[ad_1]
Photo provided by: West Virginia State Capitol Photo Shoot
State Senate Finance Committee Chairman Eric Tarr (R-Putnam, left) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Trump (R-Morgan) debate Friday whether the Crown Act should be sent to the Finance Committee. do.
CHARLESTON — West Virginia senators on Friday referred a bill dealing with hairstyle discrimination to the Senate Finance Committee without a price tag, while lawmakers are awaiting financial reports on another bill dealing with work requirements for SNAP recipients. submitted a bill.
The Senate adopted a motion to refer Senate Bill 496, which would ban racial discrimination based on certain hair types and styles, to the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 22-12, joining a bipartisan group of bill sponsors and Republicans. The majority of the parliamentary group was contested.
SB 496 would add protective provisions to the state human rights law to protect people against hair textures and protective hairstyles associated with the history and culture of certain races, including styles such as braids, locs, and twists. It will prohibit discrimination based on species.
The bill, known as the CROWN Act, was introduced Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-7 vote.
The Senate received a message from the Senate Judiciary Committee recommending passage of SB 496 on Friday morning, and the bill was read aloud for the first time. However, a motion was made to refer the bill to the Senate Finance Committee, sparking debate over whether the bill would pose a fiscal cost to the state.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Eric Tarr (R-Putnam) argued that “this bill, coming from the judiciary, could have fiscal implications from several departments.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Trump (R-Morgan) is the lead sponsor of a bill similar to SB496. He asked Mr. Tarr what evidence there was that the bill could pose a potential burden to taxpayers.
President Trump said, “There is no need to finance this bill.” “Discrimination based on race is already against the law in this state. This bill would only make it clear that if you discriminate against someone because of their race-related hairstyle, that’s racial discrimination.” …Because it solves that legal problem, it reduces the number of cases that need to be litigated. If we pass this bill, we will need fewer cases, not more.”
Tarr said the bill could impact the state’s liability insurance company, the West Virginia Risk and Insurance Management Commission. Tarr said the Crown Act could expose the province to potential lawsuits requiring it to pay BRIM.
“Part of what that means is that you will be able to go back in history and litigate cases,” Tarr said. “Another thing is that the Human Rights Commission is likely to have to take on more cases. Therefore, additional staff may be required or the administrative costs associated with that may also increase. I think so. I also have questions for the attorney general, so I’m going to send them to him.”
State Sen. Mike Caputo (D-Marion) is the lead sponsor of SB 496. He disagreed with Tarr’s concerns about potential costs to the state.
“I don’t know what the motivation is to move this bill to funding later in the session, but I can certainly guess what the motivation is,” Caputo said. “This bill is very important to people. We need to move this bill forward.”
Later in the Senate plenary session on Friday, the Senate passed Senate Bill 562 (Expanding Employment and Training Requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits) by a vote of 32-2, sending the bill to the House of Delegates. did.
The bill would phase in new work and employment requirements over a three-year period, raise the age of undependent adults on SNAP from 52 to 59, and up to 8,000 West Virginians would benefit from the bill. may be affected. But when Caputo asked Senate Workforce Committee Chairman Laurent Roberts (R-Raleigh) about the bill’s fiscal impact, he said he wasn’t sure.
“Financial statements have been requested. At this time, they have not yet been returned,” Roberts said. “I have discussed this with the Finance Chairman and he believes this will be positive for the bottom line.”
Mr. Caputo introduced a motion to refer SB 562 to the Senate Finance Committee until a financial report detailing the bill’s potential costs is available. The motion failed 2-32.
“I can’t believe what I’m hearing right now,” Caputo said. “Frankly, this was a very good explanation of why one bill should be considered in the area of finance and the other bill should not be considered…I just , I just wanted to make the point that the bill should be considered if it has an impact on the public finances.” It should be sent to the Treasury and requires a fiscal note. ”
[ad_2]
Source link
