Pic via The Oregon Trail Tombstone Generator

On Monday morning, The Florida Independent’s Ashley Lopez filed a story with a pretty shocking headline: “Scott cuts funding for rape crisis centers during Sexual Assault Awareness Month.” The substance of the story was simple: Florida Gov. Rick Scott, using his line item veto authority, had eliminated $1.5 million in the state budget that would have gone to the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, which was planning to distribute the funding to the state’s 30 rape crisis centers.

It was hardly the first time Gov. Rick Scott made a controversial budget decision, but for whatever reason (the timing?), Ashley’s story struck a nerve.

Seven hours after we posted Ashley’s piece, The Huffington Post re-reported the story, succeeding in actually getting someone from the governor’s office to discuss the veto. And then the floodgates opened: Mother Jones reported on the veto, as did Rachel Maddow’s blog, Think Progress, The New Republic and others.

Florida media outlets then began to localize the story, speaking with nearby rape crisis centers about what the budget cut would mean for them. The USF student newspaper editorialized against Scott’s decision. Someone launched a Change.org petition. Lawmakers weighed in, saying the decision highlighted Scott’s “lack of understanding.”

By Wednesday (after he attended a ceremony honoring the director of a rape crisis center whose funding he had just cut), Scott was being asked about the decision during press gaggles. Wire services then picked up on the story.

And it all started with a 500-word blog post here at The Florida Independent, which will cease publishing new content at the close of business today.

Timing like that could make us here at the site feel bitter about our closure. We hit upon a great story, generated tons of interest and now we’re shutting down?!? But, actually, I believe the timing is perfect. Ashley’s reporting this week gave us one last opportunity to demonstrate what we tried to do here each and every day for the last two years: generate impact.

Late last year, I wrote a series of posts recapping some of our site’s greatest impacts since we launched in May 2010. To get a sense of the stories we were most proud of putting out, I recommend you read through those examples. Those are the kinds of pieces we were hoping to continue publishing through 2012, and beyond.

With that, all of us here at the Independent — myself, Ashley, Marcos Restrepo and Virginia Chamlee — would like to say goodbye, and thank you to all our readers, supporters, tipsters and commenters. We’ll miss you.

Gov. Rick Scott (Pic via flgov.com)

Gov. Rick Scott signed new legislation today that will allocate $1.5 million to pay for relocation services for women who are victims of sexual battery. The bill’s signing comes in the wake of criticism of the governor over his veto of $1.5 million for the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, a group that was going to pass along that funding to 30 rape crisis centers across the state.

The cut was particularly controversial because he signed the veto right in the middle of Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

Scott’s office issued a press release today that says Scott ”signed legislation that will expand the protections available to victims of domestic and sexual violence.”

Along with four other bills, Scott signed House Bill 1355, or Protection of Vulnerable Persons, the governor’s office reports.

Scott’s statement also reiterates the governor’s explanation for the controversial veto, which is that the state already “provides nearly $6.5 million for rape prevention and sexual assault services which is in addition to $29 million available for domestic violence programs.”

The rape crisis centers that lost funding due to Scott’s veto, however, provide counseling and health care services to women who are victims of sexual violence, among other services. The centers are facing a reduction in the collection of fines levied on convicted sexual offenders, which currently make up the bulk of their budgets. Many local rape centers have told news stations that they greatly need the new funding.

Scott said in a statement today that “while Florida has a 40-year low crime rate, we must continue to protect the rights of individuals affected by crime.”

“This critical legislation I have signed into law shows the valuable steps Florida has made in protecting the rights of victims,” he said. “April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month and this week is National Crime Victims’ Rights Week and it is an important time to raise attention to promoting victims’ rights and remember those lives affected by violence.  We will continue to work to keep our communities safe so that fewer people are victims of crime.”

H.B. 1355, which authorizes “additional spending to support victims of sexual abuse and to increase the state’s capacity to process additional reporting,” was sponsored by state Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Heathrow. Dorworth was also the House member who championed the $1.5 million for the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence that Scott vetoed.

Gov. Rick Scott (Pic via flgov.com)

This week, in one of my last stories here at The Florida Independent, I wrote about Gov. Rick Scott’s decision to veto $1.5 million from the state’s $70 billion budget during Sexual Assault Awareness Month. The money would have gone to rape crisis centers around the state.

While the governor’s office insists they were not convinced of a need for the funding, local television stations have gotten their local rape crisis centers on the record, saying the funding was indeed necessary.

