Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Jones”

What the president must do


A gentleman recently asked what kind of action I thought the President should take to punish Vladimir Putin for his hostile acts against the United States. The question was in response to my insistence that our top intelligence officials and Congress speak out and demand presidential action to counter Russian aggression against this country.

In addition to clearly acknowledging Russia’s intervention in the 2016 elections, the President must personally and publicly call out Putin, punish him and his cronies for their aggressive acts, and warn them that severe countermeasures will be taken if it ever happens again. An American President’s forcefully-spoken word carries great weight around the world.

When President Kennedy warned Premier Khrushchev that Soviet nuclear missiles had to be removed from Cuba, or else, the Russians got the message and the missiles were gone. When President Reagan issued his famous demand, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” the Berlin Wall came down shortly thereafter. Neither of them left it to their underlings to make these important statements. This is an important responsibility of our elected leader.

When this country is attacked, when our election process is subverted, when Russia carries out numerous hostile acts against the interests of the U.S. and our allies, silence and appeasement do not work. Strong words and actions by our Commander in Chief are absolutely essential. This is not a job to be delegated to subordinates. We have not yet had the kind of words directly from our President that are necessary to protect the vital interests of the United States.

The President could take a page from British Prime Minister Theresa May’s playbook. In response to the nerve-agent poisoning of a Putin enemy in her country, PM May promptly and forcefully called out the Russians for their criminal act, expelled 23 Russian officials, and promised other punitive actions. She appears to be a tough, stand-up lady. I hope our President can be at least as tough. And, while he’s at it, he should personally and publicly condemn and punish Russia for deploying a deadly chemical weapon on the soil of Great Britain, our closest ally. The joint statement issued with our allies is nice but does not carry the weight of forceful words from our President’s mouth.

Next, the President could and should impose all of the sanctions Congress authorized by a veto-proof vote last year in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which is now Public Law 115-44. Those include an array of punishing sanctions against Putin and the cronies who have helped him plunder his countries assets. The Administration has just tiptoed into imposing some of those sanctions, but much more needs to be done. Congress also authorized a $250 million fund to counter nefarious Russian activities, but nothing has yet been done with those funds. The Russians must be shown that we will not roll over when they carry out activities that strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The President should also direct his Attorney General, the Treasury Department and the FBI to vigorously investigate and prosecute Russian oligarchs who have clandestinely transferred billions of dollars out of Russia and laundered them through phony deals involving real estate and other assets in the U.S. They and those who have assisted them must be dealt with harshly.

Those are just a few of the things we should do to punish Putin and prevent future aggression. If the President acts publicly and decisively, the message will get through. Vladimir Putin understands strength, but attacks when he senses weakness.

Russian aggression, American response


The President’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said it is “incontrovertible” that the Russians intervened in America’s 2016 elections. The President rebuked McMaster for the statement. Daniel Coats, appointed by the President last year as Director of National Intelligence, joined other top American intelligence officials in warning that the Russians will continue interfering in our elections.

More recently, the head of the National Security Agency, Admiral Mike Rogers, testified that Russia would continue its hostile actions against the United States because it has paid little price for its past aggression. Our top intelligence and security officials say they have received no directives from the President to protect America.

For reasons apparently known only to him, the President has taken no punitive action against Putin’s Russia, nor has he even acknowledged that they committed acts of aggression against the United States. This, even though the U.S. Congress, by an overwhelming vote, passed legislation urging and authorizing the President to punish Putin and his cronies for violating American sovereignty. What gives?

It is possible that the substantial Russian election interference documented in the Mueller indictment changed the outcome of the election, but that is beside the point. No matter what, the election will stand. There is absolutely no reason for the President to continue to deny Russia’s hostile acts against America. And, absolutely no reason to hold off on taking action to counter further Russian cyber aggression.

I grew up in a Republican Party that took the Russian threat to America very seriously. By countering Soviet aggression wherever it rose its ugly head, we were able to prevail against the USSR. Had we meekly rolled over and allowed it to continue its dirty work unchallenged, the outcome would likely have been very different. Back in my Republican days, anyone who denied clear-cut aggressive Russian action against American interests would have been branded an out-and-out traitor.

