Do you like this story?
Forced spay-neuter bill in California: The AKC is back in opposition, and boy are they opposed
By Gina Spadafori
August 21, 2008
Update: The Senate has adjourned until 9 a.m. Friday, and this issue is still hanging. Please keep calling and faxing to urge a NO vote on this bill that will increase shelter intake and killing and increase the cost to taxpayers. If it changes bill number, we’ll let you know.
***
New today on the American Kennel Club Web site:
Late yesterday we received a proposed 12th amendment to the wording of CA AB 1634 which Lloyd Levine’s staff presented to our lobbyist. Also, we understand that Mr. Levine attempted to amend his bill in the Senate, in spite of the fact that he had assured the AKC through our lobbyist that the bill was in its final form. As a result of this last minute attempt, we no longer have confidence in the definition of this bill or the credibility of its author.
The AKC is outraged and dismayed by Mr. Levine’s last minute action to remove the incentives that were put in place to recognize responsible dog ownership. The new amendment will allow local government to avoid providing discounted licenses for owners who microchip, or owners who microchip and spay/neuter, their animals.
Welcome back, folks. Glad you’re trying to live up to your motto of “We’re more than champion dogs. We’re the dog’s champion.”
We’re also hearing the forced spay-neuter advocates may try to put the AB 1634 language into a bill with another number to get it through. As I’ve written previously: This all about winning “the game” for dis-elected California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. He’s going to get the people who turned him out, no matter how many pets have to die as a result. Call and fax your State Senator, now!
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Wouldn’t it be nice if AKC learned its lesson that almost all such legislation is a BAD idea, and that legislators lie?
Just look at the list of news releases reflecting their spinning headson that page… we’re opposed, no we’re neutral, OMIGOD WE”RE OPPOSED!
Comment by EmilyS — August 21, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
The AKC flip-flopped because the bill would no longer require a discounted license for microchipped pets? That’s all it took to move them from “this sounds like a good piece of legislation” to “we hate this thing”? Huh.
Comment by slt — August 21, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
More like, “Holy crap! It’s Petland all over again! Somebody make the phones stop ringing … our e-mail boxes are full … aiiiiyeeee!”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 21, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Ha ha ha not only is Levine’s cred shot - so is the AKC’s!
This is like being on the roller-coaster from Hades.
Comment by Caveat — August 21, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Subject: URGENT … Is Levine up to more tricks??? AB1634 & AB2074
* * * PLEASE CROSSPOST * * *
Earlier today, we were alerted by CDOC to the possibility that Lloyd
Levine’s AB1634 will now become Nava’s AB2074.
Per numerous conversations this morning with both Assembly and Senate
offices, I have learned the following:
Assembly Member Nava’s office, when asked to confirm a rumor, informed me
that “It hasn’t happened yet.” I pursued further questions and learned more
about “how” this could happen. It was explained to me that “Levine would
take AB2074, erase all language, and then author this bill.” I commented
that I did not think there would be enough time to do all of this before the
end of session. Nava’s office replied that “There is plenty of time.”
I further informed that it was my understanding that, in order for something
like this to happen, there must be germane language. I reminded their
office that these two bills represent completely different and unrelated
codes. AB2074 has nothing to do with Animals or Agriculture but rather
Streets & Highways.
Bill Hemby (PetPAC) and I have been discussing the possibilities of AB1634
becoming AB2074. We have had several conversations this morning about this
new information. “Apparently, this new information received from Assembly
Member Nava’s office confirms that AB2074 will be gutted in the Assembly
AFTER it passes the Senate. Mr. Nava may be giving his bill to Lloyd Levine
to gut & amend and put AB1634 language into it” says Bill Hemby.
My next phone call was to Levine’s office where I was told “They don’t know.
It may or may not happen.” When I continued with further questions, I was
told “It is a matter of the Senate getting it back to the Assembly now.”
Once again, I telephoned Bill Hemby. Here is the possible scenario.
Assembly Member Nava would notify Assembly Rules that he is relinquishing
AB2074 in favor of Levine thereby giving his bill to Levine who … then …
goes back to the Assembly, guts AB2074, and amends the bill by installing
the language from AB1634 into the bill (AB2074). After this occurs, there
would be a 2nd reading on AB2074 in the Assembly and a 3rd reading on AB2074
in the Assembly. Once a vote is taken on the bill (provided it passes the
Assembly), the bill is off to the Governor’s desk … without having to
return to the Senate.
