Editor’s Note: Complete lists of approved and rejected license plates are accessible below.

By Don Knox
LAW WEEK COLORADO / STATE BILL COLORADO
DENVER — Colorado’s Department of Motor Vehicles inconsistently applies “personalization standards” on vanity license plates, disallowing frank, innocuous or politically themed plates while approving thinly disguised variations.
A Law Week Colorado and State Bill Colorado review of 66,213 approved and 2,744 rejected vanity plate titles reveals an approval system that is at best haphazard and arbitrary, and at worse drowning out political speech. DMV employees approve and deny plates under a state statute that lets them reject proposed plates “that carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency … (or) are misleading.”
Law Week and State Bill obtained the Colorado plate names through a request made under the Colorado Open Records Act. The complete lists are posted online, at www.lawweekonline.com and www.statebill.com.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado first asked Colorado officials for the vanity-plate data after a case this year in which Kelly Coffman-Lee, an enthusiast of tofu, was denied the Colorado plate “ILVTOFU” because the last two characters were interpreted by motor vehicle department officials as slang for fornication.
After reviewing 10 years worth of DMV data, Law Week and State Bill found these inconsistencies in which license plates were approved – and which were rejected in Colorado:
• GAY and LESBIAN are out, but GAYLEZ is OK.
• OBITEME is bad. But IBITE, ITBITES, 1BITE, BITEYA, ITLBITE AND NXTBITE have all been approved by DMV employees.
• HARD1 and HARD*1 were rejected. But HARD, HARDS, HARDTYM, ROCHARD, HARDROK and HARDMAN passed the censors.
• PIG, PIGS and LEPIG were deemed unacceptable. But MSPIG, FISHPIG, PIGGY, PIGPEN, 1BADPIG, PIGLOVR, PIGNUS AND PIGASUS were just fine.
• GOD is not allowed. Neither is GOD-S. But the following plates were approved: GODJOB, SERVGOD, GODSINU, SRVNGOD, GODPHAN, ICGODNU, LETGOD, MYGODIS, GODLVSU, LUVGOD1, RODGOD, TRSTGOD, TME4GOD, LUV2GOD, IM4GOD2, GODLADY, LUV4GOD, LUVGOD, GODSWIL, GODSAVZ, GODB4ME, GODNOS, GOTGOD, GODTHNG, GODREDY, SONOGOD, NETGOD, GODSTOY, GODROKS and GOD4US.

Guided by statute and ‘common sense’
Colorado DMV employees receive and screen proposed plate language under a “statute that tells us what we’re supposed to do,” said Mark Couch, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revenue, which oversees the motor vehicle department.
The task of approving or rejecting vanity plate requests falls to three DMV employees, who are guided by their knowledge of slang and by “common sense,” Couch said. They’re also aided by a line of the state vanity-plate application form that asks applicants to “explain the meaning of the characters you have chosen.”
Asked whether the approval process seemed arbitrary, Couch said no.
In addition to identifying vulgar plates on their own, the committee is guided by complaints registered by the general public. “When we get three (complaints), we send the owner a letter recalling the plate and giving them options on other plates,” Couch said. The committee, however, has some discretion there, too.
“We’re not going to cancel a plate that says ‘JOE,’” Couch said. (A review of rejected plates, however, shows the department did reject the plate “LOWJOE.”)
Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the ACLU of Colorado and a critic of the current plate-review system, believes the process is unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cohen v. California (1971). In a 5-4 ruling, that court’s majority noted that it’s difficult for government officials to make “principled decisions” in purging vulgar words from public spaces because, as John Marshall Harlan II wrote, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”
“The court not only questions whether principled decisions can be made in which to purge and which to allow; it says there’s too much of a risk that attempting to purge vulgar words will wind up veering into censorship of unpopular ideas” Silverstein said.
In Colorado, such unpopular ideas may include the plates “BADUSA,” “OJDIDIT,” “OK2BGAY” and “NOTFREE” — all of which were rejected by the DMV committee, Silverstein said.

Don’t DOIT, DIDIT already
Silverstein said the ACLU would represent an aggrieved plaintiff “if the right one came up, where somebody was censored. We’d take a look at it.”
For now, the organization is intent on using the case to point out the silliness of the DMV’s censorship or, as Silverstein says, of the government’s effort to decide whether CRAP or NOCRAP could be on a license plate. “CRAP cannot be on, but NOCRAP is all right,” he said.
“Here’s another one: DOIT is censored, and DIDIT is not censored,” Silverstein said. “Present tense is not OK. Past tense is.”
Mystified by any real distinction between the two plates, Silverstein said, “It’s a task that, as the Supreme Court said, we haven’t seen government able to live up to the challenge of doing it on a principled basis.”
The ACLU legal director said he doesn’t know who’s on the DMV’s committee and doesn’t know what their qualifications are. “I assume that people do this in addition to their normal duties,” he said.

