Funny, but No Laughing Matter
Yesterday afternoon, we accomplished a small victory at the Louisiana State legislature. In the morning I joined over thirty volunteers who filled the seats in both Senate Judiciary committees in order to demonstrate their opposition to proposed House Bills 25, 887, 1357, and 1358. For many of us, such as myself, this was our first time participating in our State’s legislative process. Thank goodness we had excellent leadership from the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishop lobbying team and from some excellent organizing work by Jacinta Gonzales of the Worker Center for Racial Justice and Justine Diamond of Catholic Charities and the Latino Forum. We briefed as a team and split up strategically in order to be in attendance when the bills in question came up for discussion. Fortunately for us, we were all able to attend both sessions, which filled one room completely and filled another by about 75%.
There are many details that I can focus on that I will try to capture but first I want to share with you something that I learned from that visit yesterday. First, it was amazing to see so many of us together fighting against bad legislation. To witness the bravery of people doing something for the first time, daring to oppose openly a proposed law, daring to oppose powerful people, all of this was an incredible sight to witness. It impressed upon me that the majority of us were regular people who don’t know the first thing about lobbying or big power, or any of that sort of stuff, but there we were, visible, organized, intent, with a mission and ready to act. It also impressed upon me that as we grow as a community, and that as we grow here as an organization and grow as volunteers through LatINola, that we need more of our community to engage in this work. It could have been any of you sitting in those committees yesterday because our presence alone was enough to have an impact on the outcome. Because more than thirty of us were there, all of us completing little red cards that state we are in opposition, the representatives who wrote the bills and the senators in the committee who were to vote on the bill, were particularly attentive to our concerns and to the sensitivity of the issue. Had we not been there, it would have easily been a different outcome and we would not be talking about a small victory. So, I know, you want to know, what happened?
Well, here’s how it went. Three bills, HB 25, 1357, and 1358 were to be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee B and HB 887 was to be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee A. For those of you who don’t know, there are committee rooms at the Capitol where bills are heard first before they are approved for full House or Senate floor voting. So our task was simple, try to impress upon the Senate committee members of both committees that these four bills should not make it to the Senate floor.
Okay, so we met up in the halls, reviewed our plan, and filled out our red opposition cards for both committee rooms and handed them to the clerks at each one. About three or four of us went to the Judiciary A room, and the majority of us went into Judiciary B. In Judiciary B we waited patiently until Representative Geymann’s bills were brought up. The Chairman of the committee, Senator Martiny quickly displayed that there were no cards in favor of the three bills and a large stack of red opposition cards were present. Also, we had six speakers prepared to testify, which the Chairman also pointed out. The Chairman asked Representative Geymann to begin and he did so by electing to discuss HB 1358, which is the bill about harboring “illegal aliens.”
Representative Geymann was dealt a barrage of tough questions that he could not answer regarding practical application, litigation, determination of legal status of a person, and so on. As Rep. Geymann stated (by the way, this is public record, so you can always peruse a transcript if you want to read for yourself what happened yesterday), he wasn’t a lawyer so he couldn’t answer the question. This phrase repeated itself for every question presented by each committee member (there were five out of seven present). Representative Geymann, after determining that the same questioning would continue with his other two bills, opted to voluntarily defer his three bills. It took him about forty-five minutes to throw in the towel for this week. What does this mean? It means that Rep. Geymann will now go back to the drawing table, work with his constituents, talk to some lawyers, and then try to be better prepared next week when he submits them to the committee again. Once the bills are placed on next week’s schedule, it will be up to us to go up to Baton Rouge again and be present. You can bet for sure that he will come better prepared next week, and it will be upon us to then testify and state our concerns so that the committee can make a better informed decision. We didn’t have to testify yesterday because Representative Geymann defer the bills. Had he not deferred them, we would have to testify against them in the hope of keeping them from going to the Senate floor. We didn’t have to do that yesterday, which is why we claim a small victory.
As soon as we understood that there was nothing else to be done there, we stood as a group, thirty or so of us, and emptied the rooms. Before we left, the Chairmain of the committee, Senator Martiny, apologized to us for having had to come so far to only have to return. We appreciated this apology, but regardless, we certainly will be returning, if needed. We left the room almost empty as Judiciary B continued on its agenda with other bills.
Our next order of business was to make it to Judiciary A, where HB 887 had not yet been heard. Thirty of us found open seating where we could and patiently waited for 887 to be heard. When it was called, Representative LaBruzzo stepped up. He, too, was shown the thirty-plus red opposition cards to his bill. He had one in favor, one single lone green card. The Chairman, Senator Quinn, followed the same script, it seemed, as had the Chairman in the previous committee room. She asked hard questions about the bill, specifically the constitutionality of the bill. Rep. LaBruzzo stated (again, I remind you that this is public record and anyone can look it up at the Louisiana Legislature) that he wasn’t a lawyer but that his Senate staff lawyers had not advised him that his bill was unconstitutional. Senator Quinn then responded by reading the section of the constitution that applies to his bill, the section in which it clearly states that “no person” will be denied due process. She then asked Rep. LaBruzzo if he considered “illegal immigrants” as persons, to which Rep. LaBruzzo responded that when it came to his bill he did not. WAIT. WHAT??!!??
So, there we had it: straight from a legislator’s mouth. According to Representative LaBruzzo, of District 81 (Metairie, folks), “illegal aliens” are not to be considered persons–DESPITE the fact that the United States Constitution clearly states “person” and not citizen, or non-citizen, or legal resident, or whatever–it states PERSON. Last I checked immigrants were human beings, regardless of their legal immigration status, and last I checked human beings were considered persons. Unfortunately, our Metairie Representative does not appear to agree, so it begs the question: what does Representative LaBruzzo believe “illegal aliens” are? This would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. We are talking about people’s lives, about laws that one legislator seriously believes should be State law, and that a majority of House members voted up to the Senate. This would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.
But that’s not the end of it. A heated argument began between Senator Quinn and Rep. LaBruzzo regarding federal and state constitution (by the way, the State’s constitution reads in similar fashion as the federal constitution when it comes to due process). The voice of the Nursing Home Association chimed in its support, then the arguing continued until eventually Senator Quinn decided to chide the representative. She accused him of political pandering and expressed her extreme distaste for such activities in her committee and warned him to refrain from repeating the same offense in the future. After that the arguments between the two took on an even more intense flavor until Senator Quinn halted and motioned for a deferment. At the same time, Rep LaBruzzo voluntarily deferred, keeping all of us and the rest of the Senators on the committee from asking further questions or testifying in opposition. However, Senator Kostelka had one comment to add. He chided the Chairman for attacking a representative in public and then publicly and clearly stated that while he was opposed to the proposed bill prior to the committee discussion, he now would vote for it because of the poor treatment Rep. LaBruzzo received. WHAT??!!?? Did we hear that correctly? Yes, we did. Senator Kostelka, a former judge, replied that constitutionality issues were less important than the “de-facing” of a fellow legislator. How interesting. So even when there is experience and expertise at the table, there is no guarantee of impartiality, objectivity, and concern for the common good. But I thought we elected officials to be concerned about the public well-being and not the individual well-being of a fellow elected official? I guess I was wrong in believing differently.
So, the bill was removed from committee, and again, as in the previous committee room, more than thirty of us stood up and left. As we walked out we left the committee meeting room less than 25% occupied. And as we left, someone in the seats commented, “all these people were here for just one bill?” It’s a good thing we were there. Otherwise, the outcome would have been different. Thank you all who joined us yesterday. It was an incredible eye-opening experience.
Lucas D.
Tags: hispanic community louisiana, hispanic community new orleans, hispanics new orleans, latino, latino community, latino leadership, latino new orleans