Here is a roundup:

1. A local Jacksonville station, WTEV, reported that its local rape centers were relying on the eliminated line item. The Women’s Center, in particular, “was counting on $57,000.”

“The Betty Griffin Center in St. Johns County and the Quigley House in Clay County were each expecting $17,000,” WTEV reported.

The station also reported that workers at the Center said “the money would have made a big difference [because] they help around 400 sexual assault victims a year and are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

2. WEAR, a local station covering Pensacola, Mobile and Fort Walton Beach, reported that the “controversial cuts will impact services … at the Lakeview Center in Escambia County [and] another facility in Milton.”

According to WEAR:

The organization says it desperately needed the funding because it’s been receiving less donation money.

“These are very vulnerable people and they need these services.”

Dennis Goodspeed is the VP of Behavioral Health at the Lakeview Center, which provides rape crisis services in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties.

“One of the things that we would look at is cuttin’ back on the education piece of it and maybe the counseling.  It would be a little bit longer before you could get in to see somebody.”

3. WFTX-TV in the Naples/Fort Myers area reported that

Abuse Counseling and Treatment, Inc. in Fort Myers is the only one serving Lee, Hendry and Glades counties. Staff tells Fox 4, they can’t bear to think about where to start cutting now that even less state money will help support them.

The center also explained that “nearly 20-percent, or $74,000 of its $398,000 budget for rape services, comes from the state.”

4. Then, of course, there is the Palm Beach County rape crisis center. WPTV reports that the center lost some of its funding with Scott’s veto. The center’s director, Nicole Bishop, received an award this week for her service, the day after news spread that Scott cut her funding.

5. And lasty, WTSP in Tampa Bay reported this week that the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay was also losing money it badly needs. An activist said on television that she would be willing to personally show Scott why the centers need the additional funding.

Currently, all these centers rely on fine collections from convicted offenders, which has been decreasing as the state’s economy worsens.

Scott has said publicly that he stands by his vetoes because he believes the programs he eliminated “weren’t a good use of taxpayers’ money and did not serve a statewide need.” He has also said he “gave each project equal and fair consideration.”

Gov. Rick Scott (Pic via Facebook)

Timing has not been on Gov. Rick Scott’s side lately.

Earlier this week, I pointed out that the governor eliminated $1.5 million in state funds for 30 rape crisis centers across the state during Sexual Assault Awareness Month. A day after that news began to spread, Scott attended an awards ceremony at the Capitol for National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.

Among those who received an award that day: Nicole Bishop, the director of Palm Beach County Victim Services, which was one of the rape crisis centers that lost funding due to Scott’s veto.

“I thought it was unfortunate,” Bishop says. “Those funds were definitely needed.”

The governor’s office has said that the money allotted to the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence was “duplicative” and that “nobody was able to make it clear to [the governor] why rape crisis centers needed the new funding.”

Advocates and legislators have countered by arguing that the funds he was talking about were for prevention, not for taking care of those who have already become victims.

In Tampa, an advocate has even invited Scott to a rape crisis center to educate him about the need for the money.

Bishop says she is grateful she was recognized this week for her work with victims, but wishes the funding was not eliminated.

“I do thank the governor and the attorney general for recognizing us and the important work we do,” Bishop says. “I just hope that they keep that in mind when they make funding decisions.”

Pic by micahb37, via Flickr

A federal judge in Miami ruled today that Gov. Rick Scott’s executive order mandating that all state workers be randomly drug tested violates the Fourth Amendment rights of people employed by the state.

Scott’s originally halted the order once a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, but random drug testing policies have remained a priority for the governor.

Groups like the ACLU of Florida have warned Scott that drug testing all state workers without suspicion is unconstitutional since he first announced that drug testing people who receive money from the government — which has included welfare beneficiaries and state employees — would be a priority.

So far, judges have deemed both attempts unconstitutional.

The Associated Press reported today:

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled Thursday that blanket testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

…

Scott’s order was challenged by a labor union representing government workers and the American Civil Liberties Union. They contended that drug testing should only be done if there is a suspected problem and in safety-related and high-risk jobs.

Lawyers for the governor contend that objecting workers are free to quit and job applicants could choose to find employment elsewhere.

“The Governor can’t order the state to search people’s bodily fluids for no reason – the Constitution prohibits that sort of government intrusion,” Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement today. “And the Governor can’t demand that people surrender their constitutional rights for the privilege of working for the state or receiving some other government benefit.”