Bill Hemby remarks that “This is an OUTRAGE! It is a desperate attempt by
Levine to bypass the State Senate.”
Okay, everyone. We must be ALERT & READY to what may (or may not) be
happening to AB2074. Keep your eyes on both File Item #168 (AB1634) and
File Item #170 (AB2074) today. Note that the file item numbers change
daily.
Lloyd Levine has already bypassed Senate Appropriations Committee. He knows
that he does not have the votes in the Senate to get AB1634 passed. This
appears to be another desperate act on his part.
Urge your Senators to contact the offices of both Assembly Member Levine and
Assembly Member Nava to ascertain if indeed this is Levine’s latest plan.
If a vote is taken on either AB1634 or AB2074, it is important that Senators
vote AGAINST both bills!!
At this time, Bill Hemby recommends that you “Call your state Senator to let
them know of this spurious tactic. More information will be made available
throughout the day by PetPAC to try to stop this last-minute maneuver.”
Comment by trucorgi — August 21, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Above was cross-posted from another list. I am not sure who wrote it but is does confirm what Gina is hearing.
Comment by trucorgi — August 21, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
trucorgi … are YOU the “I* referred to in this?
We need to keep sources with information in order to post it. Please don’t post unsourced, “crossposted” material.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 21, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Sorry. Remove it then.
Comment by trucorgi — August 21, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
I wouldn’t put anything past Levine (remember Speirs and her drug bill, which became PAWS?).
However, I’m with Gina, let’s wait for more info from a credible source before reacting. This could just be trollery, an attempt to discredit the voice of reason by getting people to contact legislators with an unfounded rumor, making them look hysterical.
On consideration, I think the AKC’s turnaround may be because the wind is blowing our way. Let’s hope so.
Comment by Caveat — August 21, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
It was written by Brat Zinsmaster
Sorry about that. You can remove it if you want.
Comment by trucorgi — August 21, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
It’s fine with the source. We just needed to know where it came from.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 21, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
I guess it’s called a “strike-all clause” or a a “striker”. I’ve found references to it being used in many states, and even in the US congress, but so far no explicit references to it being used in California. And the part about it bypassing the Senate still sounds shady to me.
What the author does is insert a statement that goes something like “Strike everything after the enacting clause, and insert…” and then away it goes. Here’s one reference I found to the practice in California legislature in the early 1900s:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1226370
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 22, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Tried link, got: You are not currently authorized to access this article.
Comment by slt — August 22, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Apologies, I was getting a little paranoid yesterday :>O
Comment by Caveat — August 22, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Here it is (looks like this is a case where the “striker” was actually manipulated to work against those trying to implement it - interesting tale, nevertheless!):
Judicial Control of Legislative Procedure in California
J.A.C. Grant
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Apr., 1949), pp. 428-451
A bill was introduced in the 1925 session of the California Legislature providing for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission and the substitution of a single commissioner. Being part of Governor Friend W. Richardson’s reorganization program, it had the support of the Administration forces and passed the Assembly with ease. But it was bottled up completely in the Senate committee, because that House had been organized by the opposition forces. The first inclination of the committee had been to let the bill die; but on second thought, it decided not only to keep the Commission, but to increase the salary of its Chairman. Hence, in the closing days of the session, it reported out the Assembly bill with a single Amendment: that everything after the enacting clause be struck, and in its stead, this salary increase be substituted. On the very last day of the session, the Senate passed the bill as amended, and the Assembly concurred.
The California Constitution forbids either House to take final action on any bill that has been amended until it has been reprinted in its amended form. This mandate is more often honored in the breach than in the observance when bills are amended in the closing days of the session. In this case, the bill as passed was merely a typewritten amendment attached to the original printed bill. Whether what followed resulted from pure accident or political strategy may never be known. In any case, the bill which was signed by the clerks and presiding officers of each house and sent to the Governor for approval or veto was the original Assembly Bill 613 introduced at the Governor’s request. Although notified of the error, the Governor signed the bill. As a consequence, California had a single Civil Service Commissioner appointed by the Governor until the Commission was revived in 1927 – one of the first acts of the next Legislature.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 22, 2008 @ 9:27 am