Ever since Democrats won control of the Colorado Legislature in 2004, the state has become a leader in pushing for clean energy investment. And that leadership was recently recognized by U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who described Colorado as a model for national action.

Aldo Svaldi and Drew FitzGerald at the Denver Post wrote about Locke's remarks a few weeks ago:

The country could miss a key opportunity for growth if it doesn't soon follow Colorado's example in pursuing the new-energy economy, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said Monday. (...)

Colorado earlier this year required that utilities obtain 30 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, one of the nation's strictest mandates.

That was an increase from an earlier voter- approved requirement of 20 percent by 2020, and the mandate has helped the state attract thousands of jobs in wind, solar and other technologies.

Republicans in both legislative chambers voted near-unanimously against HB 1001, which established the new standard – presumably because they’d rather see more job creation in China, instead of Colorado and elsewhere in the United States.

As Secretary Locke explained, Republican intransigence on clean energy is already causing the United States to fall behind:

China, by contrast, is investing $9 billion a month in the clean-energy field, and not just to meet its own internal energy needs or improve emissions. The Chinese want to export the technology to other countries and reap the millions of jobs that could come from doing that, Locke said.

"If we don't act soon on an energy policy . . . we will wake up and say, 'How is it that Shanghai, China, or Berlin, Germany, have become the next Silicon Valley of clean energy?' " he said.

Colorado, of course, is hardly alone in the push for clean energy. 2009 saw a surge of activity in several states, almost always led and supported by Democratic lawmakers.

It’s an open question whether Republicans will eventually come around to supporting clean energy legislation. But no matter what they do, you can expect Democrats to continue making it a priority in Colorado and across the country.

It’s unusual to see broad-based action on an issue that rarely gets consistent media attention. But that’s why we’re so heartened by this year’s onslaught of legislation at the state level to combat human trafficking in America. The Washington Post explains:

So far this year, more than 40 bills have been enacted and roughly 350 introduced. That compares with just eight bills adopted across the country in 2006, according to the Polaris Project, an anti-trafficking group based in Washington. (…)

"We were the first state to start all of this," said [Washington] state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), the sponsor of much of the state's anti-trafficking legislation. "We've strengthened the law every year." In 2009, she said, the state forced employers who bring in foreign workers to notify them of all labor laws and allow them to keep their travel documents. (…)

"I represent a large number of immigrants and learned more and more about the issue of trafficking," said Virginia Del. Adam P. Ebbin (D), who sponsored one of the new laws. "By putting the code in place, I'm hopeful we can now combat it."

Just how big a problem is human trafficking? Huge. The U.S. State Department estimates that over 12 million people are currently the victims of human trafficking for the purposes of forced labor, bonded labor, or sexual exploitation.

And despite the issue’s low profile here, trafficking remains a systemic problem in the United States. From the Washington Post again:

Statistics documenting the problem are vague and vary widely. The government estimates that 14,500 to 17,500 victims of trafficking are brought to the United States each year. A study funded by the Justice Department found that almost 250,000 children fall into a category of trafficking victims because they are at risk of sexual exploitation.

Hopefully, the new laws at the state level will provide investigators and prosecutors with more effective tools to uncover and shut down trafficking rings in their respective states.

Last night, Republican Governor Linda Lingle broke a promise and dismissed the will of Hawaiian citizens as she vetoed HB 444, which would have allowed both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions with all the rights enjoyed by married couples.

Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, issued the following statement in response to Governor Lingle’s veto of the civil union bill:

“We at the DLCC are disappointed in Governor Lingle for ignoring the will of Hawaiian citizens as expressed by the Hawaii legislature’s passage of this landmark legislation. Governor Lingle also broke her campaign promise not to veto a civil union bill if passed by the state legislature. She has denied Hawaii the opportunity to become the latest example of states leading the way on equality.”

Vetoing the legislation broke a promise Lingle made in her first campaign for governor in 2002.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said [emphasis added].

Democratic legislators did their part and voted their conscience on “that legislation,” after a marathon 18 hours of earnest debate. But their work was undone by the Governor's broken promise.

And in breaking her promise, Governor Lingle denied hundreds of thousands of her own citizens a right she probably takes for granted.

The Governor’s veto is a sad setback in the ongoing fight for equality. But that fight continues.

One day, America will look back on the struggle for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. Governor Lingle will be one of the reasons.

Today could mark a significant milestone for civil rights in our country.

By the end of the day, a bill that allows both same-sex and heterosexual couples to receive the same protections under law as married couples (HB 444) will be

A. Signed into law by Governor Linda Lingle,
B. Vetoed by Governor Lingle, or
C. Allowed to become law automatically, without any action by the Governor.

