If his bill passes deGruy Kennedy's real legacy will be yet more gov't intrusion. What are the limits on your right to free speech in the state capitol? And, a novel argument for school choice.
If it passes, deGruy Kennedy's real legacy here will be more govenment and more government intrusion by unelected officials into the lives and businesses of Coloradans.
I got wind of his bill (linked first below) via the article linked second below.
The bill language itself is relatively complicated and seems like perhaps it might be a decent idea: if you leave your job or some such and end up changing your health insurance, the bill is there to make it so that you wouldn't necessarily have to leave your primary care doc, someone you may like and work well with.
I sympathize. Having done this a few times, it is at least an inconvenience. I say that especially as someone who is in a rural area where we aren't exactly swimming in choices for care providers.
But I want to argue to you that this bill is not the way to go about this. In other words, I submit to you that this may be a decent idea, but it's executed poorly.
To see what I mean, take a look at the screenshot I attached from the bill's summary.
I want to call your attention to just exactly what the Colorado Insurance Commissioner (highlighted in blue) gets to do (highlighted in red).
Said another way, look at all the things that the State of Colorado, through an UNELECTED official will be doing to insinuate itself into the healthcare market.
Would you tolerate any government official having this much sway into any other corner of the free market?
That is my concern.
These are the concerns I hope to take to the bill's first committee hearing in either written form or spoken (perhaps both if the timing works).
I will keep an eye on this one and update as it gets a committee date. If this is a passion, keep your eyes and ears open.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1005
https://tsscolorado.com/bill-could-add-primary-care-doctors-to-every-health-insurance-network/
What are the limits on your right to free speech in the state capitol?
My recent run in with the CPW and getting shut off there got me thinking about the limits on what can and can't be said in various government contexts.
I saw the Colorado Politics article below and thought it would be a good intro post on the topic. It covers what one First Amendment attorney thinks about the limits of free speech inside our state capitol (along with a bit about the other half of the story from when Jeff Hunt was "removed" from the gallery for wearing an anti abortion t shirt).
I have done a fair bit of reading on the topic and, while I'm not a lawyer, I think there are some commonalities with regard to the rules of free speech. I'll kind of try to summarize them (as best I understand them) before getting specific to the capitol.
--The law seems to distinguish between different types of fora. There are different rules and guidelines around what is allowed in the open air of a public street vs. the rules for, say, the gallery above the floor of the legislature. In general, when you come inside and are attending a public meeting the rules get stricter.
--In the latter case, where the public is either in attendance at a government meeting or when they are invited in to provide comment, one general consideration is often that the speech or activity cannot disrupt the purpose of the meeting.
--The government, when it comes to public comment is allowed to put limits on them. They can, for example put time limits in place. They can put in time limits. They can require the comments be pertinent to the meeting at hand (so, for example, they could cut you off if you started talking about tax policy during a meeting on whether or not the city council should renew a particular restaurant's liquor license).
--Whatever the rules put in with regard to comment (or protest) they must be content neutral. That is, you cannot have a rule that says "no signs about abortion are allowed". You either allow signs or you don't allow them, but you can't have a rule about what's on the sign.
Now, let's focus in here on the Assembly and take a couple examples from the article.
First, who does the enforcing? Quoting the article, "The presiding officers of each chamber — House and Senate — hold the responsibility of maintaining decorum and they also have the power to clear disorderly conduct by, for example, deploying sergeants-at-arms."
For example, Speaker Julie McCluskie, the Speaker of the House, has the job and responsibility for maintaining decorum. There are rules and policy to turn to, but this is something of a judgment call. At what point, and this is mentioned in the article, does a protest, even a silent one, get large enough to become disruptive to the business of the House?
In the Senate, it's the President of the Senate and the same applies with regard to judgment calls and policy.
And, as you might imagine, the fact that there is something of a judgment call leaves both those people (as well as the Sergeants-At-Arms) exposed to accusations of bias and/or not doing their job. The wiggliness in the rules also means some tough judgment calls.
As an example, consider the case of Jeff Hunt and his abortion button mentioned in the article. The rule for the Senate gallery is that, quoting,
"... no apparel or buttons expressing implied or explicit political statements are permitted if they related specifically to a measure on the calendar, Markwell [Secretary of the Senate Cindi Markwell] said."
Mr. Hunt partially responded to this by saying that the message on his sweatshirt (while mentioning abortion) is a trademark of the college where he works.
Mr. Hunt was asked to remove the sweatshirt or leave. He chose to leave. His sweatshirt, incidentally, would not have caused a problem if were worn anywhere else in the capitol OTHER than the Senate gallery.
But here we see some amount of tension and no black and white in my view. Is it a trademark, if so does that affect whether it's a message? Who defines the limits on "implied"?
Further, at what point do, say, a group of kids staging a "die-in" become disruptive to business? At what point is a group of protestors yelling at Palestine do so?
I suppose ultimately the only way to get any definitive answers to these would be to take it to court. Let a judge decide and add more case law which could inform those that enforce the policy.
I'm going to take up the issue of free speech in public comment in a future post.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/colorado-first-amendment-attorney-weighs-in-on-protests-inside-capitol-buildings/article_75b43d14-b174-11ee-b6fe-bb351bd02865.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
A novel argument for school choice.
If you've read this page long enough, you'll know how much of a fan I am of school choice. It's a regular topic here (for another example of an interesting school model, see the first link below for a unique experiential school for students that might otherwise have truancy/dropout issues--one of the beauties of school choice is the ability to have a lid for every pot).
The main point of this post, however, is the op ed I linked second below. The author makes an argument I've not seen elsewhere for school choice.
To quote (quotes not contiguous),
"My point is sending property tax money directly to school districts is in theory is supposed to make us all sing kumbaya. In practice, we just sing before going into battle."
"Does anyone seriously believe these kinds of problems [he mentions problems above this quote which have lately happened as schools turn into battlegrounds for the culture wars] would happen if we had school vouchers? Or Education Savings Accounts? Or Education Tax Credits? Pretty much anything where the money goes to parents instead of school districts will make these battles vanish in a puff of smoke. No system is perfect. Some parents will use their education dollars to teach their children values I disagree with. I might venture to say those parents are wrong. I might try to persuade them otherwise. But that’s as far as I can legitimately go. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a free society must assume parents act in the best interests of their children and give them maximum freedom to do so."
I'm not sure if I agree totally with the argument that vouchers or the other ideas he mentions would make battles "vanish in a puff of smoke", but I take his point.
I think viable options for parents would go a long way in reducing friction. A novel argument if I've seen one and yet another to add to the pile that points to the fact that we should be supporting school choice and letting the money follow the students.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/08/a-new-experiential-learning-school-aims-to-reduce-student-absenteeism-and-truancy-in-colorado/
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/01/07/fagin-school-choice-key-making-peace-education-wars/