After getting blocked by two Senators who think money from the California Hospital Association (CHA) is more important that basic human dignity, SB 275 has made it to the Senate Floor. (Btw, the two senators in question have lost their Appropriation Cmte. seats as a result). 

Well, now that the ModSquad has faded to black (hopefully to stay permanently in the Seventies), the bill will likely pass the Senate shortly.  Whether Correa and Calderon have decided whether human decency or corporate lobbying cash is more important is still an open question.

HOSPITAL HOMELESS DUMPING BILL (SB 275) HEADS TO SENATE FLOOR WITH STRONG SUPPORT

After delaying a vote on the hospital homeless discharge bill (SB 275) in order to engage the California Hospital Association (CHA) in another round of negotiations, Sen. Gilbert Cedillo’s (D-Los Angeles) bill heads to the Senate floor for a final vote in that house. SB 275 passed out of the Appropriations Committee today on a strong vote, 11 to 4, with Republican Sen. Roy Ashburn included in the bi-partisan support for the bill.

The bill makes it a specific crime to discharge hospital patients to any facility other than a residence without patient consent.  Sponsored by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, SB 275 seeks to address a deficiency in the law when prosecuting cases specific to patient dumping.

The CHA, a lobbying association representing the state’s hospitals, has contented they have policies in place to address the safe transfer of homeless patients to shelters upon discharge.  However on May 14th as Cedillo presented the bill to committee, a new dumping incident was reported in Los Angeles. The incident occurred at the Union Rescue Mission, a shelter located in downtown Skid Row, which has dealt with prior episodes of patient abandonment.

Detractors feel that SB 275 sets too high of a standard for the medical facilities.  “What does it say about our ethics and humanity? These people are more vulnerable than when they went in to the hospital. Currently there is no law that punishes the transportation of patients without their consent,” said Cedillo.

Cedillo has introduced a series of bills on issues surrounding homelessness – SB 2, Fair Share Zoning, which would require cities and counties to plan for emergency shelters, special needs facilities and transitional housing, SB 119, Medical Drug Treatment for Minors, and SB 275, hospital homeless discharge bill. “I acknowledge there are larger issues at hand involving lack of adequate care offered to homeless populations. This is why we have proposed a package of bills to proactively address the interrelated issues that cause homelessness before they become acute,” remarked Cedillo.

As juls diaried here, the latest PPIC poll shows support for changing the current term limits law to Nunez’s prefered 12 years in either house or combo thereof plan at just 31%. Juls is rightly skeptical of that number yet it appears that the powers that be are taking it quite seriously indeed. In fact it looks like they’re already plotting plan B: challenging the term limits law in court.

First a little history. In 1990, CA voters, by a margin of 52-48%, passed Prop 140, which limited legislative service in the Assembly to six years (three terms) and Senate to eight years (two terms.) In 1991, the CA Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional.

More…

Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, writing for the majority, said any value in retaining incumbents in office was outweighed by “the state’s strong interest in protecting against an entrenched, dynastic legislative bureaucracy.”

Well, Justice Lucas and others who voted with him in 1991 are no longer on the court, and Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello), who is the senate’s lead man on term limit and redistricting reform, sees an opportunity to challenge the law in the courts anew rather than rely on a finicky public.

Calderon said he has been consulting with lawyers and other legislators and believes Proposition 140…could be challenged by a termed-out legislator.

“I would prefer to do that and let the court decide,” Calderon said, conceding voters are unlikely to overturn the law.

It’s unclear how term limits would fare if they were to make it to the CA Supreme Court. On one hand, there’s traditionally a deference paid to settled law. On the other hand, reversing term limit laws seems to be all the rage.

State supreme courts in four states — Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming — threw out the laws. Two other states — Idaho and Utah — have repealed their term-limit laws.

One question I’d have is whether Calderon sees the CA Supreme Court repealing term limits altogether or mandating some sort of legislative remedy. Because if the choice becomes between passing term limit reform next February or no term limits at all, then term limit supporters may just want to get behind the initiative. If Calderon has his way, the status quo may actually not be viable despite the fact that those voting NO next February will be voting for just that.

Hey, look, legislators are all over the multimedia today.  This time, it’s Sen. Ron Calderon talking about his bill to move up the primary to Feb. 5. Hey, how come he didn’t mention term limits?

I’m actually being serious about the term limits thing.  When are people going to start talking about the term limits reform package? Everybody has been talking about the ATM thing, but doesn’t somebody at least need to acknowledge the term limits thing? For one thing, you need to start sending out your message on why term limits need to be reformed, but also, shouldn’t we try to be open about this reform effort?