Bill to make homeless shelters 'drug free' receives House approval
The House approved a bill Tuesday to make homeless shelters 'drug-free zones.' Under House Bill 437, it would be a felony to manufacture, sell or deliver controlled substances in such areas and service providers would be held responsible if they 'intentionally' allow such activities within 100 feet of their properties.
HB 437 was sent to the Senate for its consideration.
Rep. Heather Rhyne (R-Lincoln) said the bill is needed because the state's homeless population is under regular threat from dealers seeking to sell them controlled substances.
'By making homeless shelters drug-free zones, we reduce the opportunity for these criminal elements to further victimize the homeless while holding operators of these facilities accountable,' said Rhyne, a bill cosponsor. 'Providing a safe and secure environment where treatment is provided and the people can get the help they need to become self-dependent is the focus of the bill.'
Rhyne noted that HB 437 also requires signs designating them as drug-free zones. She said shelters needing anonymity such as those serving victims of domestic violence would be allowed to place signs inside front entrances.
The House approved the legislation over the objection of service providers, 140 of which signed a letter opposing the bill. Rep. Julia Greenfield (D-Mecklenburg) shared part of the letter with colleagues.
'As a nurse who was always working in the trenches, I kind of believe it's important to listen to those who are working in the trenches and to take into consideration their concerns,' Greenfield said.
She said service providers support the larger intent of HB 437 to keep drug dealers away from facilities serving people experiencing homelessness. They are concerned, however, that the bill would hold service providers criminally responsible for 'intentionally allowing' drug dealing to takes place within 100 feet of their property.
Greenfield read this passage from the letter: 'This implication that service providers are the enemy in working to keep those we serve safe instead of a partner in an incredibly challenging effort to provide both welcoming and safe space is incredibly hurtful and disappointing. This work carries enough risk without the threat of a felony conviction and jail time, depending on how someone interprets 'intentionally allows.'
Service providers are also concerned about the expenses of possibly having to hire armed security and fencing off property to ensure criminal drug activity doesn't take place.
'If the General Assembly would like to work to protect those we serve, homeless service providers would welcome specialized funding to support the personal and design enhancements to improve safety on our campuses,' the service providers said in the letter to lawmakers.
Rep. Allen Chesser (R-Nash) said service providers' words 'fall flat' because the bill speaks to possession with intent to sell and deliver drugs, not simple possession.
'So, we're not sending the users, the end users to jail with this, we're targeting dealers,' Chesser said.
He said the burden will be on law enforcement officials to prove a facility is 'intentionally allowing' drug sells to take place.
'There's going to be footage. There's going to be investigations,' Chesser said. 'This isn't something that's going to be fly by night. We're trying to protect a very vulnerable population.'
Last week, Dr. Latonya Agard, executive director of the North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness, shared concerns about HB 437 during a rally at the legislature to lobby for affordable housing.
'I think this is unconscionable because it places and unfair burden on those facilities to increase security, to figure out what this means, to reestablish relationships that are trustworthy within the community,' Agard said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi
President Trump's announcement this week of a shortened window of '10 to 12 days' for Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine reflects a continued evolution in his rhetoric. His growing frustration with Moscow and his willingness to speak plainly about Russia's escalation send a signal that many in the U.S. and Europe have been waiting to hear. But while the shift in tone signals growing frustration, it has not translated into action. Russia reads the action as a continued pause in pressure, which it has used to intensify its offensive against Ukrainian homes and hospitals. Russian forces are now making their fastest territorial gains in more than a year, and their attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Swarm tactics using Iranian-designed Shahed drones, now mass-produced and adapted inside Russia with Chinese parts, are overwhelming Ukraine's air defenses at an alarming rate. In just one day last month, Russia launched 728 drones, decoys and missiles in a single coordinated wave. Ukrainian interceptors and radar crews are doing heroic work, but they are stretched to the limit. The U.S. has tools at its disposal that remain unused. For months, a bipartisan sanctions bill, co-authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and backed by 85 senators, a veto-proof majority, has been ready to move. The legislation would impose steep secondary tariffs on countries like China, India and Brazil that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, and would significantly raise the cost of doing business with Moscow. But in July, Senate leadership pulled the bill from consideration after President Trump suggested he would act if Russia failed to move toward peace within 50 days. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would 'hold off' on advancing the bill, signaling that Congress would defer to Trump's timeline. House leaders followed suit. That decision was a mistake. While it is encouraging to see President Trump express increasing resolve, deferring congressional action in the hope that Putin will suddenly negotiate has only given Moscow more time and space to escalate. Every week of delay is a missed opportunity to tighten the financial pressure on Putin's war machine. And the clock is not just ticking in Ukraine. The broader contest involves China, too. Beijing's role in this war has become increasingly visible. Chinese companies are supplying entire weapons systems, not just components. Chinese-made drones and decoys are helping Russia saturate Ukrainian airspace. Chinese officials have even welcomed delegations from occupied Ukrainian territories and continue to sell heavy machinery to companies operating there. European officials report that China's foreign minister recently told the EU that Beijing does not want Russia to lose the war and fears that a Russian defeat would allow the U.S. to focus more squarely on