The eye of the beholder
The question of free speech on vanity plates has arisen from time to time nationally, typically in a trial court or an appellate court that hears cases about a specific plate. Their opinions have conflicted.
David L. Hudson Jr., a First Amendment scholar, noted that in 2001, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Lewis v. Wilson that Missouri officials violated the First Amendment rights of a motorist by denying her request for the license plate “ARYAN-1.” The court wrote that the “DOV may not censor a license plate because its message might make people angry.”
“However, in the same year, the 2nd Circuit ruled in Perry v. McDonald that Vermont officials could deny a request for a vanity plate bearing the letters ‘SHTHPNS,’” Hudson wrote. “The state had a policy that prohibited the issuance of vanity plates containing offensive, scatological terms. The appeals panel determined that license plates are a nonpublic forum in which government officials can regulate speech as long as their restrictions are reasonable and do not discriminate based on viewpoint.”
The same year as the Lewis v. Wilson decision, Thomas Jefferson Law School Professor Marybeth Herald weighed in with an article, published in the Colorado Law Review, that maintained that “Vanity license plates qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, and denying plate requests because of their content contradicts traditional principles of free speech.”
Herald also wrote, “State agencies have relied upon the Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, sociologists, clerks, a word committee, secret committees, the Tax Commission, and linguists.” She argued that judges must not allow government officials to regulate offensive vanity plates because, “offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder and is an almost limitless concept.”
“The First Amendment is an insurance policy against government repression,” she wrote. “We pay for it all the time — in large and small ways — by tolerating the racist, the pornographer, and the generally offensive speaker. … So if someone wants a plate that says ‘GOVTSUX,’ let her have it. Who knows, it might even have been a popular plate among a few of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.”

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Colorado License Plate Approved

