Kathleen Chase, Maine State Representative

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

"Jessica's law" testimony I delivered in favor of LD 46 to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

I would like to share the testimony I delivered in favor of LD 46 to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

LD 46 - An Act To Create Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Persons Convicted of Certain Sex Offenses against Victims under 12 Years of Age.

summary - This bill changes the sentence for gross sexual assault against a victim who is under 12 years of age to a period of imprisonment of 25 years, none of which may be suspended. If the defendant had previously been convicted and sentenced for committing gross sexual assault, rape or gross sexual misconduct against a person who is under 12 years of age, the court must impose a sentence of life imprisonment, none of which may be suspended.

Good morning Senator Diamond, Representative Gerzofsky, and members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. My name Kathy Chase and I represent House District #147, which is most of Wells. I am a co-sponsor of LD 46 and I am testifying in favor of this bill.

Sexual assault against a victim who is under the age of twelve has become a frighteningly growing crime across the nation and unfortunately for us, Maine is no exception.

While taxes, jobs, business growth, education, healthcare—and other concerns
we may deal with as legislators occupy many hours of our work here in Augusta, I believe we can all agree that it is the safety of our young that is most important to all of us.

It is an issue that is especially dear to my heart as we have 6 grandchildren living here in Maine, all under the age of twelve.

There are those who prey on children. That fact is chilling, devastating and all too real. I want to know that if someone sexually abuses a child here in Maine, they are punished and punished harshly.

Currently, hundreds of these predators are living in this state. An article in the March 29th edition of the Waterville Morning Sentinel entitled “Sex Offenders: Still a BIG Problem in Maine” quoted Police Chief John Morris as stating: “Today as we sit, there are 72 registered sex offenders in this city. We are investigating another 10 right now, who are new registrants. Every one of the 82 are people who have sexually violated young children.”

In that one town—not that far from where we’re standing this morning—is just one group of predators that has scarred the lives of more kids than there are in my grandson’s entire second grade. They’ve been convicted, served some sentence—and they are back out in our society. Statistically they repeat their crimes.

In the same Waterville Morning Sentinel article discussed previously, Chief Morris goes on to say: “There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that some registered child sex offenders will re-offend.” If just one of them does, it is one too many. If just one of them does, which one of your children, or grandchildren could be the victim.

Last year the legislature had the opportunity to pass this bill – or one very similar to it.

What eventually passed was slightly better than previous existing law. When it comes to the safety of our children, slightly better is not strong enough.

LD 46 says if you are convicted of a gross sexual assault against a child under the age of twelve years, you will serve a mandatory 25 year sentence. If you are convicted of a gross sexual assault against a child under the age of 12 and you have previously been convicted and sentenced for committing gross sexual assault, rape or gross sexual misconduct against a child who is under the age of twelve, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Other states have already passed laws similar to LD 46, and even more are in the process of doing so. If we do not, my fear is that Maine will be viewed as an easy state for those who commit these crimes.

As legislators we are in the unique position here in our state to create and pass laws that can protect our children from these real monsters. No one other than us can do it. It is our responsibility—no one else’s.

We need to prevent crimes against our children by being known as a tough state for those who would harm our young. LD 46 must be passed and not weakened this time.

The rest of the country and the predators within this state need to know that if you sexually assault a child in Maine and you are convicted, you will go to prison for 25 years. Period.

Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Kathy Chase
House District #147

Regarding the article from the Sunday Maine Telegram – Portland Press Herald, June 3, 2007 - Tax-cut plan rides on tale of two parties.

Regarding the article from the Sunday Maine Telegram – Portland Press Herald, June 3, 2007 - By Paul Carrier.

“Tax-cut plan rides on tale of two parties. The proposal comes in two parts, and the major parties divide over their backing for each.”

“A complex plan to cut Mainers' taxes by redesigning the state's tax system faces an uncertain fate in the Legislature. That's because the hotly debated package may not get the bipartisan support it needs.”

I read the article and it is accurate. It is a very tough choice we are faced with between the constitutional piece which includes 3 parts that the legislature will be voting on as one constitutional bill:....

1) That it will require a 2/3's vote of both houses to raise the sales, excise or income tax rates.

2) That the Legislature will allow municipalities to levy a local option sales tax

3) That the legislature will allow (by a vote of the town’s people) a municipality to "opt out" of the towns matching homestead funds. In other words (under the new tax reform package) the Homestead exemption is $26,000 with the state paying half & the municipality paying half. This proposed change would allow the towns NOT to pay their half of the Homestead, but the state will continue to pay the $13,000.

If passed as a group by the legislature, each of the three parts will be voted on separately by the people in referendum. It was purposely grouped to help it pass in the legislature.

.... and the Tax reform package which is contingent on passing with the result of the passing of the constitutional piece:
Tax Reform package (still in draft mode as of 6-2-07) would:

1) Provide a more stable tax base by shifting the current heavier tax burden on income tax and property tax to be more equitably shared by sales tax. (the goal of tax reform)

2) as a result of broadening (and therefore raising) the sales tax base, Maine's income sources are less impacted by economic swings

3) as a result of lowering the income tax to a flat 6% Maine will be a better place for small businesses (the backbone of Maine's economy) to invest and grow, thus stimulating our economy

4) provide more property tax relief by increasing Homestead, expanding the Tax and Rent Refund Program, and bring back the Elderly Tax Deferral program

5) allow municipalities to be returned 10% of the future growth of sales tax revenues

6) provide that 15% of the raised tax revenue be used for future and ongoing tax reform and tax relief

7) be revenue neutral- meaning the amount of taxes raised in tax reform would be used to reduce taxes in tax reform

8) not be a way to raise more taxes, but a way to make the taxes raised
fairer, more equitable and more beneficial to Maine residents.

The Republicans are reluctant to sign on to a Tax Reform package that is NOT restricted somehow (specifically with the 2/3's requirement to raise future tax rates) from being easily raised in the next session-- by the Democrats.

The Republicans feel that broadening the sales tax might provide a too
inviting base that the Democrats could not help themselves from raising up to a 6% sales tax rate, with huge rewards.

Or, after broadening the sales tax base to LOWER the income tax as our Tax Reform package does, that the Democrats will seize the opportunity to jack it back up, thus not only gaining the broadened sales tax but raising the income tax back up as well.

The Democrats are against giving up their simple majority rule since they have been the simple majority for the last 30+ years and see it as a foolish move to change what they perceive is a "good" thing for their party.

Their "official" statements are that the simple majority IS the Democratic way and the "super majority" sets up the scenario that a "minority" can stop what the "majority" may want. The Democrats also state that History of raising tax rates in the legislature does NOT demonstrate that the Democrats are prone to raising tax rates as the Republicans are always declaring.

SO..... therein lies the conflicts. If the Constitutional piece fails, do we then vote against the Tax Reform package? Or if the Tax Reform package is a good thing for Maine, do we believe it enough to vote FOR the Constitutional package?

If the Republicans vote against the Tax Reform because the Constitutional piece failed, will the Democrats (who clearly
have the simple majority) still vote for the Tax Reform package, without the shared responsibility of it being "bipartisan"?

According to all who have been there for many years, this is the closest (if not the best) we have come to providing a good, solid tax reform package. That is a good thing. But creating it and PASSING it are two VERY different issues.

The intelligence, hard work, commitment and bipartisanship that was so
evident in our committee's effort to put the Tax Reform Package together, is evolving into skittish politics.

Sincerely,
Rep Kathy Chase
Dist #147 Wells