Legislative recap for Thursday, June 12
Thursday saw several major issues come to the floor, with the Maine Senate and House of Representatives taking up more than a dozen gun bills. Additionally, the Senate voted on two bills related to transgender rights, arguably the most contentious topic this session, while the chambers backed proposals to increase taxes on corporations and top earners.
With papers frantically shuffling between chambers this week ahead of the planned June 18 adjournment, Maine Morning Star will highlight the biggest items of debate as well as legislation and issues that we've followed all session.
Here's an overview of what else happened Thursday.
After the House voted 76-71 on Thursday, both chambers have now backed a measure (LD 913) that would prohibit ticket sellers from banning the transfer of tickets to third parties.
The Senate on Thursday followed the House in backing LD 172, which would require the Maine State Police to create a statewide list of missing persons and study improvements for investigating those cases, but then moved to table the measure. (Read more about this issue here).
With the Senate voting 19-16, the majority of both chambers support a proposal (LD 648) to expand the state's supervised community confinement program for incarcerated people who committed offenses before they were 26 years old.
The Senate on Thursday insisted on its support of a proposal (LD 1200), rejected by the House Wednesday, that would prohibit the sale of items intended to be used to inhale nitrous oxide for recreational use.
Voting without a roll call, the Senate passed legislation (LD 1955) that establishes several new programs to help support and incentivize people to become early childhood educators and providers. It also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a plan for the long-term sustainability of the Maine Child Care Affordability Program. Introducing her bill, Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland) said it is about 'supporting the workforce behind our workforce.'
The Senate voted 20-15 on legislation that would establish a moratorium on the sale of mobile home parks. During debate, Sen. Chip Curry (D-Waldo) explained the pause would allow some of the other bills that passed protecting mobile home owners to take effect.
An emergency bill (LD 1986) from the governor to fund collective bargaining agreements for judicial branch employees passed the Senate, with members agreeing to skip the committee process to advance the legislation.
The Senate voted without a roll call to back a plan (LD 1669) to establish the Cannabis Advisory Council, to make recommendations to the head of the state Office of Cannabis Policy, as well the Legislature, on matters related to the industry and policy.
Legislation (LD 1164 ) that would give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate internet gaming in Maine passed the House 85-59. During debate, Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana said the bill offers hope and opportunity not just for tribal communities but for rural Maine. He added that it's ultimately about long-overdue economic inclusion. (Read more about this issue here).
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Congress Won't Block State AI Regulations. Here's What That Means for Consumers
After months of debate, a plan in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence was pulled from the big federal budget bill this week. The proposed 10-year moratorium would have prevented states from enforcing rules and laws on AI if the state accepted federal funding for broadband access. The issue exposed divides among technology experts and politicians, with some Senate Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the move. The Senate eventually voted 99-1 to remove the proposal from the bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. Congressional Republican leaders have said they want to have the measure on President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Tech companies and many Congressional Republicans supported the moratorium, saying it would prevent a "patchwork" of rules and regulations across states and local governments that could hinder the development of AI -- especially in the context of competition with China. Critics, including consumer advocates, said states should have a free hand to protect people from potential issues with the fast-growing technology. "The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on artificial intelligence that accelerates US leadership in AI while still protecting consumers." Despite the moratorium being pulled from this bill, the debate over how the government can appropriately balance consumer protection and supporting technology innovation will likely continue. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." Several states have already started regulating AI The proposed moratorium would have barred states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring. "States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI," said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for IAPP. "There isn't really any enforcement yet." A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. "The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems," he said. What a moratorium on state AI regulation would mean AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, "It's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it "far too blunt an instrument," saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. "Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed." A proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI laws is now in the hands of the US Senate, where its Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has already held hearings on artificial intelligence. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the "deployers" who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users. A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. "Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues," he said. Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said. Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. "It's worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don't trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems," he said. What's next for federal AI regulation? One of the key lawmakers pushing for the removal of the moratorium from the bill was Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. Blackburn said she wanted to make sure states were able to protect children and creators, like the country musicians her state is famous for. "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm -- including Tennessee creators and precious children," she said in a statement. Groups that opposed the preemption of state laws said they hope the next move for Congress is to take steps toward actual regulation of AI, which could make state laws unnecessary. If tech companies "are going to seek federal preemption, they should seek federal preemption along with a federal law that provides rules of the road," Jason Van Beek, chief government affairs officer at the Future of Life Institute, told me. Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said Congress could take up the idea of pre-empting state laws again in separate legislation. "Fundamentally, it's just a bad idea," he told me. "It doesn't really necessarily matter if it's done in the budget process."