Now, Putin is trying to reconstitute what President Reagan called the “Evil Empire.” He has developed new cyber weapons to use against us and also renewed the old Soviet nuclear threat against our country. But, our President absolutely refuses to protect this great country from those threats. That is not likely to make America great.

Rather than disputing the indisputable, the U.S. should be vigorously building its cyber defenses and developing a tough offensive capability. We are at a juncture in the electronic era much like we found ourselves in during the infancy of the rocket age. The Soviet Union caught our attention with the launch of its Sputnik satellite, demonstrating it had the lead in a new technology with military applications. We had to up our game in that arena. Now, the Russians have shown their expertise in the offensive use of cyber systems and it is incumbent on this country to take steps to counter that threat, not to deny it.

The time has come for top administration officials to clearly speak out about the danger of failing to counter Russian aggression. The words and deeds of McMaster, Coats, Rogers, and others demonstrate that they understand the seriousness of the new Russian threat and want decisive American action to punish past actions and prevent future aggression. If behind-the-scenes entreaties will not work, those officials must publicly step forward to protect America’s vital interests.

Furthermore, members of both parties need to stand up and demand decisive action to counter Russia’s hostile actions against the United States. Congress must demand that the President carry out the punitive measures it enacted into law last year. It is time for our Congressional delegation to take action to protect the security of our country. It should not be a difficult decision to stand up for America.

Idaho Day


On March 4, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill establishing the Idaho Territory. At that time, the Territory included large portions of Montana and Wyoming. By 1868, the Territory had been whittled down to its present somewhat awkward shape.

On March 4, 2014, just 151 years later, Governor Otter signed a bill proposed by former Rep. Linden Bateman, designating March 4 (or the 5th, if the 4th is a Sunday) as Idaho Day. The day was intended for Idahoans to “celebrate the rich history, cultural diversity, unique beauty and boundless resources of the State of Idaho and thereby gain a renewed sense of courage and confidence for the future.” We need that more than ever now.

What are those boundless resources that tie us together as Idahoans? Some are fairly obvious. Ever since territorial days, our economy has been primarily fueled by our natural resources. The greatest of those is the Snake River, which enters the State through Palisades Reservoir, runs the entire width of Idaho, meanders north along our boundary with Oregon and flows into Washington at Lewiston. That river ties us together in many ways - economically, politically and socially.

But, there is an even more important resource that binds us together--the people of this State. Despite our differences, Idahoans have always come together when the chips are down. Our citizens have always stepped to the front when their country needs them.

The theme of Idaho Day this year, “Idaho Remembers,” commemorates the 1918 armistice ending the First World War. An Idaho serviceman, Thomas Neibaur of Sugar City, earned a Congressional Medal of Honor in that war for his heroism in France. He has lots of distinguished company.

Since the establishment of Idaho Territory, 35 servicemen with strong connections to Idaho have received that high honor, starting with four from the Civil War. They were from every corner of the State and include Bernie Fisher of Kuna (Vietnam), Vernon Baker of St. Maries (WWII), Gurdon Barter of Moscow/Viola (Civil War), David Bleak from Shelly (Korea), and William Nakamura from the Minidoka internment camp (WWII).

Every time the country has called, Idaho men and women have stepped forward to serve. They have been supported by their families, friends and neighbors. Those who returned were treated with respect and appreciation. Those who did not have been treated with honor and dignity. All of them have been a most valuable resource of this great State.

Idahoans should use Idaho Day as a time to reflect on how we can appreciate our fellow citizens and gain confidence to meet the future. We have gotten overly contentious and need to be respectful of those whose opinions differ from ours. Issues should be discussed on their merits, not on the perceived failings of their proponent. Leaders should lead, rather than going along to get along. People should not regard reasonable compromise as dirty business because it is what has made our state and country successful over the many years.

One of my favorite political sayings is attributed to President Lyndon Johnson - ”Don’t spit in the soup, we all gotta eat.” We Idahoans are all in this life together and need to work together for the common good. Let’s rely on our strengths as one people and overcome our weaknesses. Have a wonderful and productive Idaho Day!

Invest early, cut crime later


Having served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1990) and 12 years as a member of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2016), I have gained a good perspective on crime prevention. Idaho has a fairly effective system for detecting crime and prosecuting criminals. However, if crime can be prevented in the first place, both the cost to taxpayers and the toll on society are much, much lower. Crime prevention pays big time.

