State Senate discrimination ordinance bill threatens local control for W.Va. cities
'This bill addressing discrimination ordinances is one example of local control being targeted by legislation, whether that's the intention of the legislation or not,' City Manager Travis Blosser said. 'It's hard to justify passing a one-size-fits-all, statewide bill when municipalities and their residents have already spoken their minds through local processes.'
Senate Bill 579 prohibits municipalities participating in the home rule program from establishing nondiscrimination ordinances that include additional protected class beyond what state law already covers. It also opens the door to LGBTQ+ conversion therapy in municipalities that have banned the practice. State Sen. Brian Helton, R-09, is lead sponsor on the bill, which now sits in the House of Representatives, where it waits for discussion.
Helton argued during floor debate that a patchwork of varying local ordinances creates uncertainty for individuals and businesses. He said centralizing anti-discrimination laws in the state would allow for more efficient and consistent enforcement through dedicated agencies like the Human Rights Commission of West Virginia. He singled out Morgantown's ban on conversion therapy as well, arguing the ordinance threatens the licenses of mental health and medical professionals who offer the practice and framed the issue from the standpoint of parental rights.
'By moving forward and allowing these ordinances to continue, not only are we creating tons of overreach into lots of areas of our state government,' Helton said. 'We're conflicting with our business community. We're not providing a clear framework of legal issues when we deal with anti-discrimination laws.'
Helton also said the bill would remove any local ordinances that contradict President Donald Trump's national agenda.
Under Article 175 of Fairmont City Code, the city includes a declaration of Civil Rights for gender identity. The article also establishes the Human Rights Commission. City code tasks the commission with working to bring about mutual understanding and respect among all people, and safeguard the rights of all people to be free from all forms of discrimination. The Fairmont Human Rights Commission has no ability to pass ordinances of its own, but can only recommend policies to City Council, which not only can choose if it wants to bring them to a vote, but also if it will adopt a recommendation or not.
The city also requires its contractors to execute a non-discrimination in the workplace affidavit, which includes protections for gender identity. The city also has rules protecting its employees from discrimination, gender identity included. A cursory review of city code related to discrimination reveals no ordinances intruding on decisions between parents and doctors, nor any penalties for practicing conversion therapy in Fairmont. The Human Rights Commission has no enforcement power, and City Ordinances regarding discrimination only apply to City Employees, not private business. The state Human Rights Commission has enforcement power, but does not list gender identity as a protected group. In Morgantown, the ordinance in question doesn't mention penalties such as losing a medical license for practicing conversion therapy.
Within the professional mental health field, conversion therapy is discredited. The National Alliance on Mental Illness states no one should be subject to practices that can cause or worsen mental health symptoms and supports banning conversion therapy. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry finds no evidence to support conversion therapy. Stanford Medicine found conversion practices are linked to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.
Both of Marion County's state senators voted against the bill. Sen. Mike Oliverio, R-Morgantown, argued the residents of Fairmont and Morgantown engaged in the public process to pass the ordinances SB 579 targets.
'I think about the actions of those city council members who conducted committee meetings of the whole, public hearings, readings, votes,' Oliverio said. 'Where they solicited the input from their constituents, who are my constituents as well, and reached the conclusion that the right thing to do was adopt these ordinances and resolutions.'
Oliverio added he doesn't always agree with the actions of Morgantown, but that he respects their ability to take those actions.
Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Fairmont, questioned Helton on his premises. Garcia pointed out local ordinances already can't supercede state law. He also said the legislature was trying to cast diversity, equity and inclusion as dirty words forbidden from the public tongue. He also pointed out the legislature has been in the habit of passing laws for situations that simply don't happen.
'When these ordinances are passed, people come and say, we want these protections,' Garcia said. 'That is legitimate.'
Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke County, was one of several Republicans who also spoke out against the bill. He had a singular word for it.
'This is dumb,' he said. He pointed out with all the problems the state has, with foster care, child protective services, educational outcomes and others, this is what the legislature is focusing on.
'Why is it dumb?' Weld said. 'Where is the problem that we're trying to address? I haven't heard of any.'
Blosser said Fairmont has a robust process for petitioning against an ordinance and sending contentious matters to the ballot. The Human Rights Commission had to go through that process to be established.