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Why the best Independence Day present would be more US citizens
You wouldn't have known it from the Democratic mayoral primary — dominated by promises of free stuff and anti-ICE grandstanding — but New York keeps driving residents away. Only Andrew Cuomo, in passing at a Queens rally, mentioned that from 2023 to 2024 Gotham lost 327,000 residents, per a May 15 Census report. That 3.7% drop was the largest hemorrhage of any big city in the country. It might make sense to stop the trend by doing something about high taxes and subway crime — but progressives are actually panicked about something else: a looming loss of still more Empire State seats in Congress, as determined by population count. Their solution isn't to hold on to high-earning taxpayers fleeing to Florida. Instead, they want to make sure residents not even eligible to vote — non-citizens, including illegal immigrants — aren't so afraid of ICE that they don't respond to Census surveys and don't get counted. Advertisement 5 Protestors in the Bronx holding signs that read 'I heart immigrant NY.' Getty Images They're particularly concerned about House legislation that would require the Census to ask about citizenship status. The New York Times, in what amounted to a recruiting campaign for their cause, reported on the efforts of 'a coalition of elected officials, community activists, and labor and civic leaders in New York City' that is 'already stirring ahead of the next census in 2030 amid a brewing battle over whether to include noncitizens in the population count.' Advertisement Their concern: 'threats from the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress to exclude noncitizens, which could lead to a significant undercount of the city's population.' Lower East Side Council member Julie Menon, who in April keynoted a New York Law School conference kicking off the effort, has filed a bill to establish a City Office of the Census 'tasked with maximizing local participation in the federal decennial census.' 5 House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters about the U.S. bombing of three sites in Iran, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, June 23, 2025. AP This Fourth of July weekend suggests a better approach: A campaign to encourage legal immigrants to be counted by becoming citizens. There's a reason liberals don't mention that. Advertisement Dems are not trying to help residents vote, but merely to buoy the city's population to protect their congressional seats, including those of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In both of their districts, voter totals are abysmally low — because so many non-citizen residents can't vote. They represent a new version of what England used to call 'rotten boroughs,' districts guaranteed representation despite low population. All 435 congressional districts are required to have an equal number of residents — about 740,000. But they don't have to have an equal number of eligible voters. That means that districts with high numbers of immigrants — legal and illegal — are likely to have low voter rolls. In Jeffries's Brooklyn district, there are 267,000 foreign-born residents. Advertisement 5 A recent Census Bureau report revealed that New York City lost more residents than any other big US metro between 2023 and 2024. There's no way to know how many are citizens, but we do know that Jeffries was elected in 2024 with just 168,000 votes. Ocasio-Cortez needed 132,000 in 2024 — in a district where 300,000 residents are immigrants. In contrast, House Speaker Mike Johnson received 262,000 ballots just to win his primary election, in a district with just 22,000 immigrants It's a great deal for Democrats; they can safely ignore the views (in AOC's case) of 40% of her district. Who knows whether Hispanic immigrants are on board with democratic socialism? She doesn't have to care. 5 Dems like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are not trying to help residents vote, but merely to buoy the city's population to protect their congressional seats, Howard Husock writes. LP Media If progressives want to do something constructive to make sure residents won't be concerned about being asked about their citizenship status — and be counted in the Census — there's an obvious (and positive) approach: encourage citizenship. There are, per the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs, some 3.1 million immigrants in New York City. There's no way to know how many have become naturalized citizens—but there's no mystery about how to become one: those who have been legally in the US for at least five years need only pass a citizenship test. Common sense Democrats might actually want to encourage that approach. Doing so means learning enough English to read the questions. (The test is only offered in English.) That would help immigrants advance economically, too. Advertisement 5 Pres. Trump — here at the 2025 SOTU address — has threatened to disallow illegal migrants from being counted in future census polls. Getty Images The test, it's worth noting, consists of just 10 questions — but they're chosen among 100 possibilities, and cover US government and history. For July 4, let's make it possible for immigrants to have a real voice in government — by becoming citizens and voting. Howard Husock is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Tax-dodging Congressman Charles Rangel left puny estate: records
Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel — infamously known for pocketing rental income from his Caribbean cottage without disclosing it — has apparently left behind a modest estate, court records show. Rangel, who died May 26 at age 94, had assets worth only $300,000, according to Manhattan Surrogate Court filings. That is far less than his net worth of more than $1.7 million upon his retirement from Congress in 2017, as reported by the watchdog group Open Secrets. Advertisement 3 Congressman Charles Rangel died in May at age 94. Getty Images The current assets of the once-powerful chair of the House's Ways and Means Committee were not detailed in court filings. His daughter, Alicia Rangel-Haughton, was named executor of the Democrat's estate. Advertisement The late representative's property is to be placed in the Charles Bernard Rangel Revocable Trust, the assets of which were not disclosed in a will signed March 31, just nine weeks before his death at Harlem Hospital. 3 Alicia Rangel-Haughton will serve as executor of her father's estate, court records show. REUTERS Rangels' financial misbehavior and other ethical questions dogged him throughout his decades-long career, long before The Post outed his business dealings in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. He was criticized right from the start of his career when, in the 1960s, he took a low-interest loan from a New York City program meant to help the poor and used it to renovate his family's Central Harlem home, turning the property into rental apartments — one of which he used for himself. Advertisement Decades later, Rangel was caught using four rent-stabilized apartments in Lenox Terrace for himself, including one he used as a campaign office. 3 Rangel, seen here in 2010 leaving his Harlem home, was thought to be worth more than $1 million when he retired from Congress in 2017. Ben Parker for NY Post He parked his vintage Mercedes for free in a House of Representatives garage; was questioned for his participation in junkets to the Caribbean sponsored by corporations and lobbyists in violation of House rules, and eventually copped to omitting as much as $780,000 in assets from financial disclosures he filed in the 2000s. He was also slammed for using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, a move which broke House ethics rules. Advertisement A week after The Post's 2008 exposé revealed Rangel's ownership of the three-bedroom, three-bath casita No. 412 at a beachfront resort in Punta Cana — which he rented out for between $500 and $1,100 a night — he confessed he'd failed to disclose rental income from the property. Rangel failed to declare $75,000 in income from the sun-drenched property, he eventually admitted. He unloaded the villa in 2010 and made a handsome profit. In December 2010, Rangel's financial misdeeds earned him a censure from his Congressional colleagues. He retired from Congress in 2017.
