fbpx
Connect with us

Mississippi Today

McDaniel blasts Hosemann as too liberal, weighs Lt. Gov. run

Published

on

McDaniel blasts Hosemann as too liberal, weighs Lt. Gov. run

Longtime Sen. Chris McDaniel, once the standard bearer for tea party conservatives in Mississippi who made two unsuccessful U.S. Senate runs, is pondering a of incumbent Republican Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann next year.

McDaniel says Hosemann isn't conservative enough for Mississippi.

“My official answer is, all the cards are on the table and all the options are available and there's time to decide,” McDaniel said when questioned about a for lieutenant governor. “… (Hosemann) is not one of us, and that's causing a tremendous amount of frustrated conservatives.”

Advertisement

McDaniel called Hosemann, “the best thing that's happened to Democrats in this state in a generation.”

“… I will be running some type of race one way or the other in 2023, so I have been fundraising, and traveling the state meeting people who share conservative values … Mississippi deserves fighters in the mold of DeSantis and in the mold of Trump. We are a very red state and we should behave like we are a red state.”

Hosemann through a spokesperson declined comment on McDaniel's brickbats or potential run.

Unseating a popular and well-known Republican like Hosemann would be a tough task in Mississippi, where majority party incumbency typically wins the day. But McDaniel, although he fell short in his U.S. Senate races in 2014 and 2018, should not be taken lightly as a challenger, said Austin Barbour, a longtime state and national GOP strategist.

Advertisement

“I think in the political environment in this country right now, to a certain degree all incumbents have vulnerability,” Barbour said. “If you don't believe me, go ask (U.S. Rep.) Michael Guest, who got the scare of his life this year in a Republican primary.

“I think if Chris McDaniel runs for lieutenant governor, he has to be taken seriously,” Barbour said. “… He's got hundreds of thousands of followers on social media, and people like me who do campaigns know how valuable an asset a social media presence like Chris McDaniel's is.”

But Barbour said Hosemann maintains “presence and popularity” and McDaniel would have to “expand outside of his base to pull off a victory like this.” He said he isn't aware of widespread complaints about Hosemann's conservative bona fides.

“Delbert Hosemann is very well liked,” Barbour said. “He has popularity, widespread name recognition, a large war chest and a conservative record of what he's done in office, and the career he's had outside of … Delbert Hosemann is a conservative, but it's not a surprise that a potential challenger would try to get to the right of the incumbent.”

Advertisement

Hosemann has clashed with fellow Republican leaders on some issues, such as elimination of the state income tax, and by being at least open to discussion of expansion of Medicaid to the working poor.

Republican House Speaker Philip Gunn last year championed elimination of the state personal income tax, with from Gov. Tate Reeves. But Hosemann called for a more moderate approach. The final compromise reached by the GOP supermajority still amounts to the largest tax cuts in state history.

For his part, McDaniel has frequently clashed with the state's Republican leadership. He found himself at odds with the GOP establishment when he challenged longtime U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran in 2014, and when he challenged Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in 2018.

McDaniel was also a political foe of Gov. Tate Reeves during Reeves' two terms as lieutenant governor, at the time often claiming — as he does now with Hosemann — that Reeves was not conservative enough when he ran the state Senate.

Advertisement

But McDaniel appears to have mended fences with Reeves, who as governor now is de facto head of the state GOP and who himself has been critical of Hosemann and questioned his conservativeness. Should he run McDaniel might not be quite the state GOP outsider he's been in the past.

“I consider Tate to be a friend, and I have many, many friends in his circle,” McDaniel said. “I have to take responsibility for some of that tension we had in the past. He and I have very different personalities, and I think that we both perhaps rubbed each other the wrong way. It was personalities, it wasn't philosophical. Tate is conservative. I'm conservative. I think our personalities clashed, but we were able to put that aside.”

McDaniel said he's confident in his own current political position.

