Alabama Homebrew Legislation 2013

[alestateyall]

Doesn't really matter at this point if Johnson voted for it or against it (unless it doesn't pass the Senate this year).

It's already passed the house by a fairly large margin. Most folks think it will pass the Senate if they actually vote on it.

All of our energy should be focused on telling the Senate to add it to the Calendar and vote on it.

According to the right to brew website it passed the senate a few years ago.

 

[BarefootFriar]

True, but I keep up with things like this come election time. I emailed him and specifically asked for his support on this. There's a lot that goes into choosing a candidate, and this is one piece of the puzzle.

 

[Huff360]

Makes sense.

Is there a way I can tell how my representative voted on it? I've found this, which if you click history and then "Roll 239", it looks as though he voted no. (Ken Johnson, R-Moulton). But I'm not sure if I'm reading it right.

Yes, you are reading it right. Your Rep voted no.

According to the right to brew website it passed the senate a few years ago.

It did. If only it didn't have to do the whole process in one legislative session we would be done!

 

[KingRichard]

Yeah... once the session is over for the year, every bill has to start all over again. This year, it's passed the house committee, the full house, and the senate committee. It still has to make the senate's full chamber calendar and pass the senate, then it has to be signed by the Governor. The whole veto and pocket veto thing in Alabama is weird too. See this link if you really want to get confused....

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/legislativeprocess/legislativeprocess_ml.html

 

[mattd2]

It just seems really wrong (but gives the reps "work") to have all bills killed at the end of year. How does this help anything? Can the govenor kill a bill he does not like just by "not getting the time to sign it"?

 

[alestateyall]

It just seems really wrong (but gives the reps "work") to have all bills killed at the end of year. How does this help anything? Can the govenor kill a bill he does not like just by "not getting the time to sign it"?

You describe a pocket veto. That is legal on Alabama (not every state has this).

Pocket vetoes in AL only occur at the end of the session. Read the link from KingRichard for exact details.

 

[mattd2]

You describe a pocket veto. That is legal on Alabama (not every state has this).

Pocket vetoes in AL only occur at the end of the session. Read the link from KingRichard for exact details.

Yeah I just read it after I posted
Still don't get the 1 year thing?

 

[day_trippr]

I suspect it's very common for state legislative rules to punt any business that isn't concluded successfully at the end of the session and start over again with the next session.

To be honest, I have no idea where the idea came from, or why...

Cheers!

 

[alestateyall]

I suspect it's very common for state legislative rules to punt any business that isn't concluded successfully at the end of the session and start over again with the next session.

To be honest, I have no idea where the idea came from, or why...

Cheers!

It is supposed to be VERY hard to pass a law. It's how we protect our liberty. Unfortunately, Alabamian liberty is not being protected in this case.

 

[homebrewdad]

It is supposed to be VERY hard to pass a law. It's how we protect our liberty. Unfortunately, Alabamian liberty is not being protected in this case.

No, it is not.

C'mon, folks - let's annoy some Senators!

 

[homebrewdad]

I emailed everyone again (Sanford's email still bouncing, of course). Will be making calls today.

I also posted this again on the /r/homebrewing sub at reddit.

Folks, we're down to five legislative days. Really push the issue, or we have zero chance of being legal this year.

 

[homebrewdad]

Got an email reply from Senator Irons.

I do support this and will vote yes! The leadership needs to put it on a calendar for a vote! Let me know if you need anything else.

Tammy

 

[MTate37]

Senator Irons is the only one I've received a direct response from. I've received three responses from Pittman that indicate he most likely didn't read the email. I'm sure y'all have received the same response from him. Will try again today.

 

[homebrewdad]

Had this post to my thread at reddit from TTUDude:

We may be making some progress.... Here's the conversation I just had with Sen. Waggoner's assistant:

Me: "Yes I'm calling to ask that HB9 be placed on the SOC before we run out of day..."

Assistant: "Let me stop you there. You need to speak with the 'Rules Clerk' Sue Spears, She's with Senator Beason's office, let me transfer you"

Got voicemail for Senator Beason then and left a message. It sounded like Waggoner's assistant had been receiving several calls about the SOC today... Hoping they were for HB9.

Anyway... It sounds like we may want to concentrate a bit on Sue Spears (Beason's office assistant and the "Rules Clerk". That number: (334) 242-7794

So, there's another number to call, and possibly, a good sign.

 

[CGVT]

Got an email reply from Senator Irons.

I do support this and will vote yes! The leadership needs to put it on a calendar for a vote! Let me know if you need anything else.

Tammy

Yes there is something else you can do for us, Tammy. Prod the leadership intp putting it on the calendar.

 

[MTate37]

What does the 'P' stand for on the Free the Hops site where it shows voting records for legislators?

 

[CGVT]

We may be making some progress.... Here's the conversation I just had with Sen. Waggoner's assistant:

Me: "Yes I'm calling to ask that HB9 be placed on the SOC before we run out of day..."

