-
Follow LWVAL. About the League
Become a
LWV Member.
Donate to support
our work.
Already a member?
Just need to renew?
Pay Dues
We appreciate
your membership!
Where We Stand
Donate
Join Us
Pay Dues
Contact League
Baldwin Co.
Greater Birmingham
Greater Shoals NEW! Florence, Muscle Shoals, Tuscumbia
Greater Tuscaloosa
East Alabama
Mobile
Montgomery
Tenn. Valley NEW! Huntsville, Madison
LWVAL
LWVUS
Quick Links for CitizensVoting & Elections
Register to vote
Find Your Polling Place
Restore your voting rights
"About the Help America Vote Act" (pdf)
Vote411.org
Read more
State Legislature & Congress
Who Speaks for You?
Find State Legislation & Take Action
The AL Legislature: Facts & Issues
Courts
"The Courts and Judicial Selection in AL" (pdf)
Environment
Learn & Vote: Natural Resources & the Environment
The Alabama Constitution
Resources on Constitutional Reform in AL
Health Care
More issues...
Government Accountability, including Ethics in Government
LWVAL Action Priority Level I (Highest) - Monitoring and action of highest priority. Major area for resource expenditures.Click a bill to see sponsor(s), synopsis, link to the bill, League action and justification for that action, and progress of the bill through the legislative process.
Legend:
= LWVAL's support for the legislation. 
= LWVAL's opposition to the legislation.
= new bill activity; change from previous week's report such as new progress in the legislature and/or League action. Bill may be one newly added to the report. These updates are in green font.Contact information for legislators and committees referenced in the bills below:
Representatives Standing House Committees Senators Standing Senate Committees Find my legislators
LWVAL has taken a position on these bills:
SB8 - Court of the Judiciary, appeals to Supreme Court, legislative approval of Supreme Court decisions, continued service of judge upon filing of complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Comm., auth. const. amend.
Sponsor(s): Senator Hightower
Synopsis: Currently, decisions about a judge made by the Court of the Judiciary can be appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. This proposed Constitutional amendment would add another layer of review. The legislature would review the Supreme Court's decision and a vote of 2/3 of the legislators would be needed to remove the judge. Moreover, this amendment would remove the requirement that a judge be disqualified from acting as a judge upon the filing of a complaint with the Court of the Judiciary.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This would make removal of a judge strictly political.
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/07/2017: First Read and assigned to Senate committee on Judiciary (JUD)
05/03/2017: 2nd Read and placed on the calendar with 1 Substitution; pending 3rd read and Favorable from JHUD with 1 Substitute (186324-3). 1st JUD Substitute offered
[NOTE: Substitute alters the membership of the Court of the Judiciary and makes all members subject to Senate ratification. Also: “If, in the opinion of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, a judge, who is not under indictment or information for a felony under state or federal law, has committed a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics rising to the level of threatening, unwarranted harm to the person or property of a person or persons, the Judicial Inquiry Commission, may disqualify the judge without loss of pay for 30 days and file a motion to extend the disqualification until the Court of the Judiciary has ruled on the charges against the judge. The Court of the Judiciary shall review the basis for the motion and either grant or deny the motion within 30 days."]
05/17/2017: Indefinitely postponed.
Synopsis: Currently, decisions about a judge made by the Court of the Judiciary can be appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. This proposed Constitutional amendment would add another layer of review. The legislature would review the Supreme Court's decision and a vote of 2/3 of the legislators would be needed to remove the judge. Moreover, this amendment would remove the requirement that a judge be disqualified from acting as a judge upon the filing of a complaint with the Court of the Judiciary.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This would make removal of a judge strictly political.
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/07/2017: First Read and assigned to Senate committee on Judiciary (JUD)
05/03/2017: 2nd Read and placed on the calendar with 1 Substitution; pending 3rd read and Favorable from JHUD with 1 Substitute (186324-3). 1st JUD Substitute offered
[NOTE: Substitute alters the membership of the Court of the Judiciary and makes all members subject to Senate ratification. Also: “If, in the opinion of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, a judge, who is not under indictment or information for a felony under state or federal law, has committed a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics rising to the level of threatening, unwarranted harm to the person or property of a person or persons, the Judicial Inquiry Commission, may disqualify the judge without loss of pay for 30 days and file a motion to extend the disqualification until the Court of the Judiciary has ruled on the charges against the judge. The Court of the Judiciary shall review the basis for the motion and either grant or deny the motion within 30 days."]
05/17/2017: Indefinitely postponed.
HB166 - Courts, require Judicial Inquiry Commission to submit complaints against Justices of the Supreme Court or Judges on the Court of Criminal or Civil Appeals to the House Judiciary Committee for a decision of further adjudication, const. amend.