Asia. Ukraine has responded accordingly. In early July, Kyiv arrested two Chinese nationals on espionage charges after they allegedly attempted to steal information about Ukraine's Neptune missile program. Days earlier, President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions on five Chinese firms accused of supporting the Russian war effort. These are not symbolic gestures, they are signs that Ukraine is increasingly realistic about the stakes and about China's alignment with Moscow. Support for Ukraine is not a distraction from U.S. competition with China. It is a critical part of it. Weakening Putin's military capacity weakens a key pillar of China's global strategy. And allowing Russia to continue its aggression without consequence would embolden Beijing's worst instincts from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea. To its credit, the Trump administration has begun voicing stronger concerns about Beijing's role. In the recently concluded round of trade talks, senior U.S. officials reportedly raised objections to China's purchase of sanctioned Russian oil and its sale of more than $15 billion worth of dual-use technology to Moscow. These are important warnings — but without follow-through, they risk being absorbed into the pattern of delay that Moscow and Beijing are already exploiting. The Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill should move forward. It represents the most serious effort yet to impose real costs not only on Russia, but on the network of countries (especially China) helping it survive sanctions. It complements, rather than competes with, the administration's efforts to pressure Moscow. And it sends a message that the U.S. is serious about backing up its warnings with action. Countdowns can be useful. They create urgency. But urgency without follow-through is no substitute for strategy. What matters now is not how many days remain on the clock, but whether we are using each one to act. Jane Harman is a former nine-term congresswoman from California and former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who most recently served as chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. She is the author of 'Insanity Defense: Why Our Failure to Confront Hard National Security Problems Makes Us Less Safe.'
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Texas state House panel advances gerrymandered congressional map
Advertisement But in the end, Republicans on the committee voted to deliver the map that had been called for by President Donald Trump, who said last month that he hoped to get five more Republicans in the House. Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas' 38 congressional seats. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Todd Hunter, a Republican state representative of Corpus Christi who sponsored the legislation for the map, said the new lines had been drawn 'for partisan purposes,' not based on race, and that the resulting map was 'completely transparent, and it's lawful.' The map now must be considered in a committee on calendars, which was set to meet Sunday. A first vote by the full Texas House could come as early as Monday or Tuesday. The state Senate must also approve the new map, or propose its own. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has indicated support for redistricting, though he has not commented on the new map, which he can sign into law or veto. Advertisement Texas Democrats could prevent the House from approving the map by failing to show up, denying the quorum needed for any legislative action. But doing so comes with political and practical risks: Republican leaders in the Texas House fast-tracked the redistricting legislation before introducing any bills responding to the deadly floods in the Texas Hill Country -- putting Democrats in the position of potentially walking out on legislation that addresses needs caused by the flooding. And the Texas House adopted rules that call for fines of $500 per day for any member who is absent without approval, a measure adopted after Democratic members broke quorum during a 2021 legislative fight over voting and redistricting. Nationally, Republicans have looked at redistricting in Texas -- and potentially in other states where the party has control of the government, such as Missouri and Indiana -- as a means to preserve a slim Republican majority in the U.S. House after next year's midterm elections, which have historically gone against the party holding the presidency. In response, Democratic leaders in California, Illinois and New York have said they were considering redrawing their states' maps to create additional seats for Democrats to win, and offset any Republican gains in Texas. Last month, Democratic members of the Texas House traveled to California and Illinois to meet with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov. JB Pritzker and discuss those possibilities. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Saturday that his party was ready to fight this change. 'If Republicans want a showdown, the DNC, Texas Democrats and Democrats across the country have one thing to say: We will give you a showdown,' he said. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Texas pushes redistricting into an era of ‘maximum warfare'
'The Texas Republicans are taking us on a race to the bottom,' said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who lamented in an interview that his party must reluctantly participate in 'this rotten system.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Voters are the immediate casualty in this escalating arms race, reduced almost to bystanders as Republicans essentially admit to trying to determine the outcome of Texas races long before elections are held. Advertisement The result is a democracy determined less by public opinion than by raw political might. Trump has pressed Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and Republican state legislators to redraw their lines, with a draft map released Wednesday that all but erased three urban Democratic seats and forced two other incumbents in South Texas into more Republican terrain. The special legislative session Abbott called lasts until late August, but votes could come in the coming week. Advertisement And Texas could be just the beginning. Trump and his allies are pressing other states to follow suit and remake their maps with more Republican seats. States under complete GOP control that could be targeted for redistricting include Missouri, Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire and Ohio. 'We're going to get another three or four or five, in addition,' Trump told reporters recently of new Republican House seats. 