Thanks to the 2/3 Democratic majority in the Connecticut Legislature, Democrats in 2009 overrode the governor’s veto of a bill to create “SustiNet,” designed to be the nation’s first true public option health insurance plan. But with the Connecticut Legislature and governorship up for election in 2010, many analysts believe that this year’s voters hold the fate of SustiNet in their hands.

And the choice couldn’t be clearer – if you live in Connecticut and believe in building a public option, you need to get out and vote for Democrats. The American Prospect’s Joanne Kenen explained the situation:

Though approved in concept by the state Legislature, SustiNet at this point is only a concept. It has a board, a cadre of volunteer analysts, and task forces as well as support from foundations, advocates, and Democratic legislators. But the commission must go back to the Legislature next year for final approval -- and funding -- in an environment that is fiscally challenging and politically uncertain. The race to succeed Gov. Jodi Rell, a moderate Republican who is not seeking re-election, is competitive, and the Legislature, which passed the SustiNet bill and then overrode Rell's veto, could have a different composition post-November. For political or economic reasons, SustiNet could be delayed or scaled down. But state Rep. Chris Donovan, the speaker of the Connecticut House, says the idea has broad public support. The message he has been relaying around the state, he says, is, "Better plan, costs less. Like that beer commercial: tastes great, less filling."

We hope you caught that – even a self-proclaimed “moderate” Republican vetoed the plan last year, despite broad public support (that seems to be happening a lot lately). Which means the best way to guarantee that SustiNet stays on track is to maintain the Democrats’ veto-proof majority in the legislature.

It would take a disastrous election cycle to break State House Democrats’ 114-37 advantage, but State Senate Democrats currently sit right at the 2/3 mark with a 24-12 edge. Just like the federal health care reform bill, not a single Republican State Senator voted to pass SustiNet.

And make no mistake, if SustiNet goes online in 2012 as planned, it will be a groundbreaking achievement for health care reform:

[SustiNet Board Co-Chair Kevin] Lembo and other advocates note that SustiNet is not just a coverage mechanism. It was conceived, too, as a catalyst for delivery-system reform, aiming to improve quality while restraining costs. Various task forces are working on creating or expanding medical homes and chronic -- disease management, electronic medical records, incentives for evidence-based medicine, and public-health initiatives on obesity and tobacco. Addressing racial and socioeconomic health disparities is also an explicit goal. Lembo said the public option could end up covering about 1 million people out of Connecticut's 3.5 million, meaning it could have a big ripple effect on health-care delivery and public health throughout the state.

If the experience of Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Oregon are any guide, it could also become a model for other states to follow – and possibly the federal government as well.

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.

The non-partisan Annie E. Casey Foundation has released the 2010 edition of its annual Kids Count ranking, which measures each state on 10 key indicators of children’s welfare and educational opportunities. Unsurprisingly, states with Democratic legislatures dominate the 2010 rankings.

Eight of the top-ten overall states have Democratic legislatures – New Hampshire, Minnesota, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Wisconsin. Only one Republican-controlled state and one state with a nominally non-partisan legislature made the top ten.

More impressively, states with Democratically-controlled legislatures outnumber Republican-controlled states in the top-ten* of every single subcategory. The breakdown of each subcategory is:

• Fewest Low-Birthweight Babies: 6D-3R-1Split

• Lowest Infant Mortality: 9D-1R-0Split
• Fewest Child Deaths: 10D-0R-0Split
• Fewest Teen Deaths from All Causes: 10D-0R-0Split
• Fewest Teen Births by Age Group: 9D-1R-0Split
• Fewest Teens Ages 16-19 Not in School and Not H.S. Graduates: 9D-1R-4Split*^
• Fewest Teens Ages 16-19 Not in School and Not Working: 7D-4R-2Split*^
• Fewest Children Living in Families where No Parent has Full-Time, Year-Round Employment: 6D-5R-2Split*^
• Fewest Children in Poverty: 9D-2R-2Split*^
• Fewest Children in Single-Parent Families: 6D-4R-1Split*^

*Because of ties in the subcategories, some top-ten lists contain more than ten states.
^We counted Nebraska’s non-partisan legislature as being under split-control.