Sponsor(s): Representative Beckman
Synopsis: This bill would change the procedure to be followed if the Judicial Inquiry Commission files a complaint against a justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Civil Appeals, or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Rather than sending those cases to the Court of the Judiciary (as is presently done, and would continue to be done with lower-court judges), the case would be sent to the House Judiciary Committee. That committee would determine whether to implement impeachment procedures in the legislature (with details still to be developed), or to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals (for Supreme Court and Court of Civil Appeals Justices) or the Court of Civil Appeals (for Court of Criminal Appeals Justices). The court may remove, suspend without pay or censure the Justice.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This bill would make these cases more political, since the House Judiciary Committee would be so involved. (This is a different structure than that proposed in SB8, which we are opposing for the same reason.)
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/09/2017: Read for the first time and referred to the House committee on Judiciary (JUD)
Synopsis: This bill would change the procedure to be followed if the Judicial Inquiry Commission files a complaint against a justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Civil Appeals, or the Court of Criminal Appeals. Rather than sending those cases to the Court of the Judiciary (as is presently done, and would continue to be done with lower-court judges), the case would be sent to the House Judiciary Committee. That committee would determine whether to implement impeachment procedures in the legislature (with details still to be developed), or to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals (for Supreme Court and Court of Civil Appeals Justices) or the Court of Civil Appeals (for Court of Criminal Appeals Justices). The court may remove, suspend without pay or censure the Justice.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This bill would make these cases more political, since the House Judiciary Committee would be so involved. (This is a different structure than that proposed in SB8, which we are opposing for the same reason.)
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/09/2017: Read for the first time and referred to the House committee on Judiciary (JUD)
SB11 - Constitutional Amendment - Judicial Inquiry Commission and Court of the Judiciary, abolished, const. amend.
Sponsor(s): Senator Hightower
Synopsis: This proposed Constitutional amendment would abolish the Court of the Judiciary and the Judicial Inquiry Commission and any reference to them.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This weakens oversight of the judiciary.
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/07/2017: First Read and assigned to Senate committee on Judiciary (JUD)
Synopsis: This proposed Constitutional amendment would abolish the Court of the Judiciary and the Judicial Inquiry Commission and any reference to them.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This weakens oversight of the judiciary.
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/07/2017: First Read and assigned to Senate committee on Judiciary (JUD)
HB576 - Court of the Judiciary, appeals to Supreme Court, legislative approval of Supreme Court decisions, continued service of judge upon filing of complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Comm., auth. const. amend.
Sponsor(s): Mooney
Synopsis: This bill would amend the Constitution to subject all Judicial Inquiry Commission and Court of the Judiciary appointees to confirmation by the Senate, and to require legislative approval of decisions by the Court of the Judiciary to remove a judge or justice from office. It would also delete the current provision that a judge is disqualified from acting as judge when a complaint has been filed against him or her by the Judicial Inquiry Commission with the Court of the Judiciary.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This legislation would further politicize the judiciary.
Bill Progress in Legislature:
04/27/2017: Read for the first time and referred to the House committee on Constitution, Campaigns and Elections (CC&E)
Synopsis: This bill would amend the Constitution to subject all Judicial Inquiry Commission and Court of the Judiciary appointees to confirmation by the Senate, and to require legislative approval of decisions by the Court of the Judiciary to remove a judge or justice from office. It would also delete the current provision that a judge is disqualified from acting as judge when a complaint has been filed against him or her by the Judicial Inquiry Commission with the Court of the Judiciary.
League Action and Justification: Oppose. This legislation would further politicize the judiciary.
Bill Progress in Legislature:
04/27/2017: Read for the first time and referred to the House committee on Constitution, Campaigns and Elections (CC&E)
LWVAL is monitoring this bill:
SB195 - Medicaid Agency, eligibility verification mechanisms required, identity verification, use of third-party vendors auth., reporting of fraud
Sponsor(s): Senator Orr
Synopsis: This bill requires the Medicaid Agency "to use certain eligibility verification measures to eliminate the duplication of assistance and deter waste, fraud and abuse of benefits and would allow the agency to contract with a third party vendor under certain conditions." The bill also requires the agency to refer "certain instances" of fraud to the attorney general or district attorney and to report to the legislature regarding the effectiveness.
League Action and Justification: Monitor. Not enough information is given to determine if League positions fully cover the issues or the bill is really needed.
[NOTE: The Medicaid Agency is required to receive and review information concerning individuals enrolled on a quarterly basis. In the past, the agency has reported a low error rate for determining eligibility of Medicaid recipients has established procedures for referring cases of fraud/abuse for prosecution. This legislation appears to increase the workload of eligibility staffs and requires an additional outside contract which would increase expenses.]