The ACLU of Florida said in a press release today:

“Today’s ruling is important because it reinforces the bright line which government may not cross,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Peter Walsh. “If the state is going to require a drug test as a condition of keeping your job, it needs to have a reason and simply being against drugs isn’t enough.”

In 2011, the Florida Legislature passed and Governor Scott signed a law requiring mandatory drug testing for applicants for temporary cash assistance. Like the Governor’s Executive Order, the law required testing of everyone regardless of suspicion. The ACLUFL challenged the law in 2011 and a federal court in Orlando blocked implementation of that law in September, 2011.

This ruling could also have an effect on this year’s attempt by the governor to drug test state workers.

Just one day after Scott signed a bill that expands random drug testing to include state workers that are not in “safety sensitive” positions and allows agency heads to implement a program allowing for the random drug testing of 10 percent of their workforce every three months, he asked agency heads to hold off implementing the policy. His reason: “because the legal case” involving state workers “remains unresolved.”

“Once the lawsuit is resolved in the State’s favor,” Scott wrote to agency heads in a letter last month, “the Governor will direct agencies to implement Executive Order 11-58 and the new provisions of the Drug Free Workplace Act.”

The law was touted during committee meetings as a way to raise state workers to the same standards as employees of private companies and as a “preventative” measure serving as an “early intervention program” for workers with drug problems. Throughout the bill’s consideration though, even proponents noted that there is no evidence of a drug problem among state workers.

“If the state moves ahead with drug testing applicants for state employment in what is clearly an unconstitutional policy, they will just be inviting another costly, taxpayer financed legal challenge,” Simon said. “Florida leaders appear to have a hard time understanding that the government can’t search people just because a politician thinks it will be popular.”

Pic via Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The Supreme Court of the United States, which heard arguments in the lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration enforcement law Wednesday, will not issue its decision until June, but opponents and supporters continue to argue the merits of the state’s crackdown.

The court heard arguments on the legality of only four provisions contained in the Arizona law, known as S.B. 1070. Analysts on both side of this issue say the court’s eventual decision will affect the future of immigration laws across the U.S.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports the Arizona law, writes that the four provisions (.pdf) make it a state crime to violate federal immigration law, authorizes warrantless arrests and prohibits undocumented immigrants from working or looking for work in Arizona.

According to WCTV news in Tallahassee, “Florida’s Attorney General [Pam Bondi] joined the case, urging the nation’s high court to let states detain suspected immigrants.”

Which way will the Supreme Court’s decision go? Several news organizations have reported that approval of some of S.B. 1070′s provisions seems possible.

“Bucking the Obama administration, Supreme Court justices seemed to find little trouble Wednesday with major parts of Arizona’s tough immigration law that require police to check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons,” Bloomberg reported, adding that “the fate of other provisions that make Arizona state crimes out of immigration violations was unclear in the court’s final argument of the term.”

According to Politico, “at oral arguments Wednesday over Arizona’s law cracking down on illegal immigrants, both conservative and liberal justices expressed deep skepticism about the federal government’s case against the core of the law: a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people arrested or even detained briefly for a traffic violation if they’re suspected of being in the country illegally.”

“The federal government got beat up today in the Supreme Court and if the Justices’ line of questioning is any sign, at least parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 are likely to stand,” Colorlines reported Wednesday.

The Immigration Policy Center points out that “the only question before the Justices was whether federal immigration laws ‘preempt’ four provisions of SB 1070 that were blocked by lower courts.” The Policy Center concludes that “the Justices’ questions made clear that even if part or all of the Arizona law is not preempted by federal statutes, it may be impossible to apply in practice without violating individuals’ constitutional rights. Given the demonstrated policy drawbacks of state immigration enforcement laws, it remains possible that other states will decline to enact copycat measures in the future.”

Carlos Garcia of Puente Arizona, an immigrant advocate organization that led nationwide actions to protest S.B. 1070, wrote Wednesday that “1070 is a symptom of a much larger problem, and it’s one that has been made worse by President Obama’s own immigration policies that use people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio as ‘force multipliers.’ The spin around today’s Supreme Court spectacle masks the fact that the Department of Homeland Security continues to advance programs that criminalize immigrants, and the Department of Justice has still failed in its duty to remedy civil rights violations it has merely described for three years.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (Pic by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr)

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., spoke at the Brookings Institution Wednesday, discussing foreign policy and American leadership around the world and in the western hemisphere.

According to The Miami Herald, Rubio’s speech “carries more weight now that he’s on Mitt Romney’s apparent shortlist for vice president.”