Colorado License Plate Rejected

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

FACE THE STATE
Tuesday marks the end of the 2nd quarter, and candidates for political office are scrambling to bring in last minute cash to pump up their July campaign finance reports. Among them is Tom Lucero, a CU Regent and one of two announced GOP contenders in the 4th congressional district. In an e-mail sent at 4:30 this afternoon, Lucero is getting aggressive with his fundraising, albeit a little late in the day.
The subject: “Help me raise $5,000 before midnight!”
That’s over $700 an hour in “contributions of $25, $50, $100 or whatever you can afford.”
In analyzing the race this April, we wrote: “[Betsy] Markey’s significant cash advantage, coupled with the prospect of more entrants to the GOP primary race, mean Lucero will have to be more aggressive in proving his fundraising prowess.” Big donors will have a keen eye fixed on Q2 fundraising reports, and Lucero’s camp could use the infusion of cash after starting the quarter with little on hand.
Since Lucero announced for the seat late last year, state Rep. Cory Gardner also threw his hat into the ring, and a campaign backing Fort Collins City Councilman Diggs Brown is raising funds in anticipation of his return from the Army. Fundraising performance through the rest of 2009 will be a significant factor in shaking out the field: Q2 numbers won’t in themselves determine any candidate’s viability, but they’re a powerful indicator of a campaign’s trajectory.
Raising $5,000 in 7 hours is no small feat. But if Lucero’s report shows him pulling it off, we’d like a peek at that e-mail list.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Todd Engdahl, EDUCATION NEWS COLORADO
Colorado’s two statewide education boards Tuesday formally adopted a description of postsecondary and workforce readiness, a key requirement of 2008’s Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids education reform program.
The three-page document details “the knowledge, skills and behaviors essential for high school graduates to be prepared to enter college and the workforce and to compete in the global economy.” It’s a key philosophical assumption of CAP4K that high school graduates need the same skills regardless of whether they’re headed to college, technical training or work.
“This is an important moment,” said Jim Polsfut, chair of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education.
The meeting was historic in that it was a formal joint session of the State Board of Education and the CCHE – the first ever – and because it marked completion of one key task in the multi-year CAP4K process.
Several speakers, including Gov. Bill Ritter and Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien, noted the significance of the event.
“CAP4K is coming to life,” Ritter told the boards during a morning meeting at the Capitol. Education reform is “one of the easiest thing to talk about [and] one of the most difficult things to work on,” the governor said.
“The challenges are glaring,” Ritter said, referring to Colorado’s dropout, college attendance and college completion statistics. “We in Colorado have said that’s intolerable.”
O’Brien, who has taken a leading role on education issues in the administration, noted that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said states need such descriptions to compete from federal Race to the Top stimulus funds.
Several speakers noted that much CAP4K work remains to be done, and that the hardest efforts are in the future. “This is the beginning of the real work ahead,” said education Commissioner Dwight Jones. “The hard work is just starting now,” said Randy DeHoff, vice chair of the SBE.
The description and a previously adopted description of school readiness for young children (see below) are intended to provide the foundation, or guidelines, for more detailed retooling of the state’s education system, including:
* SBE adoption of new content standards in 13 subject areas. Standards have been drafted in four subjects, with the rest due out shortly. The board is to adopt them by Dec. 15.
* Adoption of new statewide tests and other assessments for both P-12 grades and to measure postsecondary and workforce readiness. That’s to be done by the end of 2010.
* Alignment of local district standards and curricula aligned with the new state benchmarks, to be done by local school boards by the end of 2011.
* Adoption of new college admissions standards to align with the state standards and assessments, to be implemented by the end of 2014.
A detailed study of what the CAP4K program might cost is scheduled to start later this year.
The PWR description was drafted by staff of the Colorado departments of education and higher education after a lengthy series of about 20 public, business, educator and faculty meetings around the state. The CDE is conducting a similar public and educator comment process for the new content standards.
The CAP4K law called for the description to be adopted by the end of this year. But, the timetable was accelerated so that there would be time to align the new standards to the description before the deadline for adopting the standards.
“This was like a sprint going up a Fourteener,” said CCHE member Happy Haynes.
Tuesday’s meeting had something of a ceremonial air to it. The outcome was not in doubt, and representatives of several education interest groups spoke in support of the PWR description.
“Have you ever seen an education meeting … where everybody agreed?” quipped Elaine Gantz Berman, a SBE member. “This may be a one of a kind for this room,” (The meeting was held in the hearing room normally used by House Education Committee.)
But, a few cautionary notes were sounded.
Wayne Artis of Pikes Peak Community College noted, “Higher education and P-12 faculty live in different worlds. … This won’t work unless a common culture is created.”
And a couple of speakers touched on the challenge of paying for CAP4K. “If we don’t provide the funding … we will indeed be left with less than meets the eye,” noted Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Todd Engdahl, EDUCATION NEWS COLORADO
Some future legislative study committee may look back and conclude for the record that 2009 was the year that Amendment 23 lost its mojo.
The state constitutional amendment, which contains the formula that drives annual increases in state aid to K-12 schools under certain conditions, was only part of larger discussions Monday by the legislative panel that’s studying school finance this year, the Interim Committee on School Finance.
But, it seemed clear from various comments that A23 may be falling victim to the state’s budget crunch.
“Effectively, Amendment 23 is over,” said Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver.
Amendment 23 requires state support of school districts to increase by inflation every year, with an additional 1 percent increase added on top of that. For the 2009-10 budget year, the formula makes that base increases 4.9 percent, a seemingly healthy figure when other state programs are being cut.
But, the continuing decline in state revenues likely means that $110 million, about 1.9 percent, will be cut when the legislature reconvenes in January. The 2009 legislature put that amount in “escrow” until next year so it could be pulled back if needed to balance the state budget.
As Romer put it Monday, “The most likely scenario is that it [the $110 million] is going to come back. … I would like to keep the cuts to education to no more than $110 million.”
Another blow to Amendment 23 is the fact that the 1 percent annual “bonus” increase expires after the 2010-11 budget year.
And, economic conditions may neuter the A23 formula for the 2010-11 budget. State economists estimate inflation this year could be zero, meaning the biggest piece of the A23 formula won’t be a factor in the 2010-11 budget.
Finally, the past practice of applying A23 to all state education spending may be at an end. In addition to base per-pupil aid, the state also gives school districts categorical funds (money for transportation, special needs children and other programs) and calculates individual district aid based on “factors” such as cost of living, district size and at-risk students.
Julie Pelegrin of the Office of Legislative Legal Services told the interim committee that “Amendment 23 does not apply to the factors. … You probably have a lot of leeway with the categoricals as well.”
Pelegrin, an expert in drafting education bills, said lawmakers “can do whatever you want with the School Finance Act” but that A23 does require keeping some sort of per-pupil base.
The issue of what A23 covers has been touchy in the past, but Pelegrin’s comments drew no questions or challenges from panel members.
“Amendment 23 is essentially over” if the factors aren’t covered and when the 1 percent bonus goes away, said Lisa Weil, policy director of Great Education Colorado, an advocacy group that grew out of the 2000 campaign to pass A23,
After receiving briefings on various school finance details, the committee broke into four working groups that will study specific issues – new sources of revenue, funding for at-risk students, equity and rural schools, and the formula and the factors. Those working groups will include committee members, other legislators and non-lawmakers and will report to the full panel, which next meets on July 27.
Legislative interim committees studied school finance in 1987, 1993 and 2005.
“It’s one of those perpetual soap operas. … It never really gets a conclusion,” quipped former state Sen. Sue Windels, who chaired the 2005 panel.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Neela Eyunni, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet have sent to President Barack Obama the names of six nominees to fill two vacant judicial seats on the U.S. District Court for Colorado.
The new judges will fill vacancies created with the departures of former chief judges Lewis Babcock and Edward Nottingham.
Nominees are Christina Habas, 2nd Judicial District judge, R. Brooke Jackson, 1st Judicial District chief judge, William Martinez, a partner at McNamara Roseman Martinez & Kazmierski in Denver, Lael Montgomergy, 20th Judicial District judge, Morris Ben Hoffman, 2nd Judicial District judge and John Walsh, a partner at Hill & Robbins in Denver.
“Each of these individuals would serve with honor on the bench,” Udall said in a statement. “Federal judges are appointed for life. For that reason, this was an extremely rigorous selection process.”
A 10-member bipartisan advisory committee created by the senators in April sent them a list of the candidates it selected. The panel reviewed 37 applications and interviewed the top 20, said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo.
Both Udall and Bennet had been interviewing candidates for the position since the beginning of June.
Biographies of the candidates follow:

William Martinez
Martinez, a partner at McNamara Roseman Martínez & Kazmierski in Denver, practices employment and civil rights law.
Before joining the firm he served as regional attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Denver, where he lead the Commission’s age discrimination class action charge against the Martin Marietta Corp. The suit involved 3,200 laid off employees and resulted in a settlement of nearly $200 million.
Martinez also worked at the Denver law firm Pendleton Freidberg Wilson & Hennessey, representing corporate and individual clients in employment, securities and commercial law cases. His legal career has also included a role in lawmaking. Martinez has testified before Colorado and Illinois legislatures on employment law issues and took an active role in drafting the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Born in Mexico, Martinez came to the United States with his family when he was a child. He received his B.S. in environmental engineering and his B.A. in political science from the University of Illinois and later went on to get his law degree from the University of Chicago.

Christina Habas
Since 2003 Habas has been a district court judge for the 2nd Judicial District, which covers Denver.
Habas is currently presiding over the murder trial of Denver Broncos cornerback Darrent Willilams.
Last year, she pleased some politicos and frustrated others when she ruled the statewide mill-levy freeze was an unconstitutional tax hike in the case Mesa County Board of Commissioners v. Ritter. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned the ruling in March on a vote of 6-1
As an attorney in private practice for two decades, she was a partner at the law firms Watson Nathan & Bremer and Bruno Bruno & Colin, where she worked in employment and civil rights law as well as personal injury and insurance. In the years before moving to the bench Habas specialized in representing law enforcement officers in civil, criminal and administrative cases.
Throughout her legal career, Habas has taught. She was an adjunct faculty with the University of Denver and taught with the National Institute of Trial Advocacy for more than a decade.
Habas received her bachelor’s and law degrees from the University of Denver.

R. Brooke Jackson
As district judge for the 1st Judicial District, Jackson predominantly hears felony and criminal cases.
After serving for five years, he was appointed chief judge for the district in 2003.
Jackson was a trial attorney in private practice for 26 years specializing in civil litigation, which included a stint as partner at Holland & Hart in Denver. Prior to being appointed to the Denver District Court, he also served as prosecutor for the town of Bow Mar
His latest Colorado Judicial Performance Review showed 72 percent of attorneys and 90 percent of non-attorneys strongly recommended he be retained.
Jackson attended Dartmouth College before earning his law degree from Harvard Law School.
He sits on numerous boards including the Jefferson County Community Corrections Board and the advisory group for the Jefferson County Mediation Services Program.

John Walsh
Besides being nominated for a federal judgeship, Walsh, a partner at Hill & Robbins in Denver, is also one of three candidates for the vacant U.S. attorney job in Colorado.
The Stanford Law School graduate was an assistant U.S. attorney from 1987 to 1995 in Los Angeles before serving as chief of the major frauds section of that office from 1993 to 1995, where he managed 35 assistant U.S. attorneys and took part in the high-profile investigation and prosecution of convicted racketeer Charles Keating.
Walsh was also appointed special attorney to the attorney general and ran the grand jury investigation of Gov. J Fife Symington of Arizona, who was found guilty of seven counts of bank fraud.
Born in Maryland, Walsh and his family moved to Colorado when he was 12 years old.
He returned to Colorado in 1995 and joined Holland & Hart’s Denver office, where he practiced civil litigation and the defense of white-collar crime before joining Hill & Robbins.

Lael Montgomery
Montgomery has been a district court judge for Boulder County since 2001.
Last year, she was nominated for a federal judgeship by then-Sen. Ken Salazar, but she and other nominees were passed over for Phillip Brimmer and Christine Arguello.
Montgomery presided over the high-profile case of Molly and Alex Midyette. Molly Midyette was convicted of failure to stop child abuse resulting in death of the couple’s son in 2007 and received a 16-year prison sentence.
Earlier this year defense attorneys for Alex Midyette asked Montgomery to recues herself from the case, alleging she was biased. Montgomery, however, declined to step down, and she sentenced Midyette to the same 16-year sentence as his wife.
The University of Colorado School of Law graduate also captured headlines during the case this year for denying the defense’s motion to ban cell phones and computers in the courtroom.
Prior to serving as district court judge, she served on the county court bench and as a deputy district attorney in Boulder.

