1. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is very clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Question is where do you stand on individual states having laws on the books that infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms?
I'm big on separating "Issues" from solutions so let me take this one apart - the real problem is gun violence not guns. I am not aware of any workable US-based solutions to gun violence that involve infringing on individual's right to keep and bear arms.
This would effectively make me a second amendment advocate if we were just talking vanilla "issues". I'm explaining my thought process here because I want people to know I don't have stances, I've actually thought about these things.
A more effective way to prevent gun violence would be to deal with the root causes - starting with mental illness. Laws against guns have no impact on mental illness. I am not in favor of overly broad or ineffective laws.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? I'm expecting no bills impacting gun ownership will escape the Senate. I'm not sure anyone even tried to file one in 2015? I would love for them to work on mental illness as an issue.
2. There are laws in the KRS that promote inequality as far as ballot access is concerned. For certain offices, Democrats and Republicans need only 2 votes to gain access to the ballot, all others need 5000 signatures to gain access to the ballot. What would you do as Governor to promote a remedy for this?
As the only candidate impacted by this, here is a bit of good news - initially I thought that having to get 5,000 signatures would be a burden, but it turns out it's actually been a useful way to engage people early in the process. It's not great, mind you, but it's not as bad as I thought.
I'd probably reduce it down to 1,000 signatures if anything, then require even party candidates to obtain them.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? I'm pretty sure neither party has any interest in allowing candidates to get elected without party help. So this is likely moot as well (although I wouldn't mind some discussion around it)
3. The state of Kentucky saw during the last US Senate Race that KET a publically funded Television Network decide who got to participate in the debate hosted based on THEIR view of who was most popular. What would you do to encourage Frankfort to pass laws forcing ALL Media outlets and ALL publically funded institutions hosting political debates to welcome ALL appearing on the ballot to participate?
I've been thinking a lot about this and I honestly don't know what a better set of guidelines would look like. Personally I'd start by talking to KET about why and how they produced their current list of rules to understand what they're trying to accomplish.
At any rate, Kentucky Sports Radio's debate was by far and away the best debate.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? As I said before, I'm pretty sure neither party has any interest in allowing candidates to get elected without party help. They enjoy their two-party debate duopoly and there's no way they're willing to give it up.
4. Where do you stand on when a human life begins?
Age 22 right after college?
I hit Google to see if there was any consensus - there isn't. Additionally, I think that question continues to get more complicated as medical advancements continue, and I know that different religious and spiritual traditions also have varied answers on this topic. I don't think people will ever all agree. I certainly don't know the answer.
I therefore fall back on supporting individual rights, and think that people should make private medical decisions based on their own conscience and the medical advice of their doctors. That's also my answer on medical marijuana by the way. It's also Bevin's answer on medical marijuana I believe.
Abortions are like guns - no one wants a lot of them around but once in awhile you need one.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? Nothing - the House kills all bills relating to this issue in committee.
5. In 2011, Democrats in Wisconsin literally fled the state in order to avoid voting on legislation that they knew that they could not defeat that would weaken the power of Labor Unions in that state. What would you as Governor do to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky from such political maneuvers that leaves citizens from having proper representation in Frankfort?
As Governor you must act within the law, and from a practical standpoint there is an item in the KY state constitution that prevents anyone from impeding the movement of a legislator during session. I only found out about this when a legislator used it to get out of a DUI this year. So we can't prevent what happened in Wisconsin from happening here. It's stupid but constitutional.
I would hope this specific example would take care of itself in the following election cycle - if voters have a problem with that kind of extreme behavior by legislators they can vote those individuals out of office. I would.
As for stopping other potential political maneuvers, I'd have to see what those look like first. That's not a dodge by the way, I don't think we can predict anything rising to that level.
What am I likely to see hit my desk from the legislature? No idea - I'll have to handle this on a case by case basis.
6. The first amendment guaranties all individuals the right to their religion. Do you believe that an individual that owns and operates their own business loses that right as part of being in business for themselves?
DREW CURTIS CHOSE TO ANSWER BOTH 6 AND 7 WITH ONE RESPONSE
7. Where do you stand on legislation such as Smoking Bans? Should private business owners not have the ability to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking just as individual customers have the ability to decide if they want to enter an establishment that allows smoking? Also do you believe that e-cigarettes/vaping should be a part of such legislation since the end product is not smoke rather than vapor as harmless as steam from something out of the microwave.
This is actually the same question - when should the government impose its will on a large group of people for the betterment of society? My answer is I'd rather avoid this whenever possible - but any discussions should involve all stakeholders up front.
The real question is -how- should we construct law? People ask me if I'm in favor of a Religious Freedom Act - my response is which one? Compare Indiana's to Utah's - they both do the same thing, but in Utah it started when the LDS church engaged the LGBT community and came up with wording amicable to all parties. Indiana's version had a loophole you could drive a truck through - namely "belief" being the requisite reason to do -anything- (which is impossible to prove) and requiring the state to provide a reason for having vested interest to stop you from doing it. Which among other things legalizes Sharia law and the Church of Cannabis, two things I guarantee the law's originators were not in favor of. Indiana wrote a law that sucked and had far-ranging unintended consequences baked in.
I'm a big believer in defaults - so on the question of smoking, I believe that a smoking ban should default to -on- with an opt-out for businesses that wish to allow smoking (I'm thinking cigar bars in particular). And I'd recommend the legislature start looking around for what other states have tried to see if there are any solutions there.
On the issue of religious beliefs of businesses - seems to me legally you could make a case that a sole-proprietorship might be able to have beliefs because legally the business and the owner are the same entity. Which is dangerous from a personal legal liability standpoint but people are welcome to do whatever they want there.
However corporations of any other structure can not and do not have legal beliefs.
What am I likely to see hit my desk?
Smoking - doesn't ever seem to pass each year, offhand I don't recall which side of the legislature kills it. If I ever got one, I'd have to decide based on the specific wording. Maybe adding opt-outs would make it more likely to pass whichever chamber keeps killing it?
Relgious Freedom - same answer. Because an exact copy of Utah's would have the best chance of surviving scrutiny, I'd advise the legislators to check it out. An exact copy of Indiana's would be vetoed instantly.
I would again like to thank Drew Curtis for his responses to these questions. I also appreciate Matt Bevin and Hal Heiner for at least getting back with me even though they did not meet the deadline set to be included in this post. Please Kentuckians do not go to the polls without being educated on the candidates available to you. You can find out more about Drew Curtis at his website www.DrewCurtis.com
No comments:
Post a Comment