“My name ID is one of the top in the state, and polling has never looked better for me than in this moment,” McDaniel said. “I can say, generally speaking, God has been really good to me and a lot of the bridges that appeared to be burned in 2014 appear to be repaired. This is a wonderful state full of forgiving people.”

Advertisement

One of McDaniel's complaints of Hosemann is that as lieutenant governor he's given Democrats too much power as committee chairmen and chairwomen in the 52-member Senate.

“Let's just be frank. There are 16 Democrats in the Senate, and 13 hold chairmanships,” McDaniel said.

But with a 52-member Senate with 41 standing and joint committees, giving chairmanships to minority party members isn't really policy — it's math. McDaniel did not mention that 13 Democrats also held chairmanships during Reeves' final four years as lieutenant governor, when Republicans held a supermajority similar to now. In Reeves first term, he appointed 17 Democrats to chairmanships.

McDaniel also claimed that Hosemann “protected Democrats with redistricting” this year when the Legislature redrew district maps based on population changes. Notably, Senate redistricting will likely mean the ouster of one of McDaniel's closest allies, Sen. Melanie Sojourner, R-Natchez. Sojourner's district was collapsed into another, with the new district a 60% Black majority.

Advertisement

But Hosemann and other Republicans said the move was required because of population shifts, and noted that while a district was eliminated in southwest Mississippi, another heavily Republican one was created in Rankin and Smith counties.

McDaniel said: “(Hosemann) eliminated the career of one of the most conservative members in the chamber.”

“You might recall earlier this year Mississippi Today wrote an article, describing the three Republican parties in this state, and saying Hosemann is head of the moderate wing and I'm the head of the conservative wing,” McDaniel said. “I would go further. He's the best thing that's happened to Democrats in this state in a generation. Now that he's taking positions, people can see that and he can't hide his true colors any more.

“Delbert stood in the way of income tax elimination — he stopped it,” McDaniel said. “People are not happy with the growth of this , not happy that Democrats have as much say in this Senate as they do. From expansion of TANF to the attempted expansion of the welfare state, people are unhappy with it.”

Advertisement

While he said he hasn't made any decision yet, McDaniel appears to be laying groundwork for a statewide run, not reelection to a Senate seat. He's traveling the state frequently and meeting with numerous Republican and other groups.

“It's been really good,” McDaniel said. “People are hungry for leaderships and they want to see fighters. One thing I was born to do is fight.”

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/?p=197953

Advertisement

Mississippi Today

Senate passes Medicaid expansion ‘lite’ with veto-proof majority

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Sophia Paffenroth and Taylor Vance – 2024-03-28 17:37:35

An austere version of expansion, which for more than a decade has been blocked by legislative leaders, passed the Senate on Thursday 36-16 – a veto-proof majority – with significant changes to the original bill and now heads back to the House for consideration.

House Bill 1725, with the Senate's strike-all amendment, would increase Medicaid eligibility to those making up to 99% of the federal poverty level, about $15,000 annually for an individual, and would be entirely contingent on the federal approving a work requirement of 120 hours a month. 

That's significantly different from the version of the bill that passed the House, which increased eligibility to those making up to 138% of the federal poverty level, about $20,000 annually for an individual, and would expand Medicaid regardless of whether or not the work requirement was approved. 

Advertisement

Senate Medicaid Chairman Kevin Blackwell, R-Southaven, called the strike-all a more “conservative, responsible” option and described  it a “hand up, not a handout.” The Senate plan turns down roughly $1 billion federal dollars a year since it doesn't qualify as “expansion” according to the Affordable Care Act.

Republican Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who oversees the Senate, said that covering more low-income under Medicaid would improve the state's dismal labor participation rate – the lowest in the country

“If we as a society, as a state, believe we should have individuals who are working, stay in the workforce, pick up our labor force participation rate, then we need to do what Sen. Blackwell and the Senate did .” 

Senate Democrats introduced several amendments, which , who hold a majority in the chamber, successfully opposed. The amendments called for: increasing the income eligibility threshold, changing the work requirement from 120 hours a month to 80 hours a month, and lowering a recertification requirement from four times a year to twice a year. 