When children get a bad start in life, it is certainly bad for them but it is also bad for all of us. One proven way to prevent crime is to give children a good-quality education, starting before kindergarten. Scientific studies show that children who get high quality education early in life are more likely to graduate high school, go to college and live healthier, more productive lives.

Having done extensive work on the benefits of early childhood education, economist James Heckman, who won a Nobel Prize for his work, found the benefits to be substantial. Heckman told a group of midwestern lawmakers last year that “every dollar invested in quality early childhood development for disadvantaged children produces $7 to $10 return, per child, per year through better education, health, social and economic outcomes and the reduced need for social spending.”

Focusing specifically on the crime prevention benefit of early education, a 2007 study found that high-quality pre-K for just the poorest 25% of 3- and 4-year-olds would result in $77 billion in annual decreased crime and child abuse by 2050. And, a 15-year Chicago study found that kids who did not participate in early childhood education were 70% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime by age 18.

Idaho judges dealing with both juvenile and adult offenders report similar results. Offenders who have the least education tend to have the greatest involvement in criminal activity. Once a person is in the criminal justice system, the costs of prosecution and incarceration substantially outweigh what it would have cost to give the person a good start in life by an early education program.

Idaho is one of only 6 states that does not offer state-funded preschool. It is time to correct that problem. A coalition of Idahoans, including Idaho Business for Education, the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children, and Idaho Voices for Children, has been working to gain state funding for pre-K education. Patrons in two school systems in Idaho—the Basin Preschool Program in Boise County and the Caldwell School District--already have pre-K programs and have had good success with them. It is time for all Idaho kids to have the benefits of such a program.

The coalition is supporting legislation that provides state investment in voluntary pre-K options for Idaho families. People can contact their legislators to urge support for this concept. Legislators should be told that children who have access to quality, affordable preschool programs are far less likely to engage in criminal activity and therefore much less likely to be a burden on the criminal justice system later in life.

Idaho Legal Aid deserves help


Idaho Legal Aid Services provides a legal lifeline to low income Idahoans with serious legal problems, including domestic violence, abuse and neglect of children, and elder abuse. It is Idaho’s largest non-profit law firm, with offices located around the State. The dedicated work of Legal Aid is strongly supported by Idaho’s lawyers and judges.

Last year, the Idaho legal and judicial community commended Legal Aid for providing almost 20,000 hours of free legal services to thousands of Idahoans. Even though this is an impressive amount of legal help, it barely scratches the surface of the need that exists in our good State.

Many people go into court without a lawyer, simply because they can’t afford it. The courts have been helpful in trying to accommodate the needs of these self-represented people, but often the result is impairment of their legal rights and a slowing down of court processes. Legal Aid protects the rights of litigants and helps to move cases along. There just are not enough Legal Aid lawyers to fill the need and that comes down to the issue of funding.

Much of the financial support for Legal Aid comes from the federal Legal Services Corporation, but that support has been declining in recent years. The federal budget for next fiscal year calls for cutting all of this funding. Legal Aid works hard to get grant funding, including funds from the legal community, but that simply does not do the job.

Idaho is one of only three states that does not provide some form of state funding for low income civil legal services. We can and must do better. It is important to ensure the protection of the legal rights of indigent and vulnerable Idahoans and to keep the legal system from getting bogged down by bewildered unrepresented persons unfamiliar with what they need to do.

Legal Aid is proposing legislation to set up a state account that will allow it to supplement its funding. The Children and Families Legal Services Fund, provided for in House Bill 532, would allow Legal Aid to collect funds from private grants, legislative appropriations, and donations. The funds would be used to help low income families with “domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, abused and neglected children and senior abuse and exploitation.”
Money in the account could not be used for class action lawsuits, criminal cases, reproductive issues, undocumented persons, or suits against the State. The legislation does not appropriate State money. That would have to be done in separate legislation.

It is time for the State of Idaho to step forward to help low income people with serious legal problems that affect all of us. House Bill 532 lays the groundwork for doing what 47 other states are already doing for their people. Upon passage of the bill, an appropriation of State funds should be made to provide the stability Legal Aid needs to carry on its important work.