'In the end, Fairmont voted, and the HRC was established,' Blosser said. 'We have to be wary of that kind of local control taking a back seat.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Policy Bill Could Put the U.S. Further Behind China
We are covering the breaking news of the Senate's passage of President Trump's sprawling policy bill today. As Maxine Joselow and Brad Plumer report, Republicans voted to dismantle many of the lucrative tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and other green technologies contained in President Biden's 2022 signature climate law. The Senate's vote represents a failure of Democrats' attempts to give the law staying power, even as the law directed billions to Republican-led districts. Read more. In an article we published yesterday, Somini Sengupta, Brad Plumer, Keith Bradsher and I took a deep dive into the stunning divergence between the U.S. and China's energy strategies. Put simply, China has taken an enormous lead in clean energy and is extending that lead by the month. In May, for example, solar panels in China generated as much energy as one-third of all American power generation, combined. The U.S., meanwhile, under President Trump's 'energy dominance' agenda, is turning its back on renewables and doubling down on fossil fuels like gas, oil and coal. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Senate GOP removes tax on solar and wind energy but dismantles climate law passed by Democrats
WASHINGTON (AP) — The sprawling Republican budget bill approved by the Senate Tuesday removes a proposed tax on solar and wind energy projects but quickly phases out tax credits for wind, solar and other renewable energy. The Senate approved the bill 51-50 as President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers move to dismantle the 2022 climate law passed by Democrats under former President Joe Biden. Vice President JD Vance broke a tie after three Republican senators voted no. The bill now moves to the House for final legislative approval. The excise tax on solar and wind generation projects was added to the Senate bill over the weekend, prompting bipartisan pushback from lawmakers as well as clean energy developers and advocates. The final bill removes the tax but mostly sticks with legislative language released late Friday night and would end incentives for clean energy sooner than a draft version unveiled two weeks ago. Some warn of spike in utility bills Democrats and environmental groups said the GOP plan would crush growth in the wind and solar industry and lead to a spike in Americans' utility bills. The measure jeopardizes hundreds of renewable energy projects slated to boost the nation's electric grid, they said. 'Despite limited improvements, this legislation undermines the very foundation of America's manufacturing comeback and global energy leadership,' said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. If the bill becomes law, 'families will face higher electric bills, factories will shut down, Americans will lose their jobs, and our electric grid will grow weaker,'' she said. The American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, applauded the bill's passage. 'This historic legislation will help usher in a new era of energy dominance by unlocking opportunities for investment, opening lease sales and expanding access to oil and natural gas development,'' said Mike Sommers, the group's president and CEO. While Democrats complained that the bill would make it harder to get renewable energy to the electric grid, Republicans said the measure represents historic savings for taxpayers and supports production of traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas and coal, as well as nuclear power, increasing reliability. In a compromise approved overnight, the bill allows wind and solar projects that begin construction within a year of the law's enactment to get a full tax credit without a deadline for when the projects are 'placed in service,'' or plugged into the grid. Wind and solar projects that begin later must be placed in service by the end of 2027 to get a credit. The bill retains incentives for technologies such as advanced nuclear, geothermal and hydropower through 2032. Changes to the renewable energy language — including removal of the excise tax on wind and solar — were negotiated by a group of Republican senators, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Iowa Sens. Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley. Iowa is a top producer of wind power, while Murkowski is a longtime supporter of renewable energy as crucial for achieving energy independence, particularly for isolated rural communities in Alaska. Murkowski, who voted in favor of the final bill, called her decision-making process 'agonizing.' 'I had to look on balance, because the people in my state are the ones that I put first,' she told reporters after Tuesday's vote. 'We do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination.' GOP bill said to be 'massively destructive' Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the bill a 'massively destructive piece of legislation' that 'increases costs for everyone by walloping the health care system, making families go hungry and sending utility bills through the roof.' The bill 'saddles our children and grandchildren with trillions and trillions of dollars in debt — all to serve giant corporations, fossil fuel polluters and billionaire Republican megadonors who are already among the richest people on the planet,' Whitehouse said. Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, a Republican and former chairman of the Senate Energy panel, hailed the bill for rescinding many elements of what he called the Biden administration's 'green new scam,' including electric vehicle tax credits that have allowed car owners to lower the purchase price of EVs by $7,500. The bill also blocks a first-ever fee on excess methane emissions from oil and gas production that industry groups fiercely opposed, increases oil and gas leases on public lands and revives coal leasing in Wyoming and other states. 'Today, the Senate moved President Trump's agenda forward,'' said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican who chairs the Senate environment committee. Clean energy advocates were deeply disappointed by the bill, which they argue undoes much of the 2022 climate law approved by Democrats. 'By eliminating a number of clean energy incentives and slashing others, this bill represents a significant step backward for America's energy future,' said Nathaniel Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit that seeks to accelerate the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. ___ Associated Press writer Alexa St. John in Detroit contributed to this story.