Advertisement

The Democratic senators strongly criticized the Senate plan to reporters after it passed but voted in favor of it to keep the bill alive – in hopes that the plan will improve later during House and Senate haggling. 

“This bill was not perfect,” Senate Minority Leader Derrick Simmons said. “We would love to see more individuals covered. We would love not to have any hurdles or restrictions on additional access to health care coverage. But we did not want to lose an to keep this bill alive as we work through this .”

Sen. Joey Fillingane, R-Sumrall, also attempted to amend the bill by removing two of the exemptions to the work requirement – for primary caregivers of children under six years old and those diagnosed by a doctor to have a disability – and requiring co-payments for individuals fulfilling the work requirement. A few hardline conservatives supported his efforts, but both amendments were ultimately shot down by senators. 

Sixteen senators voted ‘No' on the plan: Jason Barrett, R-Brookhaven; Andy Berry, R-Magee; Jenifer Branning, R-Philadelphia; Lydia Chassaniol, R-Winona; Kathy Chism, R-New Albany; Joey Fillingane, R-Sumrall; Angela Burks Hill, R-; Chris Johnson, R-Hattiesburg; Tyler McCaughn, R-Newton; Michael McLendon, R-Hernando; Rita Potts Parks, R-Corinth; Brian Rhodes, R-Pelahatchie; Joseph Seymour, R-Vancleave; Daniel Sparks, R-Belmont; Ben Suber, R-Bruce; Neil Whaley, R-Potts Camp. 

Advertisement

House Medicaid Chair Missy McGee, R-Hattiesburg, told that she does not intend to agree with the Senate's amendment and plans to hammer out a compromise in a conference committee. 

“I'm happy the Senate passed a bill,” McGee said. 

Though the Senate's plan has stricter eligibility requirements than the House version, Republican Gov. Tate Reeves, a longtime opponent of expansion, privately told senators at the Governor's Mansion on Tuesday that he would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

If the second-term governor does veto the bill, a two-thirds majority of lawmakers in both legislative chambers would need to join together to successfully override him and pass the measure into law. Both chambers passed their versions with veto-proof majorities.

Advertisement

Hosemann did not directly answer whether he believes there is an appetite in the GOP-controlled Senate to override a potential veto, but he said the work requirement in the Senate bill is a “good first step” toward addressing Reeves' concerns about the bill. 

“We're going to get with our House counterparts here and maybe that step forward is sufficient for the governor,” Hosemann said. “I don't think there was anybody here that didn't feel the weight of people who are working have a catastrophic event and not get back into the workforce.” 

House members have until April 19 to either agree with the Senate plan or to work on a compromise in a conference committee.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

Judge erred, double jeopardy shouldn’t apply, say AG attorneys seekng to retry acquitted assailant

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Mina Corpuz – 2024-03-28 13:30:00

Nearly a year after a north Mississippi judge acquitted a 22-year-old who stabbed a man in the neck, nearly killing him, attorney general's office lawyers want to re-prosecute the case. 

They are appealing the ruling, saying the victim's absence at trial, the reasoning the judge used for his ruling, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights and prevent trial from proceeding.

But legal experts say a retrial can be a high barrier to overcome because of double jeopardy,  a clause in the U.S. and state Constitution that prevents defendants from being retried for the same crime an acquittal or conviction. 

Advertisement

“This is a textbook case of double jeopardy,” said Matt Steffey, a professor at Mississippi College School of Law. 

In his May 11, 2023 dismissal of the attempted murder indictment and acquittal for Lane Mitchell, Union County Circuit Court Judge Kent Smith focused on the victim's absence, finding that it violated the defendant's due and compulsory process rights, which is the ability to subpoena and secure favorable witnesses to testify. 

“This precedent thus makes the state responsible for and unable to go forward on nearly every criminal cause when a recalcitrant victim refuses to appear at trial,” the state wrote in a March 4 appellant's brief filed with the Court of Appeals. 