Not your grandpa’s Vietnam


It is hard to believe how much Vietnam has changed in the last 50 years. Tay Ninh Province, where I served, is hardly recognizable. Located northwest of Saigon, the province borders Cambodia on the north, the west and much of the south. The province was a main terminus of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Fifty years ago, the northern part of the province was uninhabited jungle and dangerous territory. That area is now developed with residences, shops, restaurants, and farms, as well as a national park. Tay Ninh City, a former backwater, has turned into a real city.

Saigon (even though it was renamed Ho Chi Minh City in 1975, many locals still call it Saigon) has grown into a real metropolis, boasting a population of about 12 million people and 8 million motorbikes. While Hanoi has about 5 relatively tall buildings, Saigon has dozens and more are under construction or in the planning stage. Wages are rising and people are optimistic about the future. Although the government is still reluctant to allow political freedom and dwells on the past with anti-U.S. propaganda at historic sites, the people everywhere in the country are welcoming and friendly to Americans. The country is up and coming.

One of my trip objectives was to find some of the kids from the orphanage I had worked with in 1968-1969. It was run by the Cao Dai Church, a universalist religion headquartered in Tay Ninh City. When my wife, Kelly, and I arrived at our hotel in Tay Ninh, the interpreter I’d hired told us the orphanage had been closed by the Communists when they took over in 1975. However, she said her grandmother had worked in the orphanage and remembered me.

We met with grandma, Do Thi Cung, a delightful 78-year-old, on February 2. She remembered me because I’d brought umbrellas for the orphanage staff during one of my visits. She told us she had lost touch with the kids but she knew that some of them had ended up in America. After the orphanage closed, she continued working for the church in another capacity. Meeting with her was a real highlight of the trip.

The Cao Dai Great Divine Temple and Holy See were about the only things that remained as I remembered them. The ornate temple is one of the two attractions that bring tourists to Tay Ninh and it is well worth a visit. The church was established in 1925 and claims upwards of 5 million members around the world. The other attraction is Nui Ba Dinh, or Black Virgin Mountain, an extinct volcano that towers over the rather flat province. Fifty years ago, it was dangerous territory but now it has a gondola that takes visitors about halfway to the top. I remember directing artillery fire against parts of the mountain back in the day.

With our history of ugly conflict with the Communists, who ultimately prevailed, it felt a bit odd to be well received by almost everyone we met. I’m pleased we are able to get along now and I hope our two countries can strengthen our bonds, as each has strategic interests in doing so. But, one can’t help but wonder whether the resort to war those many years ago was really necessary.

Vietnam in the present day


The Vietnamese are gearing up to celebrate Tet, the lunar new year, with happy new year signs wherever one looks.

It is also the 50-year celebration of the Tet Offensive, which is often cited as the turning point in the Vietnam War. When I returned from my tour of duty in August of 1969, I thought we were on our way to winning the war. It did not turn out that way and that still causes me great pain. However, I think Vietnam is moving on a positive track and has a bright future.

I lived among and worked with South Vietnamese soldiers during most of my tour of duty and got to know many civilians. They were wonderful people and I have fond memories of them. During two weeks in Vietnam these decades later, I have encountered many people just like them from Hanoi to Saigon and points in between. They have been friendly, welcoming and often go out of their way to make a visitor feel at home. When we had to catch an early flight from Dalat to Saigon, the hotel opened breakfast service early to accommodate us.

One of the remarkable things is the courtesy the people show to one another and to foreigners. For instance, the streets of the larger cities are swarming with motor bikes. You would think that a pedestrian would be risking his or her life by trying to cross a crowded street. But, if you can get up the nerve to cross through the traffic, riders will give way so that you feel like Moses must have when the Red Sea parted.

The food is great, the service is friendly and helpful and people are quick to show a genuine smile. My wife are I have enjoyed our interactions with the people of this country. We were in Hanoi when Vietnam beat Iraq in the soccer semi-finals. Young people took to the streets in a lengthy and noisy, flag-waving procession through the city streets to celebrate. When the team won their next game with Qatar during our visit to Hoi An, the same thing happened. They were proud of their country and we were cheering with them.

