Committees are currently in place and are working up “pros” and “cons” for these two county-related questions that will appear on ballots in Humboldt County this November:
BALLOT QUESTION: Hospital Trustee Advisory Question
This question is “advisory” only:
Should Humboldt County Code Chapter 2.16 be amended to reduce the number of trustees serving on the Board of Trustees of the Humboldt General Hospital from 6 to 5 by eliminating the trustee position which is appointed from the elected body of the Humboldt County Board of County Commissioners?
BALLOT QUESTION: Sales Tax for Parks and Recreation
Shall Humboldt County Board of Commissioners be authorized to impose an additional one quarter of one percent (0.25%) of general sales and use tax collected in the County as authorized under NRS Chapter 377A to be used to acquire, develop, construct, equip, operate, maintain, improve and manage parks, recreational programs and facilities or any combination of those purposes?
CITY OF WINNEMUCCA
NOTICE OF CITY ELECTION AND FILING OF
DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY FOR CITY ELECTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the General City Election of the City of Winnemucca, Nevada will be at the same time as the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that:
- The following are the offices for which candidates are to be elected:
Mayor- Four year term
Council member Seat 2 -Four year term
Council member Seat 4- Four year term
- A Declaration of Candidacy must be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Winnemucca, 90 West Fourth Street, Winnemucca, Nevada on or after 8:00 AM, Monday, August 25, 2014 and before the close of filing for office at 5:00 PM, Friday, August 29, 2014.
- A filing fee in the amount of $25.00 shall be paid by each candidate at the time of filing a Declaration of Candidacy.
- The Mayor and Council members must be qualified electors within the City of Winnemucca and bona fide residents thereof for at least one year next preceding their election, and candidates for office must have actually resided in the City of Winnemucca for at least 30 days immediately preceding the date of the close of filing of the Declaration of Candidacy.
- All candidates are voted upon by the electors of the City of Winnemucca at-large.
CITY OF WINNEMUCCA
PUBLISHED in The Humboldt Sun twice: August 12, 2014 and August 19, 2014
— by Marilyn Kirkpatrick, Speaker of the Nevada State Assembly
With less than 100 days until Election Day and just over 80 until Nevadans start voting, I am writing to update you on the Assembly Democratic Caucus, something I hope to do periodically over the next few months. It has been my great honor to serve as the Speaker of the Nevada Assembly since 2013 and the leader of our caucus.
For the past several sessions, our caucus has proposed a legislative agenda of job creation, education, stemming the rate of foreclosures, making health care more accessible and affordable, and improving public safety. We have successfully fought for measures to —
- Put more Nevadans back to work and improve our economic diversification efforts.
- Increase funding for education and other critical state needs.
- Help ensure a quality teacher in every classroom.
- Improve the quality of our health care systems in Nevada.
- Strengthen laws to prosecute both white collar and violent criminals.
We want to continue to fight for these priorities in 2015. As we do in every election cycle, we have worked to recruit men and women who will not only be strong candidates capable of winning their seats, but who will also be legislators who can hit the ground running once they are elected.
We believe 2014 will be a good year for our caucus. Currently, 27 of the 42 members of the Nevada Assembly are Democrats. We have six outstanding new candidates running for six open seats, and 21 of our 27 Democratic incumbents are running for re-election, all of which have solid Democratic registration advantages. We are confident we will be successful in all of our races and that we have an opportunity to even pick up a seat for a super majority.
I am assisted in our efforts by Jason Frierson, our Assistant Majority Leader. All of our incumbents are working hard to win their own seats and to mentor our new candidates to help them win their races and get prepared to serve. And, of course, we are already working to develop our policy agenda for 2015, with legislative proposals that will continue to move our state forward.
If you would like more information on any of these races, or any other information on our caucus, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Let’s get serious about protecting clean water
This post addresses concerns and misconceptions about the proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect clean water. The proposed rule clarifies protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. The following facts emphasize that this proposed rule cuts through red tape to make normal farming practices easier while also ensuring that waters are clean for human health, communities, and the economy.
MYTH: The rule would regulate all ditches, even those that only flow after rainfall.
TRUTH: The proposed rule actually reduces regulation of ditches because for the first time it would exclude ditches that are constructed through dry lands and don’t have water year-round. Tweet the truth
MYTH: A permit is needed for walking cows across a wet field or stream.
