Drug tests for those on public assistance

Drug tests for those on public assistance

A few years ago, before we went to word-recognition technology to transcribe Sound Off! calls, we were in the process of hiring an NMSU student to type in the calls.

But before she could take the job, she had to pass a drug test. Which seemed curious to me. Just editing Sound Off! is enough to make me want to take a stiff drink some days. Imagine having to listen to that invective, process it and put it in writing.

Beyond that, it seemed like an unnecessary precaution for a part-time job. Let's say she came to work high one day. What's the worst that could happen, a few typos?

There are some occupations for which strict drug testing should be mandatory. If I'm traveling by air or going under the knife, I want to be absolutely certain that the pilot or surgeon is sober and clear-headed. But, if the dishwasher at my favorite restaurant wants to take a different kind of smoke break after work, I'm can't see how that impacts me or his employer.

My misgivings aside, most employers have instituted mandatory drug-testing policies for new employees. That being the case, shouldn't we also have drug testing for those on government assistance? After all, the goal of those programs is to transfer people from welfare to work. And, for better or worse, you can't get hired these days if you can't pass a drug test.

Rep. Steve Pearce has introduced two bills on the subject — HR 3615 and HR 3722. The first would require drug testing for recipients of unemployment compensation, the second would require it for those in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — previously known as welfare.

Before going any further, I should stress that neither bill is going to pass. Both were introduced in December, but have yet to get a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee. They could conceivably get through the House, but not the Senate. And certainly not signed by the president.
The questions isn't whether they will pass, it's whether they should.

Both bills would require states, which administer the programs, to drug test applicants. Those seeking unemployment insurance who test positive would be required to retest after a 30-day waiting period (the time required to cleanse the system). Those who test positive three times or more would be denied unemployment compensation for five years.

The second bill prohibits a state from providing TANF assistance to individuals who test positive for an illegal drug, and includes an administrative penalty for failure to implement drug use testing.

Opponents of the bills maintain they are a violation of privacy, and treat the poor as if they are criminals. Perhaps. But, aren't all job seekers treated the same way? Why should those on public assistance be given protections that those seeking work are not?

A larger issue to me is who pays for the drug test. Those seeking employment do not pay for their own drug tests — the employer does. For those who are unemployed and struggling to feed their families, that added expense could be significant.

A lot of people have lost their jobs in the last few years through no fault of their own, especially in my chosen profession. As one of the fortunate who hasn't, I'm willing to lend a hand. But the money people receive through public assistance should not be used to buy drugs.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of drug testing. If it were up to me, pot would be legal, enforcement of harder drugs would focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration and only jobs in which personal or public safety could be endangered would require drug testing. But the world didn't ask my opinion.

Whether I like it or not, you need to pass a drug test these days to get a job. Doesn't it make sense to ensure that those on public assistance can meet that requirement?

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.

Seeking a free pass in election

Seeking a free pass in election

April 8, 2012
Elections are like an all-you-can-eat buffet — the more choices, the better.

Unfortunately, the fallout from a bill passed unanimously last year by the state Legislature is threatening to limit the choices available to voters this June in the primary election and November in the general election; as well as end the careers of numerous legislative leaders.

SB 403, titled "Election Code Language Standardization," seemed simple enough when passed. According to the fiscal impact report prepared for the bill, it "updates the Election Code by clarifying definitions, fixing conflicts, updating procedures and conforms the Code to actual practice. SB 403 bill does not put forth any major new policies."

One year later, that innocuous-sounding bill that allegedly implemented no new policy has led to a series of lawsuits seeking to disqualify dozens of candidates.

The Supreme Court will try to bring some clarity to the situation Tuesday when it hears the cases of 10 lawsuits that have been filed throughout the state. The court's decision will impact not just those 10 cases, but numerous others involving the same issue.

At the heart of those cases are new requirements mandating increased specificity in the nominating petitions submitted by candidates.

For example, local District Attorney Amy Orlando has sought to have challenger Mark D'Antonio disqualified because he listed the office he was seeking as Doña Ana County district attorney and not district attorney for the Third Judicial District.

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, given that the Third Judicial District covers Doña Ana County. But Orlando insists that she really has no choice but to seek a free pass to the position she was appointed to when Susana Martinez was elected governor two years ago.

"As district attorney, I can not and will not pick and choose which laws I will follow," she proclaimed.

Did the Legislature really intend for dozens of otherwise qualified candidates to be disqualified by this new law? That seems unlikely, given that many of those who voted for the bill last year are now facing the prospect of being dropped from the ballot and removed from office without voters being able to decide.

A letter from Secretary of State Dianna Duran to the Attorney General's Office seeking clarification lists 12 candidates who could be impacted: Sens. Pete Campos, Sue Wilson Beffort and Tim Jennings; Reps. Rick Little, Dianne Hamilton, James Roger Madalena and Rudolpho Martinez; Commissioner Vince Bergman; and candidates Joshua Madalena, Louis Luna, Guadalupe Cano and Karen Montoya.

More names have been added since then, including former Legislative Finance Committee Chairman Lucky Varela.

District Judge Henry Quintero in Silver City heard the case challenging Hamilton and Cano last week, and is expected to rule Monday, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing.

In that case, challenger Terry Fortenberry alleges that not only were there errors in how the ballots were filled out, but also signatures from voters who either did not live in the district or were not registered for the political party in which they signed the petition. There's a big difference between invalid signatures and a technical mistake like listing the county instead of the district.

In sports, officials often decide whether to call a foul based on if a team or player gained an unfair advantage. The court would be wise to apply that same standard here.

Every candidate who has challenged the petitions of his or her opponent has issued a statement insisting that they were merely seeking to ensure that the letter of the law was upheld. But voters recognize opportunism when they see it, and will not appreciate efforts to restrict their choices at the ballot.

Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.