House Bill 1076 sent to 41st day on 9-4 vote. What we learned.

Pat Powers

House Bill 1076 had a lot of crash and thunder surrounding it, but after testimony today, it died an appropriate death as we learned some things about the measure.

First, we learned that the measure sponsor Lynn Hix-DiSanto puts a lot of stock in facebook, as she based popular support on the measure on how many people viewed her facebook page, and how people commented.

Next, we learned that the sponsors of the measure probably didn’t bother to consult with DSS when they wrote it, because they dropped the bombshell that the 100,000 people the bill wanted to drug test are barred from it under federal law.  Because SNAP is a federal program, and states cannot put further restrictions on it under federal law. Oops.

We also learned that the genesis of this measure came when people went to Senator Betty Olson concerned about drug use on the Cheyenne and Standing Rock reservations. It was actually related that someone said “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.”   I doubt that helped their case today.  (I gasped when I heard that one).

I also learned that you could have taken all of the Democrats from the room, and the bill still would have been rejected by a strong Republican Majority of 7, as they and 2 Democrats voted against it, and it was only supported by 4 Republicans, three of which were sponsors.

It’s done. And with good reason.  It was bad legislation which would have been worse law.

8 thoughts on “House Bill 1076 sent to 41st day on 9-4 vote. What we learned.”

  1. I don’t care if its the keep hilgers green campaign or doc boz senate campaign, when you cite facebook support you should be kicked out of the room..! But, but, look at all my ‘likes’ and followers..! Shut the front door.

    I understand that folks will introduce bills that agencies won’t like, but a bill should not even be allowed to be introduced until agencies have had a chance to review and comment.

  2. Glad to see it die. This is not conservatism. This is not even Republican. This is just wrong to even think about implementing.

    1. No, it wouldn’t be better to discuss some proposal that’s against the law to inact. Giving public exposure to your extremist agenda is worthless, as are your motives.

      1. Excuse my mistake, folks. The proper word is enact. Inact is a root of inactive which is what the above commenter’s suggestion begs … inactivity and disposal.

    2. Did you read the column you linked?Can you dispute the numbers? Just because the igmo says he is going to do doesn’t mean any more than Disanto saying it Walker has to abide by court rulings even with his messiah complex

  4. Part of the reason she got so much traffic on Facebook is that she paid to have her post promoted! I’m sure a lot of people had is pop-up on their feed as “Sponsored” and clicked on it to see what was being said

  5. The Republican establishment revels in this sort of legislation. It is an obvious waste of time and energy but it whets the appetite of their constituents. Thanks Betty.

Comments are closed.