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/16/2017: First Read and referred to the Senate committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development (FR&ED)
04/20/2017: 2nd Read and placed on the calendar with One Substitute (182897-3) from FR&ED; pending 3rd Read and Favorable from FR&ED
05/02/2017: 2nd read and placed on the calendar with 1 Substitute; 3rd Read Carried Over to Call of the Chair; Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development first Substitute (182897-3) Offered; Orr Amendment (186217-1) Offered; Orr motion to Adopt adopted by Roll Call; Orr motion to Carry Over to the Call of the Chair adopted by Voice Vote; Further Consideration
[NOTE: The new SB195 requires Medicaid to conduct semi-annual eligibility verification rather than quarterly as stipulated in the original bill. The amended bill requires Medicaid to "refer certain instances of identified fraud" to appropriate district attorney as opposed to the attorney general (original bill). The amended bill adds language acknowledging that CMS must approve the Medicaid agency's eligibility plan before it is implemented.
In short SB 195 lays out the eligibility measures the Medicaid Agency is to use when determining an applicant's or recipient's eligibility for a Medicaid program to "eliminate the duplication of assistance and deter waste, fraud, and abuse of benefits. . ." It appears that the identity verification examination contained in the bill is a new eligibility requirement and some of the other points of eligibility listed may be new requirements as well, such as the requirement to verify enrollment in out-of-state public assistance programs. The expanded requirements may explain the allowance in the bill for using third party vendors to provide information "under certain conditions" as well as the reference to the National Accuracy Clearinghouse which DHR now uses for the SNAP program. It appears that legislators and government officials believe the Clearinghouse has saved government millions of dollars for the SNAP program by uncovering instances of recipients receiving benefits in more than one state although the error rate for individuals receiving SNAP benefits in more than one state is less than 1% (and tends to be unintentional for the most part). So, now per this bill the Medicaid Agency may contract with the Clearinghouse.]
05/17/2017: Indefinitely postponed.
Synopsis: This bill requires the Medicaid Agency "to use certain eligibility verification measures to eliminate the duplication of assistance and deter waste, fraud and abuse of benefits and would allow the agency to contract with a third party vendor under certain conditions." The bill also requires the agency to refer "certain instances" of fraud to the attorney general or district attorney and to report to the legislature regarding the effectiveness.
League Action and Justification: Monitor. Not enough information is given to determine if League positions fully cover the issues or the bill is really needed.
[NOTE: The Medicaid Agency is required to receive and review information concerning individuals enrolled on a quarterly basis. In the past, the agency has reported a low error rate for determining eligibility of Medicaid recipients has established procedures for referring cases of fraud/abuse for prosecution. This legislation appears to increase the workload of eligibility staffs and requires an additional outside contract which would increase expenses.]
Bill Progress in Legislature:
02/16/2017: First Read and referred to the Senate committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development (FR&ED)
04/20/2017: 2nd Read and placed on the calendar with One Substitute (182897-3) from FR&ED; pending 3rd Read and Favorable from FR&ED
05/02/2017: 2nd read and placed on the calendar with 1 Substitute; 3rd Read Carried Over to Call of the Chair; Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development first Substitute (182897-3) Offered; Orr Amendment (186217-1) Offered; Orr motion to Adopt adopted by Roll Call; Orr motion to Carry Over to the Call of the Chair adopted by Voice Vote; Further Consideration
[NOTE: The new SB195 requires Medicaid to conduct semi-annual eligibility verification rather than quarterly as stipulated in the original bill. The amended bill requires Medicaid to "refer certain instances of identified fraud" to appropriate district attorney as opposed to the attorney general (original bill). The amended bill adds language acknowledging that CMS must approve the Medicaid agency's eligibility plan before it is implemented.
In short SB 195 lays out the eligibility measures the Medicaid Agency is to use when determining an applicant's or recipient's eligibility for a Medicaid program to "eliminate the duplication of assistance and deter waste, fraud, and abuse of benefits. . ." It appears that the identity verification examination contained in the bill is a new eligibility requirement and some of the other points of eligibility listed may be new requirements as well, such as the requirement to verify enrollment in out-of-state public assistance programs. The expanded requirements may explain the allowance in the bill for using third party vendors to provide information "under certain conditions" as well as the reference to the National Accuracy Clearinghouse which DHR now uses for the SNAP program. It appears that legislators and government officials believe the Clearinghouse has saved government millions of dollars for the SNAP program by uncovering instances of recipients receiving benefits in more than one state although the error rate for individuals receiving SNAP benefits in more than one state is less than 1% (and tends to be unintentional for the most part). So, now per this bill the Medicaid Agency may contract with the Clearinghouse.]
05/17/2017: Indefinitely postponed.
Return
More issues