Register2Vote.fw

Marshall Campaign Site

Miller Campaign Site

SPEAK UP!
Let those who represent you know how you feel about issues being considered. Here's contact information related to those who represent residents of Humboldt County, NV:


Assy Dist 32: Ira Hansen
Twitter: @irahansen
Office: 775-684-8851
FAX: 775-322-8889
Cell: 775-221-2502
Email Assyman Hansen


Senate Dist 14: Don Gustavson
Twitter: @DonGustavson
Office: 775-684-1480
Cell: 775-722-1278
Email Sen. Gustavson


US Senate: Sen. Harry Reid
Twitter: @SenatorReid
202-224-3542 (DC)
702-388-5020 (LV)
775-686-5750 (Reno)
775-882-7343 (Carson)
Serves as Senate Majority Leader


US Senate: Sen. Dean Heller
Twitter: @SenDeanHeller
202-224-6244 (DC)
702-388-6605 (LV)/
775-686-5770 (Reno)/
775-738-2001 (Elko)
Cmtees: Banking-Housing-Urban Affairs; Veterans’ Affairs; Energy & Naural Resources; Commerce-Science-Transportation


US House: Rep Mark Amodei (NV2)
Twitter: @MarkAmodeiNV2
202-225-6155 (DC)
775-686-5760 (NV)
Cmtees: Natural Resources; Judiciary; Veterans Affairs


RSS Next up in Congress

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Ballot Questions on November Ballot

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?

 

Filing Period Now Open: City of Winnemucca

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: 

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. A filing fee in the amount of $25.00 shall be paid by each candidate at the time of filing a Declaration of Candidacy.
  4. 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.
  5. All candidates are voted upon by the electors of the City of Winnemucca at-large.
    [SEAL]

    CITY OF WINNEMUCCA
    /s/Lorrie Haaglund
    Lorrie Haaglund
    City Clerk

PUBLISHED in The Humboldt Sun twice: August 12, 2014 and August 19, 2014

REMINDER: Meet ‘n’ Greet with Kristen Spees

Meet-n-Greet01.fw

Less than 100 Days ’til the Election

— by Marilyn Kirkpatrick, Speaker of the Nevada State Assembly

MarilynKirkpatrickWith 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 info@nvassemblydems.com.

Ditch the Myth

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

 The proposed rule to protect clean water will not change exclusions and exemptions for agriculture.

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

The proposed rule to protect clean water does not require permits for normal farming activities like moving cattle.

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

Download the interpretive rule signed by EPA and USDA

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

The proposed rule to protect clean water keeps in place the current exemptions for farm ponds.

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

Download an economic analysis about the proposed rule

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

The proposed rule to protect clean water does not regulate floodplains.

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

See a map of counties that depend on these sources for drinking water

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

The proposed rule to protect clean water does not regulate puddles.

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

The proposed rule to protect clean water actually decreases regulation of ditches.

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   

See who requested this rulemaking

IT’S WELL PAST TIME TO TAKE WOMEN OUT FROM UNDER THE GUN AND DISARM DOMESTIC ABUSERS

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.

— by Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons  from the Center for American Progress

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. DomesticGunViolenceA 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:


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.

4.683 Million Unanswered Questions in Halbig

Appeals will continue, but let’s take the Halbig decision at face value. How much will this decision cost the working poor? The amount varies with income and other variables, but for a 40 year old individual making $30,000 a year, the tax credit was estimated at $1345 (KFF estimate here). Retroactive tax bills under Halbig will be significant and everyone impacted will have trouble paying for health insurance going forward (about 57% of exchange participants were previously uninsured, according to a KFF survey).

How many people will be hurt?

Read more here at “The Incidental Economist” ….

Upcoming Events

  • Wmca City Council Mtg September 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm – 6:00 pm 90 WEST 4TH ST., WINNEMUCCA, NV 89445 http://www.winnemuccacity.org/AgendaListings.cfm
  • HumboldtDems Mtg September 9, 2014 at 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm French Ford Middle School, 5495 Palisade Dr, Winnemucca, NV 894 4
  • HCNV: RPC Mtg September 11, 2014 at 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm County Courthouse, Winnemucca, NV Check out the agenda on http://rpctransparency.wordpress.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,440 other followers

NEWSLETTER SUBSCRIPTION

We invite you to CLICK HERE to join our email list. Receive notifications about events and important/critical information for Humboldt Democrats.

While you're at it, sign up HERE to get weekly notifications about Democratic events happening across Nevada from the Blue Nevadan


Follow Rockblot on Twitter

Follow NVRDC on Twitter

Follow DesertBeacon on Twitter

Find Post by Category

Posts by Date

August 2014
S M T W T F S
« Jul    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

PopVox

PopVox

SafetyNet

SafetyNet

HealthCare

Medicare4All

WindEnergy

Tar Sands

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,440 other followers