TRUTH: No. Normal farming and ranching activities don’t need permits under the Clean Water Act, including moving cattle. Tweet the truth
MYTH: Ponds on the farm will be regulated.
TRUTH: The proposed rule does not change the exemption for farm ponds that has been in place for decades. It would for the first time specifically exclude stock watering and irrigation ponds constructed in dry lands. Tweet the truth
MYTH: Groundwater is regulated by the Clean Water Act.
TRUTH: The proposed rule specifically excludes groundwater. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The federal government is going to regulate puddles and water on driveways and playgrounds.
TRUTH: Not remotely true. Such water is never jurisdictional. Tweet the truth
MYTH: EPA is gaining power over farms and ranches.
TRUTH: No. All historical exclusions and exemptions for agriculture are preserved. Tweet the truth
MYTH: Only the 56 conservation practices are now exempt from the Clean Water Act.
TRUTH: No. The proposal does not remove the normal farming exemption. It adds 56 beneficial conservation practices to the exemption, which is self-implementing. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The proposed rule will apply to wet areas or erosional features on fields.
TRUTH: Water-filled areas on crop fields are not jurisdictional and the proposal specifically excludes erosional features. Tweet the truth
MYTH: This is the largest land grab in history.
TRUTH: The Clean Water Act only regulates the pollution and destruction of U.S. waters. The proposed rule would not regulate land or land use. Tweet the truth
MYTH: EPA and the Army Corps are going around Congress and the Supreme Court.
TRUTH: EPA and the Army Corps are responding to calls from Congress and the Supreme Court to clarify regulations. Chief Justice Roberts said that a rulemaking would provide clarification of jurisdiction. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The proposal will now require permits for all activities in floodplains.
TRUTH: The Clean Water Act does not regulate land and the agencies are not asserting jurisdiction over land in floodplains. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The proposed rule will harm the economy.
TRUTH: Protecting water is vital to the health of the economy. Streams and wetlands are economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The costs of this proposal are too burdensome.
TRUTH: For this proposed rule, the potential economic benefits are estimated to be about TWICE the potential costs – $390 to $510 million in benefits versus $160 to $278 million in costs. Tweet the truth
MYTH: This is a massive expansion of federal authority.
TRUTH: The proposal does not protect any waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule specifically reflects the more narrow reading of jurisdiction established by the Supreme Court and the rule protects fewer waters than prior to the Supreme Court cases. Tweet the truth
MYTH: This is increasing the number of regulated waters by including waters that do not flow year-round as waters of the United States.
TRUTH: Streams that only flow seasonally or after rain have been protected by the Clean Water Act since it was enacted in 1972. More than 60 percent of streams nationwide do not flow year-round and contribute to the drinking water supply for 117 million Americans. Tweet the truth
MYTH: Only actual navigable waters can be covered under the Clean Water Act.
TRUTH: Court decisions and the legislative history of the Clean Water Act make clear that waters do not need actual navigation to be covered, and these waters have been protected by the Clean Water Act since it was passed in 1972. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The rule includes no limits on federal jurisdiction.
TRUTH: The proposed rule does not protect any waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act and specifically reflects the Supreme Court’s more narrow reading of jurisdiction, and includes several specific exclusions. Tweet the truth
MYTH: This rule is coming before the science is available.
TRUTH: EPA’s scientific assessment is based on more than 1,000 pieces of previously peer-reviewed and publicly available literature. The rule will not be finalized until the scientific assessment is finalized. Tweet the truth
Download the draft scientific assessment (331 pp, 11 MB, PDF)
MYTH: This is about little streams in the middle of nowhere that don’t matter.
TRUTH: Everyone lives downstream. This means that our communities, our cities, our businesses, our schools, and our farms are all impacted by the pollution and destruction that happens upstream. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The proposal infringes on private property rights and hinders development.
TRUTH: EPA, the Army Corps, and states issue thousands of permits annually that allow for property development and economic activity in ways that protect the environment. The proposed rule will help reduce regulatory confusion and delays in determining which waters are covered. Tweet the truth
MYTH: Stakeholders were not consulted in the development of the proposed rule.
TRUTH: This is a proposal. Agencies are seeking public comment and participating in extensive outreach to state and tribal partners, the regulated community including small business, and the general public. Tweet the truth
MYTH: The federal government is taking authority away from the states.
