new Democratic Governor. Further progress on equal rights appears likely.

Washington: Democrats have retained both of their legislative majorities in Washington, which passed a robust civil unions law in 2009. Equality opponents attempted to overturn the law through a ballot initiative, but the law was narrowly upheld. With Democrats narrowly ahead in both chambers and with a Democratic governor, further progress on equal rights is certainly possible, but after the close result of the civil unions ballot initiative, legislators are likely to give voters time to grow accustomed to civil unions.

Wisconsin: Wisconsin successfully passed a civil unions law in 2009, though previous state laws banning same-sex marriage (and imprisoning for nine months anyone who contracts a same-sex marriage out of state) remain on the books. Democrats lost the governorship and their narrow majorities in both legislative chambers in 2010, putting the civil unions statute and other laws important to the LGBT community at risk.

Overall, despite the Republicans’ strong national showing in 2010, they significantly underperformed in states that were at the forefront of the battle for equal rights in 2009 and 2010. There are at least 8 states where further progress on equal rights is unquestionably more likely because of the 2010 elections, and only three new states that are in legitimate danger of backsliding away from equal rights laws passed in 2009 and 2010. In terms of policy consequences, equal rights advocates at the state level may find that they dodged a major bullet this cycle.

With many state legislative sessions slated to begin in the coming weeks, Republican lawmakers from across the country are providing a steady supply of bills based on conspiracy theories and radical right-wing ideology.

Citing concerns with nonexistent “hyperinflation” (the most current data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index puts the current inflation rate at 1.14%), GOP lawmakers from no fewer than four different states are proposing legislation designed to push the country back towards the gold standard, which often is blamed for prolonging the Great Depression and was abandoned in 1933.

As Think Progress helpfully explains, returning to a gold (or silver) standard would leave our nation completely powerless to control our own monetary policy, often tying inflation rates to completely arbitrary factors such as the rate that gold is mined in South Africa, rather than to the interests of a national economy. It also leaves us without one of our most important tools to push back against economic downturns.

We’ve already mentioned a proposal from GOP state Rep. Norman Tregenza of New Hampshire that would restore gold and silver currency in the Granite State.

In Virginia, Republican Delegate Bob Marshall signals his lack of faith in the U.S. dollar and the Federal Reserve with the filing of companion bills.

The Commonwealth of Virginia would begin minting its own gold and silver coins as an alternative currency to the U.S. dollar under a bill that Virginia Del. Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) says he will file in coming days.

Marshall will ask the General Assembly to consider the idea when it convenes for its annual legislative session Jan. 12. It is a companion bill to a proposal he has already filed to establish a study committee to examine alternative currencies to that distributed by the Federal Reserve System "in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System."

Marshall said his intention is to inject competition into the national economy and force the federal government to change monetary policy he believes is leading to hyperinflation.

In Georgia, GOP state Rep. Bobby Franklin is introducing the “Constitutional Tender Act,” which would require all financial transactions with the state, including tax payments, be paid with gold or silver coins (absent a state-granted waiver):

Pre-1965 silver coins, silver eagles, and gold eagles shall be the exclusive medium which the state shall use to make any payments whatsoever to any person or entity, whether private or governmental. Such coins shall be the exclusive medium which the state shall accept from any person or entity as payment of any obligation to the state including, without limitation, the payment of taxes; provided, however, that such coins and other forms of currency may be used in all other transactions within the state upon mutual consent of the parties of any such transaction.

In Utah, Republican state Rep. John Dougall has proposed legislation that goes a step beyond the Constitutional Tender Act by permitting residents to mint their own gold or silver coins.

Imagine paying your next parking ticket in gold Krugerrands or renewing your driver license using American Gold Eagles.

A proposal in the Utah Legislature would require the state to allow just that, requiring government agencies to accept gold for transactions, and creating a parallel monetary policy for intrastate commerce tied to the price of gold.

Under the legislation that has been drafted, Utah residents could mint their own gold or silver coins, a storehouse would be created to stockpile the precious metal and the Utah Defense Force, an arcane state militia that may be called and armed by the governor, would be responsible for securing the inventories.

For the record, the Utah Defense Force doesn’t actually exist.

All across New Hampshire this holiday season, residents found their stockings stuffed with crazy, courtesy of the new GOP majorities in that state’s legislature.

The writers at the indispensable Blue Hampshire have published a series exploring incoming GOP legislators “Legislative Service Requests” (LSRs). These contain basically a bill number and a brief description of a law the legislator intends to propose, and they provided the first real glimpse of the priorities of the new GOP majority.

By Blue Hampshire’s count, LSRs so far include:

• Four bills seeking to abolish marriage equality;

• Three bills withdrawing from the wildly successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and another challenging federal climate action;
• Eight bills challenging the federal health insurance reform law;
• One bill abolishing the Federal Reserve and switching New Hampshire to a system of gold and silver currency; and
• One bill “ordering” Senators Shaheen and Ayotte to vote against the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

There are a lot of head-scratchers in that list, but none more so than the LSR filed by Rep. Daniel Itse opposing the Law of the Sea Convention.

For one thing, state legislatures do not and have never had the authority to “order” their U.S. Senators to vote a certain way. Not even in the years before the 17th Amendment. Rep. Itse clearly needs to re-read our constitution (or perhaps the Cliffs Notes version) before voting on any legislation.

As for the Convention itself, it’s an extremely important body of international law. But the section gaining the most attention lately is arguably Articles 100-107, which define and establish every nation’s “Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy.”

You read that right – piracy.

So, to recap, New Hampshire Republicans apparently think climate change, health care costs, and piracy are all imaginary. And the “threats” they take seriously? Gays and paper currency. Ridiculous.

New Hampshire, welcome to the Republic of Tea.

Every year, the National Conference of State Legislatures publishes a list of the issues they expect to dominate the coming state legislative sessions. This year’s edition predicts that budget decisions will dominate the political scene in most states, as they have the past few years.

As NCSL explains, the end of economic stimulus funding and lingering effects of the recession will combine to produce another difficult year for policymakers:

Through Nov. 15 states have reported new FY 2011 budget gaps totaling at least $26.7 billion. This is on top of the $83.9 billion gap already resolved this fiscal year. More gaps loom as state policymakers prepare to craft their FY 2012 budgets. Although state revenue performance appears to be improving, the expected growth won’t be enough to replace federal stimulus funds that helped balance current budgets.

Many other items on the “Top 11 issues of 2011” list are directly related to the budget issues. For instance, issue #5 is higher education funding, which is often extremely vulnerable to cuts in deficit years. Issue #7 is reducing unemployment and repaying funds borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. And issue #11 is building and maintaining needed transportation infrastructure – always an expensive undertaking.

Other top issues, like redistricting, may not directly impact states’ bottom lines, but they will nevertheless be contentious. Visit NCSL.org to read the rest of the list.