22 Members Vote Against Matthew Shepard Act

[TotallyOz]

The Stonewall Democrats have identified the following twenty-two Democratic Members of Congress voted to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill:

1. Robert Berry (AR-1)

2. Dan Boren (OK-2)

3. Bobby Bright (AL-2)

4. Travis Childers (MS-1)

5. Artur Davis (AL-7)

6. Lincoln Davis (TN-4)

7. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)

8. Chet Edwards (TX-17)

9. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)

10. Bart Gordon (TN-6)

11. Parker Griffith (AL-5)

12. Frank Kratovil (MD-1)

13. Jim Marshall (GA-8)

14. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)

15. Scott Murphy (NY-20)*

16. Collin Peterson (MN-7)

17. Mike Ross (AR-4)

18. Bobby Scott (VA-3)*

19. Heath Shuler (NC-11)

20. John Tanner (TN-8)

21. Gene Taylor (MS-4)

22. Harry Teague (NM-2)

Click on the link to go directly to govtrack to find additional information on this congressman.

The measure and vote referenced here, called a “motion to instruct” and offered up by House Republicans, would have instructed the conferees to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill. These twenty-two Democrats sided with the Republicans to remove the hate crimes provision, which would have effectively continued the decade-long gridlock over passage of the Matthew Shepard Act.

It is the opinion of the board of directors of the National Stonewall Democrats Political Action Committee that Members of Congress who vote against the expansion of basic fairness and equal opportunity have not earned your vote or your financial support. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the board that such Members of Congress should not receive support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or state coordinated campaigns in their re-election bids to the U.S. House.

If a representative is in your area, contact them immediately regarding their vote on this measure. Report back on this blog any significant information you find.

UPDATE AND NOTES

1. Stonewall Democrats has been contacted by the office of Representative Scott Murphy, who wishes our members and supporters to know that he supports the expansion of hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation and gender identity and is a co-sponsor of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation. His vote on this measure was strictly procedural.

2. Representative Bobby Scott, who is a co-sponsor of ENDA, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and DOMA repeal, released the following statement in explanation of his vote to strip the hate crimes bill from the Defense Authorization issued October 6, 2009:

Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chairman of Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on the House Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding his Yea vote on the Republican Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010:

“I am a supporter of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The House passed a version of the Act that I not only voted for, but spoke in favor of through committee and Floor proceedings. I also supported the similar version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed both the House and Senate last Congress, but was taken out of the military authorization bill during the Conference process.

“The version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was the subject of the Motion to Instruct Conferees today is a version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed by the Senate that I cannot support. Not only does that version contain a gratuitous death penalty, but also a superfluous mandatory minimum sentence, and what I believe to be unconstitutional infringements upon freedoms of expression and association.

“I am an opponent of the death penalty as a matter of moral principle, and because death penalty administration in this country has been shown to be applied in an arbitrary manner and to be irrevocably fraught with mistake, racism, classicism, and other problems. I am also an opponent of mandatory minimum sentences, as a matter of principle. Mandatory minimum sentences have been rigorously studied and have been consistently found to distort rational sentencing principles, to be applied in a racially discriminatory manner and to violate commonsense – even when everyone agrees a mandatory sentence is inappropriate to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the mandatory sentence still has to be applied as a matter of law.

“Finally, I am a strong supporter of our First Amendment freedoms, including the freedoms of belief, expression and association. By allowing evidence of belief, expression and association to be admitted to prove that a hate crime was committed, without requiring that the belief, expression or association be shown to have a specific connection to the offense charged, is an impermissible infringement upon those freedoms, I believe.

“For these reasons, I voted for the motion to remove the version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, considered today.”

http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?p=6042

[Guest chillmaster01]

The Stonewall Democrats have identified the following twenty-two Democratic Members of Congress voted to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill:

1. Robert Berry (AR-1)

2. Dan Boren (OK-2)

3. Bobby Bright (AL-2)

4. Travis Childers (MS-1)

5. Artur Davis (AL-7)

6. Lincoln Davis (TN-4)

7. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)

8. Chet Edwards (TX-17)

9. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)

10. Bart Gordon (TN-6)

11. Parker Griffith (AL-5)

12. Frank Kratovil (MD-1)

13. Jim Marshall (GA-8)

14. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)

15. Scott Murphy (NY-20)*

16. Collin Peterson (MN-7)

17. Mike Ross (AR-4)

18. Bobby Scott (VA-3)*

19. Heath Shuler (NC-11)

20. John Tanner (TN-8)

21. Gene Taylor (MS-4)

22. Harry Teague (NM-2)

Click on the link to go directly to govtrack to find additional information on this congressman.