TRUTH: This proposed rule fully preserves and respects the effective federal-state partnership and federal-tribal partnership established under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule will not affect state water laws, including those governing water supply and use. Tweet the truth
MYTH: Nobody wanted a rulemaking to define Waters of the U.S.
TRUTH: A rulemaking to provide clarity was requested by the full spectrum of stakeholders: Congress, industry, agriculture, businesses, hunters and fisherman, and more. Tweet the truth
How Gun Violence Affects Women and Four Policy Solutions to Better Protect Them
Weak gun laws at the federal and state levels leave far too many women facing a fatal end to domestic abuse.
Violence against women looks very different than violence against men. Whether in the context of sexual assault on college campuses or in the military, violence by an intimate partner, or other types of violent victimization, women’s experiences of violence in this country are unique from those of men. One key difference in the violence committed against women in the United States is who commits it: Women are much more likely to be victimized by people they know, while men are more likely to be victims of violent crime at the hands of strangers. Between 2003 and 2012, 65 percent of female violent crime victims were targeted by someone they knew; only 34 percent of male violent crime victims knew their attackers. Intimate partners make up the majority of known assailants: During the same time period, 34 percent of all women murdered were killed by a male intimate partner, compared to the only 2.5 percent of male murder victims killed by a female intimate partner. A staggering portion of violence against women is fatal, and a key driver of these homicides is access to guns. From 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
Guns are used in fatal intimate partner violence more than any other weapon: Of all the women killed by intimate partners during this period, 55 percent were killed with guns. Women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than are women in other high income countries. Limiting abusers and stalkers’ access to firearms is therefore critical to reduce the number of women murdered in this country every year. This idea is not new: Congress first acted 20 years ago to strengthen our gun laws to prevent some domestic abusers from buying guns. But we are still a long way from having a comprehensive system of laws in place at both the federal and state levels that protect women—and children and men—from fatal violence in the context of intimate and domestic relationships. This report provides an overview of the data regarding the intersection of intimate partner violence and gun violence, describing four policies that states and the federal government should enact to reduce dangerous abusers’ access to guns and prevent murders of women:
- Bar all convicted abusers, stalkers, and people subject to related restraining orders from possessing guns.
- Provide all records of prohibited abusers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
- Require a background check for all gun sales.
- Ensure that abusers surrender any firearms they own once they become prohibited.
Some states have already adopted some of these policies, and in the past 12 months, there has been a growing movement across the country to enact laws closing some gaps related to domestic abusers’ gun access in several states, including Wisconsin, Washington, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. This report collected and analyzed data from a variety of sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI; the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC; the Office of Violence Against Women; state criminal justice agencies; state domestic violence fatality review boards; and academic research. These data provide a snapshot of women’s experiences of violence in this country and show the glaring gaps in state and federal laws that leave victims of domestic violence and stalking vulnerable to gun violence. Many of these data have not been made public prior to the publication of this report and were collected through Freedom of Information Act requests. Among our findings:
- In 15 states, more than 40 percent of all homicides of women in each state involved intimate partner violence. In 36 states, more than 50 percent of intimate partner-related homicides of women in each state involved a gun.
- A review of conviction records in 20 states showed that there are at least 11,986 individuals across the country who have been convicted of misdemeanor-level stalking but are still permitted to possess guns under federal law. It is likely that there are tens of thousands of additional convicted stalkers who are able to buy guns.
- While submission of records regarding convicted misdemeanant domestic abusers to the FBI’s NICS Index has increased 132 percent over the past five-and-a-half years, only three states appear to be submitting reasonably complete records—Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Records from these three states account for 79 percent of the total records submitted to the FBI.
Every day in the United States, five women are murdered with guns. Many of these fatal shootings occur in the context of a domestic or intimate partner relationship. However, women are not the only victims. Shooters have often made children, police officers, and their broader communities additional targets of what begins as an intimate partner shooting. In fact, one study found that more than half of the mass shootings in recent years have started with or involved the shooting of an intimate partner or a family member. Enacting a comprehensive set of laws and enforcement strategies to disarm domestic abusers and stalkers will reduce the number of women who are murdered by abusers with guns—and it will make all Americans safer. Arkadi Gerney is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Chelsea Parsons is Director of Crime and Firearms Policy at the Center. Additional Resources:
- Fact Sheets: Protecting Women from Gun Violence, by Chelsea Parsons and Lauren Speigel
- Report: Women Under the Gun [PDF] [Scribd]
This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.