Morris Ben Hoffman
Denver District Judge Morris Ben Hoffman who has been on the bench for 15 years, presides over criminal and civil cases.
During his last judicial review, 92 percent of non-attorneys and 84 percent of attorneys strongly recommend that Hoffman be retained, according to the Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance.
After receiving his law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1977, he entered private practice and specialized in bankruptcy and real estate law as well as commercial litigation.
Hoffman has been published in numerous law journals including the Duke Law Journal and Stanford Law Review. In 2000, he wrote a controversial article criticizing drug courts; he called them “administrative gimmicks.”
For 10 of his years as district judge Hoffman also presided over the Denver grand jury.
The American Board of Trial Advocates awarded Hoffman the Judicial Excellence Award in 2000.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Patricia Kaowthumrong, COLORADOBIZ
When Dr. Richard Abrams discovered he didn’t have the genetic marker for Alzheimer’s disease, he was glad he decided to go through with the genetic testing offered by Rose Center for Preventive Medicine. The 3-year-old Denver center, founded by Abrams, is the first in Colorado to offer the $1,800 test.
Rose Center is devoted to preventative, proactive and personalized medicine, which Abrams says is “the future of health.”
Six months ago, the center partnered with Navigenics, a Foster City, Calif.-based personalized genetic testing company, to provide the test. Navigenics uses the latest science and technology to view DNA, revealing genetic predispositions for health conditions ranging from stomach cancer to glaucoma.
Rose Center then takes those results and helps individuals develop personalized and in-depth health plans.
“With appropriate time, testing and technology, we’re able to discover risk factors that left alone could, in fact, turn into significant medical problems and do something about them,” Abrams said. “We have the technology to intervene, prevent and uncover disease at an early enough stage that it’s still curable.”
Although Abrams doesn’t have the genes for Alzheimer’s, it doesn’t mean he still couldn’t get the disease. Not having the gene just lowers his probability of getting it; having the gene would increase his probability.
“Your genetics aren’t your destiny, but they do tell you your risks,” Abrams said.
Since the Human Genome Project (http://www.genome.gov/) was completed in 2003, geneticists have been able to identify markers for 27 conditions including type II diabetes, breast cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, glaucoma and Alzheimer’s. There are more diseases that can be determined genetically, but results for those conditions aren’t available because geneticists haven’t yet developed a strong enough gene-disease connection, Abrams said.The Navigenics test joins 900 different genetic tests available, including those conducted to determine genetic predispositions, confirm diagnoses and screen embryos and unborn babies for diseases, according to National Human Genome Research Institute. There are many questions surrounding the reliability of such tests and the ethical issues raised by them: In 2008, President Bush signed legislation to prohibit genetic discrimination by employers or health insurance providers.
“It’s a slow process,” Abrams said. “It could take months or even years before a firm connection between a disease and a gene is established.”
After the patient is aware of what health conditions he or she is susceptible to, the patient is empowered with the ability to take control.
One patient of Abrams’ discovered he had a higher than normal chance of getting prostate cancer, so Rose Center monitored him closely with more frequent blood tests and prostrate examinations. He was even prescribed a medication that would reduce his risk of developing the cancer by a significant percentage.
“We want to get away from the one-size-fits-all philosophy,” Abrams said. “We want to be able to identify individual health risks and have a equally unique health plan to lower those risks.”
Rose Center offers the genetic testing for around $1,800, a slightly lower price than if patients decide to do testing directly through Navigenics. Besides the cost savings, Abrams said, the reason a patient might choose to do the testing through Rose Center is to receive more personalized service. Through Navigenics, the entire process would take place over the phone.
No blood is needed, Abrams said, just 2 milliliters of saliva, or less than a teaspoon’s worth. It is also possible to “deselect” any of 27 conditions if a patient would prefer not to know if he or she has a certain genetic marker.
“Knowledge is the most important weapon we have to maintain good health,” Abrams said. “And we have the knowledge to say, ‘Here’s the card you were dealt, now we’re going to play them much better, and it’s going to pay off bountifully for you.’”
Patricia Kaowthumrong is a student at the University of Colorado School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Contact her at Patricia.Kaowthumrong@colorado.edu .