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Senate's $40,000 SALT Deduction Signals Tax Relief For Homeowners
Hands count dollars to buy a new house The Senate has narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by a 50-50 vote, with Vice President Vance breaking the tie. The bill now moves to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences. However, one expected difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill —the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction — appears to have already been rectified. While the SALT deduction can be used for any state and local income taxes paid, the taxes paid on a home tend to be among the largest for taxpayers, suggesting this higher cap will be a welcome relief for home owners. This article discusses the SALT deduction and what this reconciliation means, assuming the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is ultimately signed into law. SALT Deductions Before The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017 Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the SALT deduction allowed taxpayers to claim unlimited itemized deductions for taxes paid to state and local governments. For instance, if the taxpayer paid $20,000 in taxes on their home during the year, they could then deduct the $20,000 from their income, thereby lowering their tax liability. Many taxpayers were limited on how much they could actually deduct due to complex alternative minimum tax rules that existed before 2017, as outlined by the Tax Foundation. However, the benefits were still very much present. SALT Deductions After The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 modified Section 164 of the Internal Revenue Code in two key ways, limiting the financial benefit of the SALT deduction. First, it capped the deduction at $10,000. This limit means that whether the taxpayer paid $10,000 or $100,000 in SALT, the deduction the taxpayer could take would only be $10,000. Second, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the standard deduction from $13,000 in 2016 for married taxpayers to $24,000 in 2017. The combination of taxpayers having lower SALT deductions and a higher standard deduction resulted in far fewer taxpayers itemizing their taxes and utilizing the SALT deduction to their advantage. To illustrate the impacts, consider two different married taxpayers. The first has $15,000 in SALT paid and no other itemized deductions. For this taxpayer, the onset of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act represented a significant win, as they went from having $15,000 in itemized deductions to a $24,000 standard deduction. Assuming the taxpayer was at the 32% tax bracket, the extra $9,000 in deductions increased their after-tax income by $2,880. Now consider the second taxpayer, who has $50,000 in SALT deductions before 2017. If these deductions were now capped at $10,000 and they had no other itemized deductions, they would go from $50,000 in deductions to a $24,000 standard deduction. Assuming the same 32% tax bracket, the $26,000 in lost deductions increased their tax liability by $8,320. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act And A Larger SALT Tax Deduction A key issue with the $10,000 SALT deduction cap was that it asymmetrically impacted taxpayers in higher-cost-of-living locations versus others. For instance, consider a taxpayer in New York City, which has some of the most expensive real estate in the world. That taxpayer is paying more in taxes on their home than a taxpayer in other major cities (such as Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia), medium-sized cities (like Charlotte, Kansas City, and Denver), or even more rural areas for a similarly sized home. However, they all have the same cap on their SALT deductions. This notion has led many members of Congress to request that the SALT deduction cap be increased in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As I previously reported in Forbes, the House included a $40,000 deduction cap in its version of the bill, and this cap would increase annually to help offset the rising costs. However, the Senate introduced a version of the bill that would maintain a cap of $10,000. As I reported in a separate Forbesarticle, this was going to be a big sticking point during the Joint Conference Committee as the two sides appeared to be at odds with one another. However, in a surprising turn, the difference is no longer present. In the Senate's passage of the bill, they have agreed to raise the SALT deduction cap to $40,000, as reported by CNBC. Their version of the bill also allows for an annual increase in the deduction. Both versions also agree that the cap would begin to phase out among taxpayers who earn over $500,000 in income, meaning that ultrahigh earners would still be able to deduct only $10,000. In considering the two taxpayers from earlier, the first (which had $50,000 in SALT paid) would now be able to itemize their taxes again, utilizing the higher SALT deduction limit. The second (which had $15,000 in SALT paid) would continue benefiting from the higher standard deduction. Two Key Differences On The SALT Deduction To Be Resolved While it appears as though the two versions have converged, there are two key differences: (1) Expiration Date The Senate's version increases the SALT deduction cap for the years 2025 through 2028. In 2029 it will revert back to $10,000, at which time, Congress will need to decide to reenact the higher tax deduction. The House's version would extend several additional years through 2033. (2) Alternative Minimum Tax Rules The House's version of the bill includes provisions to limit tax deductions for ultrahigh earners, often referred to as the alternative minimum tax. The Senate version has a more taxpayer-friendly alternative minimum tax. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that this difference makes the Senate version of the bill 67% more taxpayer-friendly than the House version, as the Senate version will result in $325 billion in additional tax outflows for the Federal government. In contrast, the House version will only result in $200 billion in additional tax outflows. While these differences can and will be addressed in the Joint Conference Committee, it is essential to note that the primary details appear to have been resolved. As the US taxpayers look forward to the prospects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act being signed into law on the 4th of July, the most recent revelation and agreement between the two chambers of Congress should be a welcome sign for homeowners seeking to make better use of their SALT deductions this coming tax season.
