Lawyers for juveniles, food stamps for felons, anti-discrimination protections for LGBTs discussed in Legislature

Juveniles facing court dates would automatically get lawyers, but only in the state’s largest counties, under a proposal advancing in the Nebraska Legislature. Meanwhile, a proposal to allow people convicted of drug felonies to qualify for food stamps fell short. And senators geared up for another fight over banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification.

Originally, Lincoln Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks’ proposal on lawyers for juveniles would have applied statewide. But that ran into objections from senators whose districts include rural areas, like Sen. Mike Groene of North Platte, who suggested it would be an unnecessary and expensive mandate. "We do not have a problem in rural Nebraska. We take care of our own and I’m proud of that statement. We do. Our villages, our neighbors, our grandparents, our ministers: that’s our village. We take care of each other. We do not need the state to do it for us," Groene said.

Not every rural senator shared that view. One who did not was Sen. Kate Sullivan of Cedar Rapids. "I’m not sure that I am willing to say that we’re a little bit better out in rural Nebraska. That we can take care of our kids better out there. That we have more parental involvement out there," Sullivan said.

In order to get more support for the bill, Sen. Bob Krist of Omaha proposed an amendment restricting the requirement for a lawyer to the state’s three largest counties: Douglas, Sarpy, and Lancaster. That amendment was adopted on a vote of 33-7.

If the bill passes in its current form, that means that juveniles in those three counties would get a lawyer before any court hearing, to explain what will happen in court. In the other 90 counties, they will be told when they show up in court that they have a right to a lawyer, or can waive that right.

Groene cast the proposal as one of taking away parental rights. "You have lost the right to waive counsel. You have lost the right – parental rights -- to say ‘No. We’ll take care of this as a family. And we – as this child has not reached the age of adulthood -- we as parents will decide how this issue is handled in the courts," he said.

But in answer to a question from Sen. Bill Kintner of Papillion, Pansing Brooks said some parents aren’t protecting their children. "If the parent says ‘We need to plead guilty’ and the kid says ‘No, I want to plead not guilty,’ what’s the court do then?" Kintner asked.

"There’s the whole problem," Pansing Brooks responded. "Parents are sick of their kids. They’re saying ‘Forget it, we don’t want to take off work. We don’t care about the fact that you have to plead guilty and this is going to affect your rights to scholarship, your ability to get a job when you’re 18.’ That is the problem, right there," she said.

Pansing Brooks’ bill got second round approval on a voice vote.

Lawmakers also took up second round debate on a proposal to repeal the current prohibition on allowing food stamps or SNAP benefits for people convicted of more than two drug felonies.

Among those supporting repeal was Lincoln Sen. Adam Morfeld. "No one should be denied food, particularly those who have paid their debt to society. And if we’re going to make sure that we’re consistent with our efforts over the last several years to completely reform our criminal justice system… we’re going to make sure that there are minimal services, available in a temporary way to ensure that they’re successful in society," Morfeld said.

The proposal provoked opposition from lawmakers including Sen. Lydia Brasch of Bancroft. "Unless we stop these addictions, identify them, and don’t turn a blind eye to ‘Why I can’t eat is because I have a drug problem,’ the problem will perpetuate. It will be seeming endless. And that’s more cruel in my eyes than to deny them food," Brasch said.

Senators voted 18-16 against an amendment requiring convicted drug felons to be participating in or have completed a drug treatment program or to pass a drug test every six months in order to get food stamps. But supporters of the bill fell short when they attempted to invoke cloture – that is, to shut off debate and vote on the bill itself. That attempt got 28 votes, 5 short of the number needed, killing the bill for this year.

Meanwhile, senators were approaching debate on a proposal to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Addressing a rally of supporters in the Capitol rotunda, Morfeld, the bill’s sponsor, told them not to give up. "Do not leave here without going down to your senator’s office and telling them ‘Stand up for equal rights. That we will not leave. That it can pass this year or it can’t pass this year. But in any case we’ll be back next year. And were going to keep coming back until we get equality for all,’" he said.

Standing nearby, Greg Schleppenbach of the Nebraska Catholic Conference said that group remains strongly opposed to the proposal. "We absolutely believe that everybody has dignity and their dignity should be respected. But to put a special protection in the law for a category of individuals like this goes above and beyond that. And we don’t think that there’s ever been any proof, evidence provided to substantiate the need for a special protected class," Shleppenbach said.

Lawmakers are expected to begin debate on the measure soon.