The victim, Russell Rogers of Tennessee, nearly bled out and suffered a stroke. As a result of the stabbing, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental issues and placed under a conservatorship. 

Advertisement

The state is asking the Court of Appeals to correct the trial court's “misstatements of law.” Alternatively, the state is asking the court to reverse and remand the trial judge's order and in its place issue an order that would allow the state to retry Mitchell. 

The defense has 30 days to respond to the appellant's brief, which is expected sometime early next month if no extensions are granted. The state will then have time to reply, and then the case can be submitted. Oral arguments were not requested. 

The 2019 stabbing

On Feb. 9, 2019, Rogers spent several hours in  Tallahatchie Gourmet in New Albany. When then-18-year-old Mitchell arrived there, he joined his and their friends in the bar area. 

Video presented in court and included in records as pictures shows Mitchell, about an hour after his arrival, taking a knife from the bar and holding it behind his back as Rogers talked with a waitress. The   – Mitchell's father – and Rogers then talked, and when Rogers reacted negatively, Mitchell approached from behind and stabbed Rogers in the neck three times. 

Advertisement

Mitchell testified he was to defend his father and the waitress, according to court records. The defendant said he thought Rogers had a gun, but in fact he was unarmed. 

Mitchell and Rogers had not met or talked prior to the stabbing, according to court records. 

Months after the stabbing, a Tennessee probate court found Rogers met criteria to be considered disabled and appointed his father, Robert Rogers, as his conservator. Russell Rogers remains under the conservatorship. 

Mitchell enrolled in two colleges while under indictment, first at the of Mississippi and then Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Cordova, Tennessee, where he graduated days before his 2023 trial began. 

Advertisement

The attorney general's office took over the case in 2021 when the district attorney recused himself from the case. 

Victim testimony central in case 

Mississippi law states victims can exercise their right to be present and heard in court proceedings, but their absence does not prevent the court from moving forward with a proceeding. Victims can be served with a subpoena, which Mitchell's attorneys sought to do with Rogers.

The state argues the trial court seemed to ignore the Tennessee probate court's order quashing the defense's attempt to subpoena Rogers, saying his mental health problems stemming from the attack made him incapable of testifying.

The state argues the trial court only determined Rogers “appear[ed] to be intentionally unavailable” to testify in court, but it did not find what from his testimony would be favorable to the defense. 

Advertisement

The defense wanted to question Rogers about his behavior the night of the stabbing and prior conduct and mental health issues, but the state wrote these factors “would not be material to a showing that Michell acted reasonably or that [Rogers] was the initial aggressor.”

Additionally, Rogers didn't witness the stabbing because Mitchell approached him from behind, the brief states. Regardless, the state argues, Mitchell's intent to defend others was already presented to the jury through other witnesses. 

The defense has argued in court filings and at trial that the conservator inserted himself into the case, including accusing him of working with the prosecution and denying access to the victim. 

The state had denied these claims, noting Robert Rogers was following his fiduciary duties as conservator when fighting the subpoena and other efforts. 

Advertisement

Acquittal and double jeopardy

 Another issue raised in the state's brief is how the trial court violated the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure by dismissing the indictment against Mitchell and entering an acquittal.

No rule of criminal procedure allows an indictment to be dismissed because a witness failed to appear, and acquittal isn't the proper remedy under the rules, the state argues. Instead, the valid remedies for a discovery violation are continuance or mistrial, which would have needed to have happened before a jury was sworn in and double jeopardy was in place. 

In its alternative remedy, the state asks the Court of Appeals to reverse and remand the trial court's and order a mistrial, which the state says would preserve its right to retry Mitchell. 

Former Mississippi Court of Appeals judge and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz called acquittal an unusual position for a trial court and an example of how Judge Smith of the Union County court acted in a way that other trial courts don't tend to do. 

Advertisement

He said the state may be asking the Court of Appeals to clarify the law and find that the judge ruled improperly, instead of seeking retrial and running into double jeopardy. 

