Along party lines, the House State Affairs Committee advanced HB 395, "Protection of Historic Monuments and Memorials."
But some may see the language as watered down from its original conception, which sought to not just deal with future attempts to remove monuments, but also to actions taken as far back as 2017.
The current bill stipulates that the Legislature intends "to declare void all ordinances, regulations, and executive actions regarding the removal, damage, or destruction of historic Florida monuments or memorials which have been enacted by any local government" and seeks "to protect each historic Florida monument or memorial from removal, damage, or destruction."
This bill includes all monuments still, including Confederate memorials, which have been a major talking point in recent years amid historical reconsideration. And it advanced despite Democrats, like Rep. Michele Rayner, saying she has "never been more offended by a bill" in the Legislature than this one.
But Rep. Dean Black's bill is somewhat changed from its original language when it was filed late last year, after a committee substitute was approved by the panel, a reflection of what the Jacksonville Republican called a "very fluid" committee process of the sort that has seen major changes to controversial bills every year.
"This is quite possibly the most American bill you will hear all Session," Black claimed to the committee. He would go on to say the bill "would help clear the air between our peoples."
He claimed that "over the past few years, local governments have made war on historic monuments and this recognizes that history belongs to all Floridians," thanking the committee for doing a "lot of work" on the substitute, and saying the "really good bill ... will protect history."
Among the new changes, the committee substitute stipulates that the structure must have been displayed for 25 years, with an original expectation of permanent installation.
The preemption language is explicit, ceding to the state "the whole field of removal, damage, or destruction of historic Florida monuments or memorials to the exclusion of any existing or future local government ordinance, regulation, or rule."
In a contrast to the previous language, which included a retroactive condition that would seem to be a remedy to Jacksonville's removal of two Confederate monuments in 2020 and 2023, the committee substitute is focused on the future and seems to abandon any hope that the Legislature can compel local officials to reinstall previously removed memorials.
Rather, in future occurrences "the court shall declare the ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel."
The new language also gives localities recourse to move monuments permanently, but that must still be on public property, "at a site with similar prominence, honor, visibility, and access within the same county or municipality as determined by the department after consultation with the Florida Historical Commission or, for a historic Florida military monument or memorial, after consultation with the Department of Veterans' Affairs."
Previously, there was no mechanism for permanent relocation of the memorial.
The bill still gives standing to people to challenge monument removals, and per Black, it still "covers all historical figures," including those who rebelled against the government in Washington in the 19th Century.
The language still doesn't align with the version moving through Senate committees.
The Senate bill would also give standing to any aggrieved party to sue if a monument was "removed, damaged, or destroyed on or after October 1, 2020," as long as they used the edifice for "remembrance," a loose term with a wide variety of meanings. The House version's original form backdated the cause of action to 2017, but the new bill seems to elide any such retroactivity.
No comments:
Post a Comment