We watched the soccer final with Uzbekistan at our hotel in Dalat. There we met a bright young man who attributed his almost perfect English to having spent 3 high school years in Boston. He will go far. China is making a play for the affections of Vietnam and people like him. Because of a long history of thorny relations between those countries, Vietnam would like to strengthen its relationship with us. I hope America's recent inward turn does not push them away. We need friends is this region.

The country is not perfect because the people still are unable to exercise some of the freedoms that Americans take for granted. That does not take anything away from the people, who are genuine good folks. We certainly have reason to know that because the Vietnamese who came to the U.S. as refugees after the war have been great additions to the American landscape.

Saigon is a bustling city with lots of development happening. Hoi An is a charming city where my wife, Kelly, and I took Vietnamese cooking classes. Hue is an old imperial city. Hanoi is awakening from a development standpoint and full of friendly people. Our war with the Communists ended badly for us, but I think the outlook for friendship with Vietnam into the future is very positive, if we work to make it happen.

Vietnam revisited


As our plane was descending to land at Hanoi International Airport on January 17, I remembered back to my first landing in Vietnam 50 years ago.

That time, the World Airlines plane made a steep descent into Tan Son Nhat Airport in Saigon so as to reduce its exposure to ground fire. Looking out the window then, I saw bomb craters and other evidence of the fighting in the vicinity of the airport that had taken place during the Tet Offensive just five months earlier. This time the descent was normal, but it felt odd to be landing in a place that I had wanted to be blown off of the face of the earth in 1968.

My wife, Kelly, and I enjoyed our interaction with the Vietnamese people we met in Hanoi. It is hard to believe they were bitter enemies not so long ago. One person brushed off the “American War,” as just an interruption in the long history of Vietnam.

We made the obligatory visit to the Hanoi Hilton, the old French prison where American POWs were held and brutally mistreated during the war. I was disappointed that about 90% of it had been demolished to make way for a commercial building. Seems like it should have been maintained as a memorial. A thing that gave great offense at the facility was the propaganda claim that American prisoners had been humanely treated there. Ho Chi Minh may have been a nationalist, but he was also a brutal dictator. But, you can’t hold that against the good people living there now. The majority of the country’s population was born after the war.

We arrived in Hue, the old imperial capital of Vietnam, on January 21. It is a wonderful city. The main attraction is the Citadel where Vietnam’s emperors lived and ruled through the 19th century and well into the 20th. Much of the Citadel was destroyed during the 1968 Tet Offensive that saw the most intense urban fighting of the Vietnam War.

The Communist forces attacked and overran Hue during a truce that had been called to celebrate the Chinese New Year. It took a month of brutal, close-in combat to dislodge them. South Vietnamese troops fought well, suffering 452 killed and 2,132 wounded. U.S. forces sustained 1,584 wounded and 216 killed in action. More than 5,000 Vietnamese civilians died, more than half of whom were executed by the Communists.

The government has restored a good deal of the damage but much more work lies ahead. You can see large areas where bullet holes were plastered over but many still remain there and elsewhere around the city. After all the mayhem, it does not seem right that a red flag with a yellow star should fly over the Citadel but that’s just the way it is.

The Communists expected the citizens of Hue to rise up in support of the offensive but they did not. Many citizens were traumatized by the mass executions. Maybe I read too much into it, but many of the older folk who were likely in Hue during the offensive would return a nod or smile to me on the streets. Could it be they had formed a warm spot in their hearts for Americans in those tragic days?

Why allow people from sh-thole countries?


The President recently posed the question of why people from, shall we politely say, crapper countries should be allowed into the U.S.

Before answering, I should disclose that my ancestors were all from crapper countries - Germany, Scotland, Wales and France. When proper citizens of Rome were lowering their bottoms onto indoor toilet seats, my ancestors were using the woods to do their business. I suspect they just squatted and pooed without the benefit of a hole. Julius Caesar considered my ancestors to be barbarians who were so ignorant they deserved to be slaughtered or enslaved. They certainly could not become citizens of Rome, at least until several hundred years later when they took over the place.

Apparently, the President’s query related to people from Africa and Haiti, as opposed to blond and blue-eyed Scandinavians. The short answer to his question is that people from crapper nations have proven to be good residents and citizens of this country.