July 6 is the deadline for Governor Lingle to take action on a list of bills she designated in June as ripe for veto. The civil unions bill was on that list.

We helped collect some of the thousands of citizen petitions supporting HB 444, and we were pleased to add them to the voices of local citizens, the business community, and other equal rights supporters from all over the country demanding this important step towards equality.

If this civil unions bill becomes law, seven states and the District of Columbia would either grant full civil marriage equality or recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Another eight states - including Hawaii – would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So after today, nearly 108 million Americans could live in states where same-sex couples enjoy legal status and at least some or all of the protections enjoyed by other married couples.

Governor Lingle’s signature on HB 444 – or even her failure to veto it – would be only the most recent example of states outpacing the federal government and forging ahead in the path towards equal rights.

But we've seen this before, and that's what gives us hope. State-based health care reforms led to national health care reform, and state-based clean energy laws are adding momentum for national climate action.

That means the harder states push for equal rights - and more state-level momentum we build - the closer we get to equality for everyone.

One day, America will look back on the fight for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. When that day comes, we'll have the states to thank.

Eleven days ago, it seemed possible that Hawaiian civil unions legislation would pass its final hurdle in becoming law as early as today.

But instead of signing the historic civil unions bill into law, Governor Linda Lingle has dodged her deadline by giving herself an extension.

Since its approval by state lawmakers in April, this legislation, which would enable both same-sex and heterosexual couples to receive the same protections under law as married couples, has languished on Governor Lingle’s desk. Today the governor included the legislation on a list of bills she may veto.

Now she has until July 6 to take action—or not—on the bills on this list, including the civil unions bill. If she has not vetoed the measure by that date, it will become law without her signature.

Declining to veto the bill will mark the fulfillment of a promise Lingle made in her first campaign for governor in 2002.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said [emphasis added].

It seems odd to ask—to hope—that Governor Lingle take no action on this historic civil rights legislation. But all signals given by the governor since the bill’s passage by the Hawaii state legislature indicate that she will not sign the measure into law.

Inaction can be a form of action. The governor’s inaction on this civil unions bill will lead to same-sex couples in Hawaii receiving the same rights and protections as married couples. If she won’t act to affix her signature to the bill, her inaction through July 6 is most welcome.

Join the call for equal rights in Hawaii- Sign the petition today!

Eleven days – that’s how long we have to make our voices heard on a crucial piece of equal rights legislation. Republican Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has announced that she’ll decide whether to sign or veto her state’s new civil unions bill when she returns from an overseas trip.

Gov. Linda Lingle will decide whether to sign or veto a contentious proposal to allow same-gender couples to form civl [sic] unions after returning from a two-week-long working trip to China and Japan, she said yesterday. (…)

Speaking at a state Capitol news conference, Lingle said she likely will take until June 21, the deadline by which she must tell the Legislature which bills she may veto. She then has until July 6 to veto those measures if that is the action she chooses.

Measures not on the June 21 list would become law, either with or without her signature.

Lingle's trip to Asia begins Friday and she is due to return June 19.

Given the impact her decision will have on many of her state’s residents, it’s unfortunate that Governor Lingle will not also be stopping in Australia or New Zealand, both of which provide for same-sex civil unions (nationwide in New Zealand, but only in certain Australian political subdivisions). If she did, she would realize that human society has not, in fact, collapsed in either country – rather it has been strengthened.

But so long as the Governor plans on waiting until after this trip to make her decision, we plan to have one last batch of petitions waiting for her when she returns.

If you haven’t already, please click here to add your voice.

If Governor Lingle signs the Hawaii civil unions bill, she will only be keeping a promise she made during her 2002 campaign for governor:

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said.

Whether sincere or not, Lingle probably never expected that civil unions would come to occupy the “middle ground” of American politics as quickly as they did. 2002 was before Massachusetts became the first civil marriage equality state, and it was just two years after progressive Vermont approved civil unions because of a court ruling that was extremely controversial at the time. In that context, Lingle coming out in favor of civil unions in 2002 – as a Republican – put her at the vanguard of the equal rights movement nationwide.

Was it nothing more than shameless pandering – a ruse to burnish her “moderate” credentials in a heavily Democratic state? Or was it something else?

One June 21st, Hawaiians will find out once and for all.

Help us make sure she does the right thing.