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By John Gramlich, STATELINE.ORG
Twenty years after local officials in Miami opened the nation’s first drug court — a specialized “treatment court” aimed at rehabilitating low-level drug offenders instead of locking them up — state lawmakers in Illinois and Nevada are applying the same idea to a different population: war veterans who have had run-ins with the law.
The two states this year became the first to authorize the statewide creation of special “veterans’ courts,” which, like existing drug or mental-health courts, use a softer criminal justice approach to rehabilitate — not incarcerate — a select category of offenders charged with nonviolent crimes. Connecticut, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Texas considered similar legislative proposals this year, and individual veterans’ courts already exist in Buffalo and Rochester, N.Y., Anchorage, Alaska, Orange County, Calif., and Tulsa, Okla.
U.S. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have pushed similar legislation at the federal level, but their bill stalled in Congress last year.
While drug and mental-health courts are geared toward those with substance-abuse problems or mental illnesses, veterans’ courts are designed for current and former military service members who have broken the law — potentially, the courts’ proponents say, because they face combat-related stress, financial instability or other difficulties adjusting to life after wartime deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
A study by the nonprofit RAND Corporation last year found that about one-fifth of all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans — or about 300,000 of the more than 1.6 million U.S. troops to see action in the two wars — reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or “major depression.” Many of those veterans did not seek treatment for their problems, the study found.
State lawmakers in Illinois and Nevada say troubled veterans who have relatively minor scrapes with the law deserve help, not punishment. They point to the high prevalence of PTSD and other conditions among veterans as possible reasons for their offenses. Backers of the courts also say that treating more low-level offenders will help improve public safety by decreasing the chances they will commit other crimes in the future and will free up valuable jail and prison space for more serious offenders.
Some critics, however, say veterans’ courts create a separate system of justice for current and former troops without any evidence that such a system is necessary. Singling out veterans in the criminal justice system, these critics say, is discriminatory because it suggests that veterans are more likely than other citizens to commit crimes.
The veterans’ courts envisioned in Illinois and Nevada are modeled on the nation’s first veterans’ court, started last year in Buffalo, where offenders must complete rigorous and individually tailored treatment programs. Those who are successful can have the criminal charges against them dropped or reduced.
The programs differ from those in drug or mental-health courts because they include mentoring sessions with other veterans and meetings with federal Veterans Administration employees who can steer them toward financial and other benefits they may not know about, according to Judge Robert T. Russell Jr., who created Buffalo’s court early last year.
Illinois state Rep. Michael Tryon (R), who co-sponsored his state’s bill to authorize veterans’ courts statewide, said he heard about Russell’s court and pushed the legislation on the advice of veterans’ service organizations in his district. Tryon said veterans charged with crimes would benefit from “liaisons” with similar wartime experiences and practical advice to give.
“It’s a shame that somebody who’s made that kind of commitment to the country…sometimes (isn’t) in a position to get all the help that’s available,” Tryon said, noting that he expects Gov. Pat Quinn (D) to sign the bill, which saw “zero opposition” in the General Assembly.
But in Nevada — where Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) signed the state’s measure into law in May — the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, saying it wrongly emphasized some criminal offenders’ “status” in society.
Unlike drug courts, which are for those who have committed drug crimes, or mental-health courts, which are for those with diagnosed conditions, veterans’ courts are based on who offenders are, said Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada. Veterans’ courts are tantamount to creating special courts for “crimes committed by police officers, teachers or politicians,” he said.
“In America, we have one justice system for all, and to deviate from that, even for a benign purpose, really does go against our fundamental principles,” Lichtenstein said.
Those who support veterans’ courts hope they will prove as successful as the drug court model. After getting their start in Miami in 1989, drug courts now exist in all 50 states and number more than 2,300, according to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, which advocates for more drug courts. According to the organization, which last month organized a press conference to highlight the anniversary of Miami’s drug court, 70 percent of all those who are referred to drug courts successfully complete treatment programs and 75 percent “never see another pair of handcuffs.”
Florida legislators this year boosted funding for the state’s drug courts, hoping to keep 3,000 people out of prison and save the state $4 million.
While drug courts are widely seen as a success — both Republican and Democratic presidents have praised them — the veterans’ courts that are already in existence have not been around long enough for researchers to determine their effectiveness. But anecdotal evidence of their success has spread quickly in the judicial community and in state legislatures.
In particular, said Joe Davis, a spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars in Washington, D.C., the courts have attracted the attention of judges who are themselves veterans and see a chance to capitalize on the “peer pressure” atmosphere of the military by helping fellow veterans complete their treatment programs.
Russell, who is not a veteran but said he developed the Buffalo court after noticing an uptick in veterans appearing in the city’s criminal justice system, said in an interview with Stateline.org that the court is working with about 100 offenders, none of whom have been re-arrested during their time in rehabilitation. Those who have completed their programs — which can take more than a year — either are employed or have gone back to college, he said.
Russell said a key component of the success of his court is the veterans’ interaction with other veterans. When he initially observed veterans in court, Russell said, “they appeared to take greater pride in speaking to another veteran. They would stand more erect in court.” He noted that a common excuse cited by many troubled veterans — “no one understands me” — no longer applied.
“You now have a courtroom where everyone (understands),” Russell said.
Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Patricia Kaowthumrong, ColoradoBiz
Brothers Kirby and Nick Kuklenski don’t recommend starting a business with a sibling. But it’s worked well for them.
The Kuklenski brothers, owners of Mile High Ace Hardware in Federal Heights and Ace Hardware Uintah Gardens in Colorado Springs, were recently named Young Retailers of the Year in the multiple-store retailers category by the North American Retail Hardware Association. The association recognizes outstanding achievement by hardware retailers age 35 and younger.
Kirby, 28, and Nick, 25, opened their first Ace hardware in Colorado Springs two and half years ago. They became the youngest entrepreneurs to own and operate an Ace Hardware store. Less than a year later, they began construction from the ground up on the Federal Heights store.
Nick credits his and Kirby’s trustful relationship and contrasting personalities for their success as business partners. They say they’ve been lucky.
“Our personalities are much different. We don’t butt heads on a whole lot because we understand each other’s roles, and we understand that each of us is better at different aspects of the business,” Nick said. “I let Kirby take care of what he takes care of, and he lets me take care of what I take care of.”
After acquiring degrees in marketing and accounting, Kirby pursued a career in banking, but decided he wouldn’t be happy working for a large corporation. After looking at different business and franchises, Kirby found Ace Hardware and liked the concept behind the company.
“It’s different from other franchises because they don’t make you fit into a mold,” Kirby said. “They take the guess work out of the core categories of starting a hardware store, then you can really be creative with everything else.”
Nick received a degree in economics. He said the success he experienced in sports teams in college inspired him to desire success in whatever he pursued after getting his degree.
“I liked the feeling of being successful and being the best, knowing that I did the work to be the best,” Nick said.
Besides Nick’s profitable lawn and garden business in high school, neither brother had any direct experience in hardware or retail when they decided open their first store.
“I think I learned more in six months of owning my own business than in four years of school,” Nick said.
Kirby said he was inspired to open a business where he could work hard and see results, but the people he works with every day soon broadened his individual aspirations.
“Each day I want to make sure that in such a tough economy our associates can all have jobs here, support their families and be happy,” Kirby said.
Kirby and Nick said that the staff at both of their stores should be the individuals credited for their success. Nick said the knowledgeable and enthusiastic associates at their stores set Ace Hardware apart from “big boxes” like Lowe’s or Home Depot.
“I really feel apart of this big family we’ve created at these two stores,” Nick said.
In the community, the brothers sponsor activities through local schools including a program that teaches jobs skills to special needs students in Colorado Springs. A big part of the Kuklenskis’ stores is to add products relevant to the communities where they’re located and give back to areas as well, Kirby said.
“We’ve only been doing this for two and a half years now,” Nick said. “We’re still new to business, so it’s a huge honor to even be nominated.”