“(A)ny judges in the future who consider this issue can know clearly and [it's] well stated by the court [that] you can't just order an acquittal if a victim doesn't show up,” he said. 

Crime victims' rights

Rogers and his conservator are asking the Court of Appeals to allow them to file an amicus curiae brief for the court to consider additional information, including victim's rights. 

A March 11 proposed amicus brief argues the trial judge's refusal to submit the case to the jury stripped Rogers of his constitutionally-protected rights as a victim. As of Thursday, the brief has not been approved. 

Advertisement

Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark College in Oregon, provided feedback to craft the amicus brief. 

She said the Mississippi Constitution gives crime victims the right to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect, and just because those terms are broad, it doesn't mean they are empty. 

Mitchell's attorneys want the court to deny the amicus brief, citing a May 2023 Supreme Court order denying an emergency petition filed by the conservator to halt the trial court from filing a judgment of acquittal. In it, Justice Leslie King said the victim and conservator lack standing to contest the disposition of Mitchell's case, or any charge. 

Garvin said this highlights a misunderstanding about what victims' rights are. Victims asking for their rights to be protected doesn't make them a party. 

Advertisement

She said it is possible for someone to exercise another's rights on their behalf, such as what happens for parents acting on behalf of their or on behalf of someone who is mentally incapacitated, including someone under a conservatorship. 

If Mitchell's case is upheld, it would be a sign that Mississippi victims' rights aren't meaningful or are being adequately considered, Garvin said. 

“The statement to the victim would be you actually don't have rights, you are just a piece of evidence in a case against someone else,” she said.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

Mississippi lawmakers look to other states’ Medicaid expansions. Is Georgia worth copying?

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Sophia Paffenroth – 2024-03-28 10:58:47

As the Mississippi Republican-led Legislature considers expanding Medicaid for the first time after a decade-long debate, Senate have referenced other Southern states' expansion plans as alternatives to full expansion. 

On Wednesday, the Senate Medicaid Committee passed the House Republican expansion bill with a strike-all and replaced it with its own plan, which Medicaid Chairman Kevin Blackwell, R-Southaven, called “expansion light.” The Senate is expected to take the bill up for a floor vote Thursday, with a plan that's nearly identical to Georgia's. 

Problems with “Georgia Pathways”

Advertisement

care policy experts don't think Georgia's plan is worth emulating. The state's plan, called “Georgia Pathways,” misses out on the increased federal match of 90% that the to newly expanded states, and it also doesn't qualify for the additional $690 million federal dollars that would make expansion free to Mississippi for four years.

And the plan, touted as a conservative alternative to what critics call “Obamacare,” has cost state taxpayers $26 million so far, with more than 90% of that going toward administrative and consulting costs, according to KFF Health . Implementing work requirements is costly and labor intensive because it involves hiring more staff and processing monthly paperwork to confirm enrollees are employed. 

“Georgia's plan has proven to be very profitable for large companies like Deloitte (the primary consultant for Georgia's ) but has provided health care to almost no one who needs it,” said Joan Alker, Medicaid expert and executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. “It's been a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars so far.”

If the Senate plan were signed into law, Mississippi would fare the same – receiving its regular federal match of only 77% instead of 90% – and risk large administrative costs for enforcing a 120-hour-a-month work requirement and a provision that says recipients must be recertified four times a year.

Advertisement

Work requirements ‘costly' to enforce

In theory, a work requirement isn't controversial. A majority of Mississippi lawmakers in both chambers want to reserve Medicaid coverage for those who are working or exempt, with legislation that incentivizes employment in the state with the lowest labor participation rate. The problem, experts say, is that in practice, it can do more harm than good. 

Policing and enforcing the work requirement costs more than it would cost to insure the small population of unemployed people who would become eligible for Medicaid under traditional expansion, explained Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute, a nonpartisan research group that conducted several studies detailing what Medicaid expansion would look like in Mississippi. 