Rubio said during the speech that our “goal for our region should be pretty straightforward: a coalition of neighboring democratic nations that trade freely and live peacefully with one another.”

The Florida Republican added that the U.S. faces two challenges in the western hemisphere: the first is Venezuela and other ALBA countries “and their growing closeness to Iran.” Rubio’s words echo Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s recent comments in Colombia that equate Iranian efforts to expand in South America with terrorism.

“Washington has had a paranoia about Iranian infiltration of South America for a long time, despite scant evidence of any such threat. After GOP candidates expressed similar fear-mongering last November, Politfact gave it a rating of ‘mostly false,’”AntiWar.com wrote earlier this week.

According to Rubio, the second challenge the U.S. faces is “the effort of some nations to replace [American] influence with their influence and use protectionism and unfair practices to pursue that aim.”

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) calls itslef the “meeting place of peoples and governments who understand that the Caribbean Latin America make up a great nation, that our countries must join together to face the challenges of today and tomorrow.”

Rubio said that “to be free is not just limited to elections,” adding that Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador “elected leaders who have used their power to undermine fundamental freedoms by attacking the press, the courts and their political opponents.”

“Mexico and Colombia, they need our continued commitment to win their respective wars against criminal organizations,” Rubio added.

But the senator said nothing about recent comments from Latin American presidents that call for a review to what many in Latin America have called failed drug war policies.

Rubio who also attended the recent Summit of the Americas, told Semana, a Colombian weekly news magazine that

the battle is against criminals who sell [illegal] drugs. If tomorrow they don’t sell drugs they’ll do something else. They’re criminals. People who are willing to kill and steal their whole life. There will always be a need to combat criminals.

Rubio said during Wednesday’s speech that the U.S. “must not tolerate Iran exporting violence and terrorism” to the western hemisphere. “We must embrace the ultimate goal of a Free Trade Area of the Americas,” he said. “The recently approved free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama is a good step.”

In the days before the Summit of the Americas, Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO; Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers; and the Service Employees International Union called on President Obama to not certify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement during the Summit. The labor leaders argued that the South American nation has not done enough to cull anti-union violence.

Rubio also called for an energy partnership with Canda, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and a post-Chávez Venezuela.

The Washington Post wrote Wednesday that “rather than solidify his potential role as an attack dog, the speech appeared designed to bolster Rubio’s bipartisan credentials.”

The governor’s office has said that the money allotted to Florida Council Against Sexual Violence was “duplicative” and that “nobody was able to make it clear to [the governor] why rape crisis centers needed the new funding.”

Advocates in the state and officials at the Council are crying foul.

Jennifer Dritt, the executive director of the Council Against Sexual Violence, told me the funding was “thoroughly vetted” in the Legislature and had “met the criteria” set forth by the governor for member projects. She also said she sent an email to the governor’s office explaining the need for the program.

In Tampa, an advocate has invited Scott to a rape crisis center in an effort to educate him on the need for the funding.

During a press availability at the Capitol today, after Scott attended an event honoring crime victims at a ceremony marking Crime Victims Rights Week, the governor was asked about the elimination of the money.

His answer: ”Well, as you know, that money was dup… dup…” Scott stuttered. “It was in addition to what we’re already doing.”

“We have increased funding for domestic violence, we have money that goes into the rape crisis centers already,” he told reporters. “So, it was additional money that we already funded.”

You can watch Scott’s explanation today below via the News Service of Florida:

Gov. Rick Scott (Pic via flgov.com)

In response to Gov. Rick Scott’s line item veto stripping funding for 30 rape crisis centers around the state, a Tampa Bay center issued an open invitation to Scott yesterday.

Scott’s veto had particular sting because the governor eliminated the funding right in the middle of Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

The governor’s office has said that the $1.5 million allotted to Florida Council Against Sexual Violence was “duplicative” and that “nobody was able to make it clear to [the governor] why rape crisis centers needed the new funding.”

Michele Wykes, who has been an activist with the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay for the past eight years, announced on Tampa Bay’s WTSP 10 News that she would be willing to personally show Scott why the centers need the additional funding. Currently, the centers rely on fine collections from convicted offenders, which has been decreasing as the state’s economy worsens.

WTSP reported yesterday:

After seeing the faces of women and men who suffer, Michele says she can’t imagine what the governor was thinking. “We had no idea that he would not understand the need for this money. So, when we received the news today, it was almost a punch to the stomach and we were shocked,” she said.

But, what really shocked Michele and her staff at the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay the most is that the governor would call for this veto during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, a time when rape victims are empowered and honored.

