DENVER – The constitutionality of Colorado's same-sex marriage ban could be in question, depending on the outcome of a case being heard today in a Denver courtroom.
The ongoing legal battle after the court ruling overturning Utah's same-sex marriage ban last year is taking center stage at the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Clifford Rosky, board chairman at Equality Utah and a law professor at the University of Utah, explains the state has to prove that allowing marriage equality will in some way harm society.
"And the problem is, they didn't show that,” he adds. “They conceded that Amendment 3 harms same-sex couples. But they didn't show that letting same-sex couples marry would harm anybody."
Because Colorado joins Utah in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the outcome of the case could influence the standing of Colorado's marriage ban.
Late last year, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby overturned Amendment 3, which had amended the Utah state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The U.S. Supreme Court then granted a temporary injunction stopping same-sex marriages while the state of Utah continues its efforts to overturn Judge Shelby's ruling.
Rosky says the Tenth Circuit Court's three-judge panel won't likely issue a ruling in the case until later this summer.
He adds whatever the panel decides won't likely be the last word on this issue.
"Both sides have said, 'If we lose, we're going all the way to the Supreme Court,'” he says. “This case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Whether or not the Supreme Court takes it is an open question."
Rosky says it could take a year or more for this issue to wind its way through the court system.
About 1,000 same-sex couples in Utah were married prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's temporary injunction that stopped the weddings.
get more stories like this via email
Earlier this month, a new Arizona Public Service rate hike went into effect and one senior advocacy group said those on a fixed income may struggle to now pay their energy bills.
According to the utility, the average residential customer will see an expected bill increase of about 8%, which translates to about $10.50 a month. They said it is all in an effort to continue to provide Arizonans with reliable and resilient power and make "critical investments" in their system.
Aimee Cvancara, associate state director of AARP Arizona, contended the possible effects could be significant.
"Folks who are on a fixed income, whether that is a retirement income or even a working income with limited mobility, it is difficult to absorb a $10 to $12 cost in your monthly bill that was unanticipated," Cvancara pointed out. "Particularly because it's not the only increase that folks are seeing right now."
Cvancara emphasized consumers are feeling the weight of increased prices on everything, from groceries to gas, rent and now power. Arizona Public Service rooftop solar customers could also see an additional $2 to $3 a month on their bills but the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association and Attorney General Kris Mayes are both demanding for a rehearing on the case with the Arizona Corporation Commission to challenge the rate hike.
Cvancara noted moving forward, a significant concern for Arizona consumers is going to be something called the system reliability benefit mechanism, which allows Arizona Public Service to recover costs between rate cases for new, utility-owned generation resources.
"This is a new thing for APS customers," Cvancara explained. "It is going to allow the utility to file for up to 3% rate increase and they can do that five times before they have to file for another rate increase."
Some ratepayers and environmental groups oppose the system reliability benefit mechanism, as they argued it will only raise rates and increase demand for fossil fuels. Cvancara said the Arizona Corporation Commission should always strive to balance investments for reliable energy versus the cost consumers will face.
Disclosure: AARP Arizona contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Consumer Issues, Health Issues, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A 2023 study from the University of Nebraska Medical Center concluded the number of Nebraskans with a mental health or substance abuse disorder has probably increased over the pre-pandemic level of 20%. It also observed 88 of Nebraska's 93 counties have a shortage of behavioral health professionals.
Nonetheless, the state budget now awaiting Gov. Jim Pillen's signature cuts $15 million from the Division of Behavioral Health's funding for the state's six Behavioral Health Regions, which distribute those funds to providers. Many advocates believe the cut is based on an incorrect conclusion.
Annette Dubas, executive director of the Nebraska Association of Behavioral Health Organizations, said because $15 million remained in the budget for the Regions, it was concluded the money was not needed. In fact, she said much of it was for projects and proposals awaiting Department of Health and Human Services approval.
"The problem is not that it's not needed; there's a problem with getting it out the door and into services quickly," Dubas explained. "Because we know the demand is there. And if it's not being spent, let's figure out why. That's what we want the governor to sit down and talk to us about, so we can figure out where the holdups are."
The $15 million will be shifted to the Lincoln Regional Center for hiring nurses and other staff. Dubas questioned how realistic it is for the center to spend this amount of money on staffing, especially when the state is facing a nursing shortage of more than 5,000 by 2025. She also questioned what will happen to any money left unspent.
Dubas stressed the Division of Behavioral Health is not the only agency losing money through this budget process.
"This administration has gone into a lot of different funds, cash funds, etc., and kind of swept out money that they perceive is not being used or is not being spent, to use to help with their property tax relief," Dubas asserted.
The Pillen administration is paying Epiphany Associates from Utah $2.5 million annually for up to four years, to find savings of up to 25% across state agency budgets.
Chase Francl, CEO of the Mid-Plains Center for Behavioral Health, which receives about 40% of its funding from Region III, said cutting programs that save the state money cannot be considered cutting "waste."
"Mental health and substance use treatment really is a prevention service," Francl contended. "If we can get this right, then people are going back to work and maybe aren't ending up in corrections. And you start restricting here, you usually are just going to be creating a greater need for more costly services down the road."
Mid-Plains served 3,200 people in Grand Island, Kearney and Lincoln last year. Francl added they currently have about 60 people on a waitlist for therapy services.
get more stories like this via email
Congress just avoided a partial government shutdown by approving a budget through the end of September, but a new blueprint is renewing debate about a key safety net program and advocates in North Dakota and elsewhere are worried.
For the 2025 fiscal year, a House caucus of more than 170 Republican lawmakers has issued a proposed outline. It includes raising the retirement age for Social Security eligibility "to account for increases in life expectancy."
Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, said, like past suggestions from the caucus, it should be considered a non-starter, arguing it essentially amounts to a benefit cut.
"You never catch up," Altman asserted. "Even if you work till age 70, your benefit's going to be about 7% lower than it is under current law."
There was no specific higher age outlined, but AARP North Dakota has also sounded the alarm about the plan, urging its members to demand "no cuts." Social Security faces financial headwinds a decade from now, but Altman supports President Joe Biden's calls for raising payroll taxes on the wealthy to help ensure the program stays fully funded. His skeptics argued it would not be enough.
However, Altman and other advocates think it is a good first step. The GOP framework also calls for reducing benefits for higher earners. No income threshold was provided but Altman suspects it would still hurt a lot of people who are not exactly wealthy in their retirement.
"It's not what many people would think," Altman contended. "They're certainly not Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, and the billionaire class."
She predicted the people targeted for cuts would be more aligned with the middle class. Republicans insist the changes would not cut or delay benefits for any senior currently in or near retirement. North Dakota's lone Congressman, Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., is part of the caucus behind the proposal.
Disclosure: AARP North Dakota contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, Community Issues and Volunteering, Health Issues, Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email