Patricia Kaowthumrong is a student at the University of Colorado School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Contact her at Patricia.Kaowthumrong@colorado.edu .

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Pauline Vu, STATELINE.ORG
With states facing a $121 billion shortfall in the next fiscal year, a growing number of them have turned to squeezing their workforce for savings, and effects are being felt, both great and small.
Colorado’s plan for four furlough days set for around the holidays will save $16 million.
In Hawaii, some criminal trials will likely have to be rescheduled because public defenders are being furloughed — or forced to take unpaid days off — three Fridays a month. In New Jersey, about 5,000 parolees went unmonitored for a day in May and June as their parole officers were forced to stay home.
In Georgia, state prosecutors have been furloughed at least one day a month since September, with each day off causing a backlog of about 500 criminal cases. Meanwhile, petty, nonviolent criminal charges are in danger of being dismissed.
“We’re getting critically close to not being able to look at every case,” said Rick Malone, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia. “There’s only so much time in the day … Certainly we will have to screen (cases) more carefully, more finely.”
Although state jobs are usually among the most stable, more than 728,500 state employees in at least 21 states have already or will be furloughed, and several other states are also considering furloughs for their workers.
By comparison, at least 54,000 state workers have been laid off so far, according to tallies by the National Conference of State Legislators and the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME).
“People were saying, ‘well if things are so bad, why aren’t people getting laid off?’ The answer to that is that in a lot of places, they’re choosing furloughs,” said AFSCME’s Kerri Korpi.
The furloughs translate to pay cuts for workers, ranging from 0.5 percent in North Carolina to 13.8 percent in Hawaii. Employees whose jobs are deemed essential to public health and safety, such as police officers and veterans’ homes employees, aren’t furloughed.
The move will affect state services at a time when a bad economy means more people are relying on such services. Disability checks are delayed, for example, in Hawaii, the state will take even longer to process unemployment claims.
Even patients at the country’s last remaining leper colony will feel the effects. The 15 people suffering from Hansen’s disease, better known as leprosy, who rely on Hawaii’s Kalaupapa Settlement to take care of them could end up eating pre-delivered boxed meals instead of freshly cooked meals three days a month if food service workers are furloughed. But acting director Tim Richmond hopes his workers, who are employees of the state Department of Health, can be exempted.
“We can’t just say, ‘Sorry, Governor (Linda) Lingle says you don’t eat today.’ So we will make it happen,” Richmond said. “If it means a boxed meal, nutritionally, it’ll be up to standard and that will be the best we can do.”
The most furious fight over targeting state jobs is in Hawaii, where Gov. Lingle (R) has proposed to help balance an additional $729 million budget shortfall on the backs of state workers. The governor plans to save $688 million by furloughing every employee for three days a month for the next two years — the country’s most severe furlough measure.
The plan “allows all employees to be a part of our shared sacrifice to close this budget gap,” Lingle said June 18. “This is not something I want to do, it’s something I have to do.” Lingle said if she cannot furlough employees, as many as 10,000 workers could be laid off.
The state’s largest public employees’ unions have sued to block the furloughs, saying the governor should have negotiated with them first. The court hearing will begin July 2.