Michele says there’s only one thing left to do.

She is officially going on record and making a public plea to Governor Rick Scott to change his mind by paying a visit to the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay.

“I would sit him down very calmly and really, truly try to educate him,” Michele said.

Jennifer Dritt, the executive director of the Council Against Sexual Violence, said that “1.2 million women in Florida already have been victimized” and the vetoed funding would have helped the centers “double” the number of services they offer and the number of victims they serve.

Dritt also explained that the program was “thoroughly vetted” in the Legislature and had “met the criteria” set forth by the governor for member projects. She also said she sent an email to the governor’s office explaining the need for the program.

“We are disappointed,” Dritt told me earlier this week. “We are really surprised and frankly stunned — [and] are trying to figure out what the heck happened.”

State Rep. Lori Berman, D-Delray Beach, said yesterday that Scott’s failure to “ensure victims of rape are afforded appropriate counseling and needed support simply highlights the Governor’s lack of understanding.”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Barack Obama (Pic by The White House, via Wikimedia Commons)

The Supreme Court will hear arguments today on the legality of four provisions contained in Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. Analysts on both side of this issue say the court’s eventual decision will affect the future of state immigration laws across the U.S.

Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws after Arizona’s S.B. 1070 was signed into law in April 2010. They will be watching the Supreme Court hearing very closely, as will other states, immigration advocates, immigration restrictionists and politicians.

In an effort to stop what they call the “Arizonification” of the U.S., Florida immigration adovcates will hold a press conference Wednesday in Homestead, at which “speakers will call upon the [Obama] Administration to end Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s” Secure Communities immigration enforcement program.

The Obama administration has deported a record number of unauthorized immigrants and has continued supporting the controversial Secure Communities program. The Department of Homeland Security’s 2013 budget, released in February, included overall cuts to the agency, but funding for Secure Communities remained strong.

A press release issued Tuesday by Florida immigrant advocates states:

Immigrant rights groups believe that [Secure Communities], a federal deportation program that focuses on persons arrested, has eroded local trust in law enforcement in Miami-Dade County and had similar effects as Arizona’s SB 1070 – including increased racial profiling. From February 24, 2009, the date of S-Comm implementation in Miami-Dade County, through February 2012, 3,012 persons have been deported from the county through this program, over 51 percent of whom had no criminal record, and over 25% of whom were convicted of minor crimes, according to ICE statistics.

The Republican Party of Sarasota County has launched a petition supporting the passage of an Arizona-style immigration enforcement law for Florida.

The petition states that the federal government has failed “to control our country’s borders and protect American citizens from the crimes committed and costs incurred by illegal immigrations,” and calls for support of “the 2010 Immigration Law passed by the State of Arizona.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform — known as FAIR and a leading immigration restrictionist organization that supports the Arizona law — writes that Arizona’s law “was signed into law on April 23, 2010 by Governor Jan Brewer, who said that ‘decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation’ in Arizona.”

FAIR writes that S.B.1070 (.pdf) makes it a state crime to violate federal immigration law, authorizes warrantless arrests and prohibits undocumented immigrants from working or looking for work in Arizona.

This is what S.B.1070 supporters call “attrition through enforcement”: If officials deny undocumented immigrants access to social services, work and housing, and make their lives impossible, along with hundreds of thousands U.S.-born children, the immigrants will leave.

Mitt Romney, the “presumptive” GOP presidential candidate, supports such policies. His campaign website explains that Romney supports a federal worker verification program, opposes in-state tuition, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and, as governor of Massachusetts, “he authorized state police to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.”

The Immigration Policy Center, which opposes S.B. 1070 and supports comprehensive immigration reform, writes that “the Supreme Court will not consider SB 1070 in its entirety. Instead, it will consider the legality of four provisions that lower courts temporarily blocked from taking effect.”

Supporters of S.B. 1070 have argued that the law was necessary because the Obama administration has a “lax enforcement policy.”

Not so, argues the Policy Center:

This claim is both factually dubious and legally irrelevant. More than 1.2 million removals have occurred since President Obama took office. … Even if the current administration did not aggressively enforce the immigration laws, that would also be irrelevant to whether SB 1070 is preempted by federal law—a question that depends on whether the enjoined provisions conflict with acts of Congress, not on how stringently a particular President is enforcing those laws.

The Policy Center concludes that “even if the Supreme Court lifts the injunction against all four provisions under dispute, legal challenge to SB 1070 will continue.”