The release of the Kids Count ranking comes on the heels of CNBC’s “Top States for Business” ranking, in which not a single state in the top ten of the education subcategory had a Republican-controlled legislature.

Both rankings reinforce the larger argument we make each and every day: that the states that are moving forward and working to provide opportunity for future generations, by and large, are states with Democratic leadership.

Martin Finucane of the Boston Globe reports that supporters of a state-by-state effort to decide presidential elections based on the popular vote – rather than by Electoral College math – have notched another victory:

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.

That “tried and true” system Tisei refers to is responsible for the election of George W. Bush in 2000 – despite his losing the national popular vote. President Bush, who left America with two wars, a financial crisis, an economy in free-fall, and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, has already gone down in history as one of the worst presidents in history.

America would have been much better off, at least in this instance, if the presidential electoral system reflected the national will of the people in all cases.

Perhaps that’s why the five other states which already have such legislation are all heavily Democratic, with Democratically-controlled legislatures. Nevertheless, the laws in all six states (Governor Patrick has suggested he will sign the Massachusetts bill) will remain dormant until states accounting for 270 electoral votes pass similar legislation.

The Constitution establishes the Electoral College and describes how electors are to be apportioned, but the selection of electors is delegated to the state legislatures, all of which have since passed laws tying their Electoral College votes to the presidential election results in their states.

According to CNBC’s latest 50-state ranking of the best places for business growth, three of the top-five states for business have Democratic legislatures (Massachusetts, Colorado, and North Carolina), and a fourth is currently under split control (Virginia).

But unlike other rankings that view business-friendliness as a race to see which state can drown itself in a bathtub the quickest, CNBC ranked the full range of issues businesses consider when choosing to locate or expand – everything from public education to quality of life. And it’s no surprise that states with Democratic legislatures dominate many of these key issues:

• Overall: Democratic-controlled Massachusetts, Colorado, and North Carolina all ranked in the top five, along with Virginia (which is under split control). Only one Republican-controlled state made the top five.
  
  

• Education System: Republicans were shut out of this category – four of the top five (and nine of the top ten) states for education have Democratic legislatures. Pennsylvania, which was tied for fourth, is under split control.
  
  

• Technology and Innovation: This was the Democratic states’ second most consistent category (behind education). Again, four of the top five states are Democratically-controlled. But only 2 Republican-controlled states even made the top-fifteen.
  
  

• Access to Capital: All five of the top spots, and eight of the top ten, went to Democratic states, led by California. One split state, Virginia, and only one Republican state also made the top ten.
  
  

• Quality of Life: Four of the top five states, and eight of the top ten, were Democratically-controlled.

The trend from these rankings should be obvious: The states that are moving forward (by investing in technology and education, by making it easy to start businesses, and by continually improving the quality of life) are mostly states where Democrats set the agenda.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue their race to the bottom.

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.

Yesterday was the first day that the health care reform law’s “high-risk pools,” set up by the federal government to cover people with pre-existing conditions, began accepting applications. But because states have the option of using the federal plan or setting up their own, only 21 states can take applications so far:

These 21 states have asked the federal government to run the high-risk pool rather than administer it themselves: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming.

Residents of these states can apply starting Thursday. Administration officials said people who apply by July 15 will begin receiving coverage by Aug. 1.

The remaining 29 states and the District of Columbia will run their own programs and begin accepting applications over the next several months.

“Asked,” of course, is a charitable description by the Los Angeles Times. No doubt some of these states – particularly those with Democratic-controlled legislatures and whose leadership actually care about the uninsured – weighed the options and decided that a federally-run high-risk pool is the better option for them. The federal pools are coming online quicker, most likely, because Federal officials have had the better part of two years to think about how to implement high-risk pools, and some states obviously saw value in having a plan that’s part of a national standard.

But other states didn’t “ask” the federal government to set up their high-risk pools any more than an infant throwing a dinner-time temper tantrum “asks” mommy or daddy to handle the spoon and sippy-cup. For Republican officials in those states, local control was far less important than throwing their tantrum and making a big show out of refusing to lift a finger for reform.

Mother Jones described the situation with a little bit more context at the beginning of May:

At least 15 states—all but three led by Republicans—have decided against creating insurance pools for Americans with pre-existing conditions, forcing the federal government to step in and establish the high-risk pools itself. By contrast, at least 28 states—all but seven led by Democrats—will help the federal government by creating the pools themselves. It’s the first major decision for states to make under the new law. And the Republican-led refusals are the latest sign that red states will be far less willing to play nice as health reform gets underway.

Ultimately, though, the L.A. Times got it right. Republicans may have thought they were making some grand statement against President Obama and against health care reform by refusing to cooperate in the high-risk pools, but all they were really doing is asking the federal government to make the decisions for them.

And they didn’t even succeed in slowing down reform in their states. If anything, they sped it up – which makes this Republican failure a WIN for those with preexisting conditions.

At this week’s Virginia State Crime Commission work group meeting, attendees heard a harrowing story.

Del. Ward Armstrong recalls an incident in which a woman going through a divorce had obtained a protective order against her husband, who nevertheless walked into her workplace and shot her to death.

"If she'd had a little warning, maybe she could've gotten out the back door," said Armstrong, D-Henry County.

The incident prompted him to propose legislation that would allow judges to require Virginians who are served protective orders to wear GPS tracking devices. Such devices can be set up to alert police, the person who requested the order, or both if the abuser gets too close to the victim.

After all, while protective orders are important and useful tools for victims of domestic violence, they’re just pieces of paper; they won’t stop a fist, a knife, or a bullet. Using technology to improve protective orders’ effectiveness is a smart solution to a problem facing over a million Americans every year.

But Minority Leader Armstrong isn’t the only Democrat leading the way in the fight against domestic violence.

In Connecticut, Democratic Speaker of the House Christopher Donovan created a task force last year to identify trends relating to domestic violence matters and developing a series of legislative recommendations. In May, the biggest group of domestic violence reforms in 25 years passed the Democratically-controlled state legislature. These reforms include:

• The creation of a pilot program for electronic monitoring for the highest risk domestic violence offenders;
• Enhancement of information sharing in family violence cases among appropriate state agencies;
• Authorization for prosecutors to consider out-of-state offenses for persistent family violence offenders;
• The creation of three additional domestic violence court dockets.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Democratic House Speaker Greg Stumbo sponsored a bill, the final version of which was passed unanimously by the state House and Senate in April, known as Amanda’s Law.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, sponsored the bill in response to the Sept. 11 shooting death of state worker Amanda Ross in Lexington. Former state Rep. Steve Nunn was charged with her murder and has pleaded not guilty. Ross sought court protection from Nunn before she was gunned down.

Amanda’s Law would allow judges to order electronic monitoring in domestic-violence cases if certain violations of protective orders occur, such as assault, burglary or kidnapping.

Oklahoma Democrats took on domestic violence issues in their legislative session, as well. Minority Floor Leader Mike Brown and Senator Jim Wilson authored legislation which would stop the shameful practice of insurance companies in Oklahoma of denying coverage, refusing to renew, or canceling a person’s health benefit plan on the basis of that person’s status as a victim of domestic abuse. The measure passed on the last day of the legislative session, and once it is signed by the Governor, domestic violence will no longer be a “preexisting condition” in Oklahoma.

Efforts to address and prevent domestic violence are ongoing across the country. Democratic state legislators are tackling this issue head-on, and we can look forward to even more progress toward domestic abuse prevention and victim protection in legislative sessions to come.