In some cases, the furloughs will lead to states’ losing money. Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue has complained that several states — including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Oregon — are furloughing state employees who work in Social Security offices, even though their pay and benefits are federally funded. The money that isn’t spent on their salaries will be returned to the federal government. Some governors, including Lingle and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), say it’s only fair that all workers share the pain.
The furloughs raise other questions about their benefit. Bruce Blanning, executive director of the Professional Engineers in California Government union, said the days off are forcing engineering departments to outsource work. According to Blanning, a state engineer costs California $103,000 a year, while a full-time outsourced position costs $232,000.
“It’s a waste of money. The employees get shortchanged … and it costs the state a lot more,” he said.
Figuring out how to implement Nevada’s furloughs, which begin July 1, has been a headache for Teresa Thienhaus, the state’s personnel director. For example, the furlough law says no workers can get overtime or standby pay in the same week they have a furlough day. But now agencies are asking what to do if maintenance employees who have already taken a furlough need to be on-call that same week for an emergency.
“We’re still working on trying to get guidelines out that are going to be applicable to enough people to make a difference. And as soon as we do that, somebody will call and have another question and we’re back to the drawing board on some other aspect,” Thienhaus said. “We’ve not seen any light at the end of the tunnel.”
Sometimes, state employees simply don’t take off their furlough days. In California, where furlough days are “use them or lose them” by June 2010, about 238,000 state workers are supposed to work with supervisors to arrange two days off a month. But many employees are finding they have too much work to take furlough days. During the swine flu scare, for example, state scientists worked 16-hour days to conduct tests and keep the disease in check, said Chris Voight, the staff director of the California Association of Professional Scientists.
“The services were delivered, but that’s because we represent a lot of very dedicated state scientists who are willing to do what it takes,” Voight said.

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Colorado is not spending enough of its economic stimulus dollars on public transportation, according to a report released Monday by the Colorado Public Interest Research Group.
While the Colorado Department of Transportation and Gov. Bill Ritter scored high marks for prioritizing two-thirds of its stimulus dollars on road and bridge repair, the report states that Colorado could be doing a better job maximizing job creation by investing in more public transportation projects.
The state will spend nearly 20 percent of its more than $400 million in transportation funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on building new roads and highways, states the CoPIRG report.
“We can’t afford the highways we already have, how can we maintain these new ones?” asked Danny Katz, director of CoPIRG, a statewide public interest group.
The report released Monday states that public transportation investment creates 31 percent more jobs, and road and bridge repair generates 16 percent more jobs than new road and bridge construction.
If the state were to invest in more repair projects, as opposed to new construction, it would produce an average of 181 more jobs; if it were to invest in more public transportation projects, the state would create an average of 433 more jobs, states the report.
But state officials say the report does not take into account the fact that an additional $103 million has been set aside solely for transit projects. While the state will receive about $400 million for transportation projects, another $103 million is set aside for transit projects.
“There is a fundamental problem with the report because it does not take into account the fact that the Recovery Act allocates separate funds just for transit projects,” said Myung Oak Kim, spokeswoman for the Governor’s Economic Recovery Team.

West Corridor
She points to the West Corridor of the voter-approved FasTracks transit expansion project, which is getting $40 million. An additional $10 million is allocated for a new bus maintenance facility in Summit County.
In fact, the CoPIRG report itself acknowledges that Colorado ranks sixth in the nation for the percent of federal surface transportation stimulus dollars used on public transportation and non-motorized projects, Kim pointed out.
Stacey Stegman, spokeswoman for CDOT, believes the department has done a good job so far balancing its transportation expenditures related to stimulus dollars.
“You have to balance highways with transit, just as with other forms as well,” she said. “So, I think the distribution of funds was appropriate, and in fact, we only wished that we got more to be able to spend on all of these different modes.”

Biden praises state
Colorado last week was recognized by Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for its quick action in committing 50 percent of its highway funds by Monday, as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The state achieved the milestone on May 7, far ahead of many other states.
As a result of CDOT’s fast action — which has already committed about 75 percent of its stimulus dollars — work has begun or will soon start on 12 projects, which quickly creates jobs, the greatest purpose of the Recovery Act, said Stegman.
LaHood will be in Jefferson County today to celebrate the groundbreaking of a $22.3 million Recovery Act project that will rehabilitate C-470 from U.S. Highway 85 to Interstate 25. The project will also rebuild a 26-mile portion of the C-470 bike path.
“The biggest goal is to get the money out the door and create jobs,” said Stegman. “There’s always a slight delay, because it takes some time to advertise a project and get it under contract, but (job creation) is what we’re seeing now … It’s been a very fast process.”

Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >