[LSGOP] Chairman's Letter: Republican Party's Legislative Accomplishments (January - March 2021)

[vrb]

 

Republican Party of Los Santos County

 

CHAIRMAN'S LETTER: REPUBLICAN PARTY'S LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (JAN - MAR 2021)

 

---

 

 

March 14, 2021 —

 

The San Andreas State Senate has officially gone to a recess on March 8th, 2021, bringing us closer to the end of the Senate's current term. 

 

The Senate's current composition, representing Los Santos County, comprises five lawmakers in total. The Senate Republicans representing Los Santos County are Senators Daniel Cardenas, Ethan Schmidt, and Frank Ernst. Towards the end of this current term, the Senate Republicans had managed to secure a majority of 21 out of the 40 total seats, historically marking the first time in decades for the Republican party to hold the Senate majority in San Andreas.

 

In January of 2021, Senator Frank Ernst was elected to be the President Pro Tempore of the San Andreas Senate. 

 

And in the following months, the GOP-led Senate has managed a strong list of LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS;

 

1. Led legislative initiative to decriminalize cannabis in San Andreas with the Cannabis Legalization Act of 2021, vetoed by the Governor.
2. Established law to promote an impartial government and regulate different aspects of campaigning with the Political Reform Act of 2021.
3. Protection for San Andreas students and teachers with the Higher Education Act of 2021.
4. Established a regulatory board for monitoring gambling practices in San Andreas through amendments in the existing GAMING Act of 2021.
5. Legalized the practice of open carry within all unincorporated areas in San Andreas with the State Handling of All Firearms and Training Act of 2021.
6. Appointed a new Chaplain for the San Andreas Senate with Senate Resolution 004.
7. Emergency funds for essential spending by the Port Authority of Los Santos in the Port Authority Appropriations Act of 2021.

 

---

 

Senate Republicans have pushed the following legislations to the standing committees and Senate floor for consideration;

 

1. Establishing and funding the Department of Labor for the year 2021. 
2. Protection for labor unions in San Andreas with the Labor Relations Act of 2021.
3. Recognizing indigenous Native American groups and establishing sovereign Indian land with the Karkai'i Sovereignty Bill.

 

As we mark the end of this term, I ask all residents of Los Santos County to look at what we've managed to accomplish in the Senate with the Republican leadership. More than EIGHTY PERCENT of bills and resolutions sent in for a full Senate vote were led by Senate Republicans from January to March. The Republican Party is committed to working closely with local agencies to find the most effective solution to every issue we are trying to address. I encourage all citizens of Los Santos County to come out to our events in the following weeks and learn more about our platform for the upcoming Senate term. And I am personally looking forward to meeting every one of you.

 

Ask yourselves, who do you trust with leading the State Legislature for the next term?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

David McConnell

 

Chairman

 

Republican Party of Los Santos County

 

FACEBROWSER | WEBSITE

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Zani

[vrb]

* Comments Enabled *

 

Username:

Comment:

[H04X]

Username: BlaineCountyRocks
Comment: and they still say republicans dont do shit L.O.L. (laughing out loud)

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

 

Username:  MidwinterTwilight

Comment:

 

The ideas and aims behind some of these implements are noble, but I’m not sure much thought and care has been put into delivery.  For example, in arguably the most important of these implements, namely, the so-called Political Reform Act, there are many hardly enforceable provisions — some appear to be unconstitutional for a litany of reasons.  First, without defining what a “lobbyist” is, someone who might be subject to these provisions cannot reasonably know when its provisions actually apply to them.  It stipulates what lobbyists must do and must refrain from doing; but there is nothing on what exactly constitutes lobbying.  Any attempt to enforce the obligations (or prohibitions) without a clear definition is going to hit a due process barrier if one is dealing with competent counsel. 

If I invite a lawmaker to dinner and casually mention that a recent drought is affecting my agribusiness, am I a lobbyist? If a resident worried about the drought’s impact on prices of certain food called up a lawmaker to ask them to make irrigation systems mandatory in agribusiness to control the consumption of water and ensure reduced impact of the drought, have they lobbied the lawmaker? What if I was the engineer who recently designed that new irrigation system, and I called the lawmaker to ask for the same?  The examples might not be relevant to some readers, but the point is that the Act does not set out the conduct constituting lobbying — for that reason, it cannot reasonably inform a person when its obligations and prohibitions apply to them; and so we run into a due process barrier. 
 

For instance, in Section 3(a), to what exactly does “activities” refer?   Any member of the public who is wondering whether or not this applies to their conduct needs to know in order to satisfy their due process entitlement.  When the law commands them to do something or refrain from doing something, they cannot be left wondering. 

 

It should also be noted that, depending on how the Act defines lobbying (in the future, because, again, it has been left undefined as it stands), the $5,000 fee to register might be an abridgement of the substantive constitutional right to petition the government, and that abridgement might fail to pass constitutional muster.

 

Second, Section 3(d) is hardly enforceable because it does not specifically refer to any practice.  To what does “practices unfairly favoring incumbents” refer?  It would be difficult to abrogate a practice that is not particularly defined.  It certainly does not give fair warning (an age-old requirement of due process) as no reasonable observer can point to any specific conduct using the language of the Act.  It leaves the interpretation to the enforcers, allowing them to pick and choose what conduct they consider “unfair” and favorable to an incumbent; that kind of unfettered discretion which allows arbitrary enforcement has consistently been held to be unconstitutional. 
 

Good in principle, but the delivery needs work. 
 

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[Infinity]

Username: eterna1melody

Comment: legal cannabis? voting republicans as we speak cuz all that the democrats are offering is longer prison sentences LOL fuck that