Assistant: "Let me stop you there. You need to speak with the 'Rules Clerk' Sue Spears, She's with Senator Beason's office, let me transfer you"

Got voicemail for Senator Beason then and left a message. It sounded like Waggoner's assistant had been receiving several calls about the SOC today... Hoping they were for HB9.

Anyway... It sounds like we may want to concentrate a bit on Sue Spears (Beason's office assistant and the "Rules Clerk". That number: (334) 242-7794

Just called Waggoner's office and the assistant tried to transfer me. Nobody picked up.

Calling again...

Edit: No answer. No answering machine.

 

[homebrewdad]

Senator Irons exhanged several emails with me. She suggested to me - and to another of the reddit users - that we also contact Senator Marsh, the President Pro Tem of the Senate.

Del Marsh
Phone: (334) 242-7877
Address: Room 722, 11 South Union Street, Montgomery, AL 36130
You can send a message to him HERE.

I called and left a message with Marsh's polite assistant. A call to Waggoner got me transferred to the rules clerk in Beason's office. She sounded less than thrilled to take my message.

C'mon, people - let's flood the phone lines.

 

[BarefootFriar]

I'm making my calls. Everyone so far has been really nice.

 

[homebrewdad]

Okay, called everyone today. Dunn's voice mail is not hooked up, and Irons didn't answer (and had no voice mail).

I'll do the email + call thing again tomorrow.

Most of the offices were very cordial. One or two, not so much. Oh, well.

 

[MTate37]

Emails have been sent to the rules committee and to every member of the senate that I can find an email for. Calls will have to be done after work. Currently the only responses I have received are from Cam Ward, who we know is on our side, and Bryan Taylor who sent the canned 'I get a lot of email, don't have time to respond but I do read them' response.

 

[Huff360]

The word we are hearing is that the calls are getting through. We had a friend send to his Statewide distribution list of 50k people. We have an action alert e-mail that has gone out from the AHA and Beer Advocate.

Some of the people that you speak to when you make these calls may not sound happy. They are used to taking a handful of calls a day. They aren't used to getting flooded. Keep the calls coming, if they are less than cordial to you, don't return any attitude! Be polite, let them know that this issue is important to you and that you want to be sure your ELECTED representatives know you opinion.

Sue Spears, the Rules Clerk, is a super nice lady. She won't mind taking your call (334)242-7853. If you can only make 1 call, that's the one to make.

It is still perfectly fine to continue to call all the Rules Committee members as well as your Senator however. That is the preferred method. Even if they tell you to only call Sue, call them back tomorrow!

 

[Huff360]

Oh yeah - I forgot to say:

THANK YOU to all of you guys that are making these calls and sending these e-mails! Keep it up, let's get it done this year.

 

[homebrewdad]

The word we are hearing is that the calls are getting through. We had a friend send to his Statewide distribution list of 50k people. We have an action alert e-mail that has gone out from the AHA and Beer Advocate.

Some of the people that you speak to when you make these calls may not sound happy. They are used to taking a handful of calls a day. They aren't used to getting flooded. Keep the calls coming, if they are less than cordial to you, don't return any attitude! Be polite, let them know that this issue is important to you and that you want to be sure your ELECTED representatives know you opinion.

Sue Spears, the Rules Clerk, is a super nice lady. She won't mind taking your call (334)242-7853. If you can only make 1 call, that's the one to make.

It is still perfectly fine to continue to call all the Rules Committee members as well as your Senator however. That is the preferred method. Even if they tell you to only call Sue, call them back tomorrow!

Man, I hope that the calls ARE getting through. I'll call the rules committe + president pro tem again tomorrow, as well as email them all again.

 

[CGVT]

Just made some calls.

I got an aid in my Senator's office. (Pittman, who btw has voted no or passed on alcohol bills.) The guy that answered the phone said that he had received a lot of calls on HB9, would add my name to the list and would pass it on when the Senator came in tomorrow.

Keep after it!

 

[Accidic]

Made all my calls today. Got a few irritated responses from irritable assistants but most were very nice. The one at Beason's office was rather bewildered but polite nonetheless.

 

[isleofman]

Made my calls as well.

 

[mattd2]

I suspect it's very common for state legislative rules to punt any business that isn't concluded successfully at the end of the session and start over again with the next session.

To be honest, I have no idea where the idea came from, or why...

Cheers!

I was thinking this through some more and I guessed that it is to reduce backlog, i.e. if there are more bills than can be sorted out in a year keeping them going through next year will potentially result in that overspill just piling up and them eventually ending up reviewing bills from 2-3 years ago. Of coarse this might not be the case as if the same bills weren't going through year after year they probably could review more new bills each year... logic it doesn't always work

 

[Huff360]

It is also a great way to ensure that the legislators have a nice revenue stream from the lobbyist who didn't get his bill through last year.

 

[Accidic]

Which should be illegal in it's own right. Frankly I think they should have to vote on all bills presented. I'm fine with them having the raise... I just think they should have to actually DO their job.