Last year, the Democratic-controlled Colorado Legislature passed the Health Care Affordability Act, seeking to extend Medicaid coverage to tens of thousands of Coloradans who would otherwise go uninsured. The law went into effect in April, with impressive results:

The point of the Health Care Affordability Act, considered Gov. Bill Ritter's most significant health care reform, is to create a pot of money through hospital fees that would draw matching federal money. The state is using the additional money — expected to reach $1.2 billion annually — to provide more Coloradans with health insurance, as well as pay back hospitals for treating patients who are either uninsured or on Medicaid.

Many hospitals, especially those that treat a large number of indigent patients or those on Medicaid, actually end up with a net gain of millions of dollars through the program, even when accounting for the new fees. But the plan also does a good job of minimizing any overall losses absorbed by hospitals that see a net loss:

Centura Health's Adventist hospitals — Porter, Avista, Littleton and Parker — will lose a combined $6.3 million through the hospital fee. Still, the 12-hospital Centura system comes out winning, with a net gain of about $4.4 million.

"The state did a very nice job of trying to limit the losers," said Randy Safady, Centura's chief financial officer. "We have a number of losing hospitals and we have a number of winning hospitals."

Overall, the new law is expected to help about 67,500 more Coloradans receive health insurance, filling a key need for many of those individuals until the federal reform law is fully implemented in 2014.

The President’s health reform law is going to save thousands of lives and make coverage more affordable for millions of Americans. It also left some good, progressive ideas on the table. But with the reform bill now law, Democratic state legislators are already stepping up to put those ideas into action.

Colorado, Maine, and Maryland have all passed bills to reinforce or speed up key planks of the federal reform plan, like the prohibition on charging higher premiums for women or the ban on lifetime caps on benefits. Meanwhile Oregon, which created the Oregon Health Authority last year to study ways to improve the affordability of health care, is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the federal reform plan.

But states like Connecticut and Vermont are preparing to go even further. Connecticut will be continuing its SustiNet project, a state-administrated health plan overseen by a board of experts reporting directly to the Legislature. The Vermont Senate has given preliminary approval for a bill requiring the Legislature’s Health Care Reform Commission to develop three separate plans for implementing universal health care, including one plan that creates a state-run public insurance option.

Even before the President’s plan passed, Democratic state legislators were at the forefront of health care reform in America. But now that we have health care reform on a national scale, expect states to continue pushing the envelope – finding new ideas and offering bold solutions.

And expect Democrats to continue leading the way.

With hiring only now beginning to pick up across the country, it’s worth looking back at the American unemployment insurance system to figure out how it can be more effective in the future. Seventeen mostly Democratic states have turned to a more proactive approach – one that uses unemployment dollars to keep people employed:

Called work sharing, or short-time compensation, the program has helped thousands of companies avoid layoffs in New York and 16 other states. This year, lawmakers in seven more states are considering bills that would authorize the widely praised approach to saving jobs.

Here’s how it works. When a business enters a slump and needs to cut payroll, it can seek state approval for a plan to reduce employees’ hours instead of cutting jobs. For example, a 20 percent reduction in the workforce could translate to a 20 percent reduction in hours, or a four-day workweek. To help employees stay afloat, the state would pay workers about half of their lost wages through the federal-state unemployment insurance program, which temporarily provides laid-off workers with a portion of their paychecks.

“Every day, workers tell me they’d rather work at least part of their regular week instead of face a layoff,” says New York Labor Commissioner Colleen Gardner. At no additional cost to states, the program helps businesses retain skilled employees, allows workers to stay on the job and keep their benefits and boosts the local economy.

Twelve of the seventeen states that offer this kind of program have Democratic-controlled legislatures. And that’s no surprise – Democratic legislators across the country have been proactive about protecting jobs ever since the recession began.

For Democratic state legislators, “supporting the troops” is more than just a political slogan – it’s a call to action. The Department of Defense has identified ten key areas where state policies can meaningfully improve quality of life for military families. And this year, Iowa became the first state to address all ten:

“We’re 10 for 10,” Sen. Steve Warnstadt, D-Sioux City, said Wednesday. He is a colonel in the Iowa National Guard who plans to retire as a lawmaker when his term expires later this year.

“In some manner, shape or form, we address all 10 of the issues that the Department of Defense has requested states to take action on,” Warnstadt said.

Senators voted 50-0 on Wednesday to send Senate File 2297 to Gov. Chet Culver with new protections dealing with utility shutoffs, weapons permits and other issues that might arise during or after a military deployment.

The list of soldier-friendly bills approved by lawmakers or already signed by Culver deal with jobless compensation for trailing spouses, child custody and visitation matters during deployment separations, absentee voting, access to child care for military families, and certain support benefits for National Guard and reserve members and their families.

Congratulations to Iowa Democrats for taking up this important cause and finding a way to thank our men and women in uniform for their service and sacrifice.