“Medicaid work requirements are costly to implement,” Henderson said. “States have to develop new administrative which can cost millions, or tens of millions, of dollars. Additionally, employment reporting requirements can be confusing and burdensome for individuals, so people who are legitimately employed and income-eligible for Medicaid may be denied coverage – thus, hurting the exact individuals who are supposed to qualify for Medicaid with work requirements.”

Advertisement

In Georgia, only 3,500 people have signed up since the program began in July – despite the millions of dollars taxpayers have paid to run the program and ' previous estimate that roughly 25,000 people would sign up in the first year and 52,000 by the fifth year. 

Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann said in an interview in February that the Mississippi Senate plan likely wouldn't be as strict as Georgia's, calling their work requirement “onerous.” 

But the Senate plan is even stricter than Georgia's, calling for at least 120 hours of work a month instead of the 80 hours required in Georgia. 

In Arkansas, a work requirement was briefly implemented in 2018 before it was overturned.

Advertisement

A study by the New England Journal of Medicine found Arkansas' work requirement to be unsuccessful at increasing employment. The main consequence of the state's work requirement was an increase in the number of uninsured persons to full expansion and “no significant changes” in employment associated with the policy, according to the study. 

In addition, “more than 95% of persons who were targeted by the policy already met the requirement or should have been exempt.”

What's next?

The only expansion bill still alive in the Mississippi Legislature is House Bill 1725, authored by Speaker Jason White, R-, and Missy McGee, R-Hattiesburg, which is now before the Senate. The bill, as passed by the House, has a provisional work requirement, but would expand Medicaid to 138% of the federal poverty level – even if a work requirement is not approved by federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

Advertisement

That's important because during the Biden administration, the federal government  has rescinded work requirement waivers previously granted under the Trump administration and has not approved new ones. 

But the Senate version is entirely contingent on the work requirement, calling for a minimum of 120 work hours a month and quarterly recertification. Eligibility also only goes up to 100% of the federal poverty level. 

If the Senate were to stand firm on the work requirement, expansion might not go into effect until well into 2025. That is, if a new administration takes office. 

A provision in North Carolina's recent expansion bill could prove useful as Mississippi lawmakers debate the details of expanding Medicaid.

Advertisement

A North Carolina expansion bill passed in 2023 is a mostly-traditional expansion plan with a unique work requirement provision. Expansion originally passed without a work requirement, but included a provision that says if or when a federal administration that favors the concept takes office, the state will change Medicaid eligibility rules and adopt the work requirement. 

If Mississippi were to include this kind of language in its own bill, it could expand Medicaid in 2024 or at the start of 2025, instead of waiting well into a new presidential term.

In theory, work requirements make sense, Henderson said. But they haven't produced the desired outcome of increasing the labor force participation rate in other states. That fact, coupled with the costly administrative burden of enforcing them and the unfortunate consequence of eligible enrollees losing coverage make the work requirement an unworthy pursuit, Henderson and Alker conclude. 

“In theory, it's true that, under Medicaid expansion, individuals earning slightly more than 138% of the federal poverty level could have an incentive to reduce their earnings in order to qualify for Medicaid,” said Henderson. “However, there are reasons to believe that this will be rare.”

Advertisement

The three reasons Henderson gives are: “First, not all workers know their exact income as a fraction of the current federal poverty limit, which changes every year and is a function of household size. Second, not all workers can control their hours. Third, individuals earning just above 138% of the federal poverty level have access to generous subsidies through the insurance marketplace, which could reduce the incentive to reduce income to qualify for Medicaid.”

And in practice, Henderson said, “no studies I'm aware of have found evidence of Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions having adverse effects on employment outcomes.”

The Senate is expected to vote on House Bill 1725 on Thursday. While the bill only needs a three-fifths vote to pass the floor, it realistically needs a two-thirds majority from both chambers to show it has the potential to override a threatened veto from Republican Gov. Tate Reeves.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News from the South

Trending