Debate in the Nebraska Legislature on a watered-down juvenile justice bill turned fiery on Thursday.
Depending who you ask, the exchange could be an example of congressional campaign politics or the manifestation of differing views on the trajectory of juvenile justice in the state.
State Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, who is challenging Republican Rep. Jeff Fortenberry for his seat representing Nebraska's 1st Congressional District, led the opposition to LB568 during floor debate. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks of Lincoln, who's running for that same seat as a Democrat.
Originally, Pansing Brooks' bill would've required truant kids to be sent to diversion programs that concentrate on the root causes of absenteeism instead of having truancy as a status offense that requires action in juvenile court.
The bill got the bare minimum number of votes it needed to advance to the second round of debate last year, signaling more work was needed. Over the interim, Pansing Brooks said she worked with county attorneys to come up with a compromise that keeps the "hammer" of the status offense in place but requires them to first make every effort to send truant kids to diversion.
The new version of the bill would still increase funding to support diversion programs throughout the state.
Pansing Brooks said 70% of kids in the juvenile justice system end up in the adult criminal justice system, and argued the bill would save taxpayer money by keeping kids out of the justice system and getting them the help they really need.
Flood voted in support of the bill last year. In Pansing Brooks' view, the only thing that's changed is campaign politics.
“It seems like the only thing that's changed, other than the fact that I got the county attorneys on board and have everybody else on board, the only difference is that we've both filed for a new campaign," she said. She said she was sorry it happened on this bill.
“I really am concerned about the fact this is on the backs of our Nebraska kids that this issue has come up,†she said.
Flood, though, said that Pansing Brooks knows he feels strongly about juvenile justice issues. To say it's only about politics would be "out of bounds."
“Yes, we’re both running for Congress, but at the end of the day this was going to be a discussion we were going to have anyway," he said.
What changed, he said during debate, was that he brought an amendment last year to address a juvenile justice issue that Pansing Brooks opposed. Flood thought they were going to work on the issue over the summer but he was never contacted, he said.
Over the interim, Flood visited the local juvenile detention center.
Listen now and subscribe: | | | |
“I did go talk to prosecutors, and I did go talk to law enforcement, and they are sick and tired of what's been happening with the juvenile court system and juvenile justice reform," Flood said.
Past transcripts and records show Flood did not propose an amendment on LB568 or speak about it during debate last year. However, he did bring an amendment to another juvenile justice bill Pansing Brooks sponsored, and he said during debate on that separate bill that Pansing Brooks had committed to hearing concerns from his district related to the issue.
He said he got the two bills confused. Pansing Brooks has sponsored many juvenile justice bills.
Flood said LB568 is "yet another example" of how juvenile justice has "eroded over time." But, he said, he's not organizing a filibuster on the bill and he thinks reasonable people can disagree on changes to the system.
During debate on Thursday, Flood argued that LB568 is unnecessary. He talked about existing programs for truant kids in Madison County, where he lives, and cited opposition from the county attorney there.
"When are we going to start trusting prosecutors? When are we going to start trusting juries? When are we going to start trusting judges?" he said.
But he also expanded the debate to include opposition to what he and some other conservative lawmakers see as a broader trend in the state's juvenile justice policy.
“When I served here before these bills would never have come to the floor," he said. "There has been a sea change in the way law enforcement has been regarded in this body."
Sen. Suzanne Geist of Lincoln and others also spoke more broadly about juvenile justice issues.
“Over the past five to six years, we've totally taken consequences for juvenile misbehavior out of the system," Geist said. "And in doing that we've handcuffed not only our law enforcement, but we've also done that with parents.â€
Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha and others pushed back on Flood's comments. Wayne said Flood made a "great tough-on-crime speech."
"This bill adds money to make sure everybody can have access to the same programs that you're speaking of," he said.
Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha said he'd like to see the bill go further.
"The reason we've gotten to where we are now, the reason — how we have always done things, is because people make fiery political speeches that are meant to make them look tough on crime, because that is popular. And our job is not to do popular, it is to do right."
Whatever the origins of the debate, it may provide a view of what's to come this session. The Legislature is considering a slate of criminal justice reforms, as it faces down the nation's most crowded prison system and rising recidivism rates.
"Are we gonna sit here this year and kick the can down the road without actually doing something about this?" Sen. John McCollister of Omaha said. "I'm getting a little tired of it. I'm thinking that those people running for governor and higher political office ought to deal with this issue instead of saying, 'Yeah, lock ’em up.'"