0n January 10, the Statesman featured an insightful opinion piece on how the environment is enhanced by smart building codes. It was written by a bright young lady whose parents fled here from the Congo to escape horrible violence. They just wanted what we all want, a safe place to live and raise their family. That young lady will continue to be a caring, contributing person in the Idaho community.

Last year, I met a young woman from Afghanistan whose family spent years as refugees in Pakistan and Russia to escape a war that we started in her country. She now has an engineering degree from BSU and a good job at a fast-growing tech company in Boise. She is and will continue to be a credit to this State.

After the U.S., with some justification, initiated the Afghan war, we veered off into an unnecessary war in Iraq, creating a new flood of refugees. Many of the people who sought refuge in this country as a result are doctors, engineers, IT experts, and the like. Some are still awaiting licenses to practice their professions, but working hard at other jobs to support their families in the meantime. It is shameful that about 50,000 Iraqis who risked their necks to help American forces, and are still in danger for having done so, are still awaiting entry into the U.S. I bet they wish they had known we would not stand behind them before they agreed to help us.

I am currently working with a young woman who was born in England to Nigerian parents, raised in Nigeria before returning to England, got several advanced degrees including one in law, and then immigrated to the U.S. We are putting together a program to help refugees and other immigrants adjust to the American legal system. She is dedicated to helping the wider community and works hard to make our State a better place for everyone.

The people in the immigrant community are like those who have come from other nations in the past-- to escape famine like the Irish, to escape religious persecution like the Pilgrims, or simply to find a better way of life, like my wife’s grandmother from Slovenia. The First Lady may also have come to America from Slovenia in search of a better life.

We are better than belittling people who come from war-torn and poverty-plagued countries. When those people take root in this land of opportunity, they start businesses at double the rate of home-grown Americans and they contribute their fair share and more to the economy of our State and country. They have much in common with those of us whose ancestors came to this nation of immigrants from formerly “sh__hole”

Too far on non-competition


The Legislature put the shoe on the wrong foot in 2016 when it passed a bill requiring employees to prove they did not harm their former employer if they violated a noncompetition agreement. The new law presumes irreparable harm to the employer, unless the employee can present proof to the contrary. The law is unfair, unnecessary and should be repealed.

During my private law practice before going onto the Idaho Supreme Court, I wrote a number of employment contracts with noncompete clauses and litigated on both sides of the issue. In 12 years on the Court, I authored a number of opinions on noncompetes and was probably more favorable to employers than most of my colleagues. I grew up believing people should keep their word and honor their contractual commitments.

While I routinely ruled that people should live with their contractual undertakings, noncompete provisions were a slightly different animal. They were often foisted on the employee on a take-it-or-leave-it basis in contracts where the employee had very few rights. Courts around the country have taken a jaundiced view of such contracts and Idaho has moved in that direction.

When I broke my wrist in 2002, I had a great physical therapist. About six months after my treatment ended, he called with noncompete troubles. He had taken a job with a local hospital and would be caring for its patients. His former employer headquartered in Texas was threatening a suit for violation of his noncompete, which he did not recall seeing in the contract. The threat against him was outrageous because there was no way he would be competing for patients of the former employer. This was not an uncommon situation.

Where the seller of a business agrees not to compete against the person buying the business, the buyer should be protected against a breach of the noncompete. In the regular employment setting, if the employer pays the employee extra for entering into a noncompete, or invests in specialized training for the employee, or gives the employee access to private business secrets, there are grounds for protection of the employer. If those elements are not present and the employer just wants to keep the employee chained to his or her job, protection may not be warranted.

In normal contract cases, a person suing for breach must prove all of the elements--that there was a contract, that the defendant violated it, that the plaintiff was damaged and the amount of damages. The 2016 bill removed the third element for noncompetes, requiring a former employee to prove the employer was not damaged. I am not aware of any reason why noncompete clauses should be treated differently than any other contractual provision.

During my private practice, I sometimes brought suit to enforce noncompete clauses. Just like any other contract case, if an employer has a good case it can win. If not, it shouldn’t. Noncompete cases do not warrant special rules. Noncompetes can serve valid interests, but they can also be used to unnecessarily stifle competition, to keep talented people from advancing, or to squelch the innovative employee who wants to strike out on his or her own. The pre-2016 legal landscape was properly balanced. That balance should be restored by repeal of the 2016 legislation.