'Texas would be the biggest one, and that'll be five.' The gerrymandering is deeply consequential at a time when a single House race can cost tens of millions of dollars. Republicans won control of the House in 2024 by only three seats, a margin the remapping in Texas alone would more than double. One person close to the president, who insisted on anonymity to describe the White House's political strategy candidly, summed it up succinctly: 'Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.' The redistricting push is only one element. Trump has targeted Democratic law firms with executive actions. He has threatened prosecutions of and ordered investigations into his political enemies, while the Justice Department has dropped lawsuits aimed at protecting voting rights. And his congressional allies are investigating ActBlue, the organization that processes an overwhelming share of online donations for Democrats. When it comes to redistricting, Democrats are threatening to fight back. Democratic legislators in Texas are contemplating a potential walkout to deny Republicans the quorum they need to pass the new maps. Lawsuits are being readied. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House Democratic leader, traveled to Texas on Thursday to rally opposition to what he called a 'scheme to rig the midterm elections,' and said all options were on the table. Advertisement Democratic governors in several states, including California and New York, are contemplating rewriting laws or amending state constitutions to remake their maps in response to what is happening in Texas. 'California's moral high ground means nothing if we're powerless because of it,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said after meeting with Texas Democrats who traveled to Sacramento in late July. Newsom is proposing that the Legislature put new maps up for a public vote in a special referendum this fall, without ripping up the state's independent mapmaking commission for 2030. His plan is far along enough that polling is being conducted to see how such a measure would fare. Eric Holder, who was attorney general in the Obama administration, has been a vocal opponent of gerrymandering for years as chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, pressing blue states to adopt nonpartisan commissions and fighting red state gerrymanders. But after Texas put out its maps this past week, Holder had a change of heart, calling for a 'temporary' embrace of gerrymandering to thwart Trump. He said he came to this new position after consulting other party leaders, including former President Barack Obama. A failure to respond in kind to GOP gerrymandering, Holder said, could leave Trump with 'unchecked power' in the last two years of his term, with potentially disastrous results. 'It's like the Germans have invaded France,' Holder said. 'Are you going to just say, 'Well, we're against war and we're for the resolution of disputes in a peaceful way'? Sometimes you have to take up arms.' Others reached that point long ago. Marc Elias, one of the Democratic Party's most prominent lawyers, welcomed any converts to his brand of brass-knuckle politics. Advertisement 'I do not believe, when it comes to elections, that Democrats should ever engage in any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith,' Elias said in an interview. Lines are typically redrawn once a decade after the census. Gerrymanders in the middle of a decade have been exceedingly rare, and seen as a nuclear option. But the precision that sophisticated software now grants to map-drawing reduces the chances that new lines backfire on the party in control. Trump would have carried every new Republican-leaning seat carved out in the new maps by nearly 60% in 2024. And no existing Republican-leaning districts were watered down beyond that 60% threshold. Raskin called the modern targeting technology a 'computer-assisted system' for cheating -- 'where the minority power gets gerrymandered into oblivion.' 'Redistricting is going from, like, a decennial bare-knuckle rugby match to an every-other-year 'Hunger Games,'' he said. Democrats have certainly benefited from partisan gerrymanders before. In Nevada, Democrats won three of the state's four congressional seats last year even as Trump carried the state. The Democratic-drawn map in Illinois gives the party 14 House seats, and Republicans three, though Trump won more than 43% of the vote there last year. Today, Republicans are racing to consider even more audacious gambits. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has talked about giving fast-growing red states like his additional seats in Congress in the middle of the decade with a census 'redo,' a political and practical long shot that is legally dubious. 'If Texas can do it, the Free State of Florida can do it 10X better,' Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla., wrote on the social platform X. In a statement, Patronis said booming population growth made new lines 'only fair.' Advertisement In his first term, Trump tried but failed to exclude people living in the United States illegally from the census, which determines the apportionment of congressional seats. Now, a close ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has announced legislation that would order such a citizens-only census -- and would force districts to be redrawn everywhere. The accelerating use of the most no-holds-barred tactics risks undoing decades of efforts to rein in the most egregious, explicitly partisan gerrymandering -- reforms that were often spurred by voters themselves. After the 2020 census, the maps in four states -- California, Michigan, Colorado and Arizona -- were redrawn by independent commissions enacted by referendums. All four now are led by Democratic governors who face pressure to undo those reforms. And the willingness to battle Republicans is a key factor in who emerges as a presidential contender in 2028. Other experts worry about the warfare spilling over into statehouses. While gerrymanders by red and blue states might roughly offset each other, no such safeguard exists in state legislatures, where the majority parties in many states have created permanent minorities in lower chambers. 'That backsliding would be terrible for progress at a local level,' warned Sam Wang, a professor at Princeton University who leads the school's Gerrymandering Project. Historians have warned that both parties risk broader unrest if they gerrymander vast sections of the country so effectively that they neuter opposition at the ballot box, leaving voters without a real choice. Yet politicians sometimes openly acknowledge that this is their aim. As Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, chair of the House Republican campaign arm, put it recently on CNN: 'Any seats that we gain before Election Day would be nice.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in