The measure and vote referenced here, called a “motion to instruct” and offered up by House Republicans, would have instructed the conferees to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill. These twenty-two Democrats sided with the Republicans to remove the hate crimes provision, which would have effectively continued the decade-long gridlock over passage of the Matthew Shepard Act.

It is the opinion of the board of directors of the National Stonewall Democrats Political Action Committee that Members of Congress who vote against the expansion of basic fairness and equal opportunity have not earned your vote or your financial support. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the board that such Members of Congress should not receive support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or state coordinated campaigns in their re-election bids to the U.S. House.

If a representative is in your area, contact them immediately regarding their vote on this measure. Report back on this blog any significant information you find.

UPDATE AND NOTES

1. Stonewall Democrats has been contacted by the office of Representative Scott Murphy, who wishes our members and supporters to know that he supports the expansion of hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation and gender identity and is a co-sponsor of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation. His vote on this measure was strictly procedural.

2. Representative Bobby Scott, who is a co-sponsor of ENDA, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and DOMA repeal, released the following statement in explanation of his vote to strip the hate crimes bill from the Defense Authorization issued October 6, 2009:

Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chairman of Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on the House Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding his Yea vote on the Republican Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010:

“I am a supporter of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The House passed a version of the Act that I not only voted for, but spoke in favor of through committee and Floor proceedings. I also supported the similar version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed both the House and Senate last Congress, but was taken out of the military authorization bill during the Conference process.

“The version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was the subject of the Motion to Instruct Conferees today is a version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed by the Senate that I cannot support. Not only does that version contain a gratuitous death penalty, but also a superfluous mandatory minimum sentence, and what I believe to be unconstitutional infringements upon freedoms of expression and association.

“I am an opponent of the death penalty as a matter of moral principle, and because death penalty administration in this country has been shown to be applied in an arbitrary manner and to be irrevocably fraught with mistake, racism, classicism, and other problems. I am also an opponent of mandatory minimum sentences, as a matter of principle. Mandatory minimum sentences have been rigorously studied and have been consistently found to distort rational sentencing principles, to be applied in a racially discriminatory manner and to violate commonsense – even when everyone agrees a mandatory sentence is inappropriate to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the mandatory sentence still has to be applied as a matter of law.

“Finally, I am a strong supporter of our First Amendment freedoms, including the freedoms of belief, expression and association. By allowing evidence of belief, expression and association to be admitted to prove that a hate crime was committed, without requiring that the belief, expression or association be shown to have a specific connection to the offense charged, is an impermissible infringement upon those freedoms, I believe.

“For these reasons, I voted for the motion to remove the version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, considered today.”

http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?p=6042

Is someone going to explain to me why this should be in this particular bill in first place but merely a add on and not a stand alone or more appropriate bill. I have to say I agree with Bobby Scotts Moral view in some parts and this is not method or right venue for such

PJ

[KYTOP]

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 was signed into law by the President yesterday with the Matthew Shepard amendment intact. Even though I would have preferred that the Matthew Shepard Act stand on its own, I understand the politics of getting things done in Washington DC sometime. This has been a long time coming and I hope it has a positive effect against violence of all people. The Matthew Shepard act is something we should all be grateful that has finally passed, but I feel sad that in this age and time we still need such legislation.

[TampaYankee]

Is someone going to explain to me why this should be in this particular bill in first place but merely a add on and not a stand alone or more appropriate bill. I have to say I agree with Bobby Scotts Moral view in some parts and this is not method or right venue for such

PJ

This law has been attempted in stand-alone form for several years. During the Bush years he stated he would veto it should it reach his desk. It never did. Getting some things through the Senate, almost anything this last year, requires a supermajority of 60 votes. There hasn't been 60 votes to pass it. The GOP is almost monlithically against it. A number of Dems are either against it or don't feel they can be seen to support it based on their conservative constiutency. Tying controversial legislation to bigger, less controversial legislation rquires those against the former to have to pick and choose the greater good as they see it. For those in favor but at risk if seen to support it, this provides cover for their vote. It's called Washington Politics. I hate it when this tactic works against my druthers. I hold my nose when it advances my issues.

Would that our politics were managed only by vestal virgins. Unfortunately, that ain't the case. You got to be willing to play in the sandbox with the sand it comes with and with the players at hand.