Minnesota Votes

2005 Senate Bill 404 (State-Wide Smoking Ban in Public and Work Places)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. William V. Belanger, Jr., Sen. Scott D. Dibble, Sen. Steve Dille, Sen. Sheila M. Kiscaden and Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon on January 20, 2005, to place a statewide smoking ban on the place of employment which includes: 1) any location where at least 2 people perform services for which they are paid for, 2) "public places" such as bars, restaurants and retail stores, 3) day care facilities, 4) health care facilities and clinics, 5) on public transportation, 6) and outdoor seating in restaurants and bars unless designated otherwise. This prohibition would not apply to "traditional Native American Ceremonies." Local governments would be free to impose more restrictive prohibitions (HF405 Companion Bill).
    • Referred to the Senate Health and Family Security Committee on January 20, 2005.
    • Reported by Sen. Becky Lourey on February 14, 2005, from the Health and Family Security Committee with nonsubstantive amendments and the recommendation that the bill pass and be re-referred to the Commerce Committee. The report was adopted.
    • Reported by Sen. Linda Scheid on February 24, 2005, from the Commerce Committee with amendments and the recommendation that the bill pass as amended. As amended, the ban wouldn't apply to sampling tobacco products in a tobacco store. The report was adopted.
    • Motion by Sen. Scott D. Dibble on May 23, 2005, that SF404 be stricken from general orders and laid on the table. The motion passed in the Senate by voice vote on May 23, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. William V. Belanger, Jr., Sen. Scott D. Dibble, Sen. Steve Dille, Sen. Sheila M. Kiscaden and Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon on January 20, 2005. New Comment

1) cwxqz qtemruiok [by Anonymous Citizen on August 19, 2008]
vmjsdakrc pdschlg xlkeotf juhbwx wbjrq hfwnarze xjoizvg
Reply New Comment

Line

2) cwxqz qtemruiok [by Anonymous Citizen on August 19, 2008]
vmjsdakrc pdschlg xlkeotf juhbwx wbjrq hfwnarze xjoizvg
Reply New Comment

Line

3) staying home? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2007]
Maybe you should ask the people of New York or California if the bars or anything else are going broke? Don't think so
Reply New Comment

Line

4) re: to all non smokers [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2007]
Previous poster wrote:

"Also, I can't wait to hear you all moaning about your taxes going up because not enough money is being generated from cigarette sales anymore! How about a bill to force cigarette manufacturers to make a safer product."

First, there is a safer product. It's called chewing gum. Or nicotine gum. Take your pick. Yes, I understand that using either of these products requires a little self control, and people who are addicted to smoking have zero self control. Tough.

Second, non-smokers may miss the tax revenue generated by cigarette sales, but we will certainly not miss the billions of dollars of health costs and insurance costs caused by smokers, not to mention there immeasurable harm inflicted on other innocent people with their filthy habit.

A message to smokers. If you want to kill yourself, that's really stupid, but go ahead.

Don't kill everybody else in the process.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) smoke gets in your eyes [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2007]
i will make this short no one makes you sit in bar with smokers YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO LEAVE!and if you don,t leave then you made the choice to be in the bar with smokers
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Intentionally Dishonest! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2007]
I can't believe all the pro-smoking tobacco lobbyists on here intentionally spreading lies to endanger peoples' health, all for the almighty buck!

Smoking in closed establishments is not a freedom of choice issue. Of course you all know that, but you intentionally misrepresent the issue for monetary gain!

Freedom of choice ends when it violates the liberties of others. It's the most basic principle in our constitution.

You don't have the freedom of choice to go out and shoot someone just because you want to. And by that same token, you don't have the freedom to go out and blow your filthy, poisonous, cancerous smoke in their faces either.

Practice the tiniest grain of self-restraint, and stop yourself from killing others with your filthy habit.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) smokers choice [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2007]
it,s the right of every person make there own choices,but don,t think thats true anymore one wants something stop well open your wallets and it will happen what ever happened too freedom of choice?
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Lose 30% of income and pay your bills [by Anonymous Citizen on March 27, 2007]
A bar loses 30% of its income with a smoking ban. The state will lose 30% in tax revenue from liquor and tobacco tax. 30% of bars will close. 30% of workers will lose their jobs. 30% of fundraisers and charitable contributions will stop. 30% of my customers will be at the casino smoke and gamble and accomplish spending 30% more they don't have. 30% will cross the border and smoke in wisconsin. Let me remove 30% of your legislative budget and it would bankrupt the state or 30% of your income and you would lose your house. The ban will take 30% of my freedom and next it will be guns and privacy and womens rights. Stay out of my business. Waste your time on global warming, meth addiction, and education. The ban is like the invention of smoking it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Re: Freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on March 23, 2007]
Yes, people in bars are "adults", and are "free to make their own choices".

But this issue is far too obvious to be improperly labeled as a 'freedom of choice' issue.

EVERYONE understands the second hand smoke is harmful to your health. Everyone. Anyone who says different is being dishonest.

So it doesn't really have anything to do with freedom of choice. It has much more to do with limiting rights of smokers, when those rights infringe upon others' health.

Put it this way, if someone claimed they were going to go into bars and shoot 1 out of every 100 people, you would object to that. It would have no bearing that the people are in the bar of their own "free will". They have a RIGHT to be free from getting shot in the bars.

And people have a RIGHT to not inhale cancer fumes from careless people who can't control their negative urges.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2007]
Bill 404 is an insult to every private business owner in Mn. Liquor establishments are for people over 21, ADULTS!!!!!!! Supposedly old enough to make their own choices!!!!! People are such lemings. You jerks gladly take and spend the tax money from tocacco and squander it!!!! Why does government get to have it both
ways? I wish someone would give me 72million dollars to write a bogus bill!!!!!!

Reply New Comment

Line

11) Here we go! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2007]
Alrighty a new bill, now will it be comprehensive
or will "private" clubs be exempt? Ever seen
a private Legion club? Casinos?
ALL workers have the right to breathe clean
air. The national VFW commander wants all
VFW clubs to be smoke-free.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Centrist Tim [by Anonymous Citizen on December 19, 2006]
As a moderate democrat it warms my heart to
see the Gov moving to the center and agreeing
with the soon to be DFL majority. If the state-wide smoking ban is approved heck maybe on the
fence Tim may sign it now even if it isn't
watered down to not include those pour bars.
Now let's get those live saving fire-safe
cigs as the ONLY cigarettes sold in MN.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) One will see... [by Anonymous Citizen on November 27, 2006]
Yes the pro-tobacco lobby Pawlenty got in for
another 4 years (barely). There went the VP
nod from McCain. Now let's see if the Gov supports smoke-free workplaces for all in the next
session. Or will he buckle to the "hospitality"
industry and the pour bars? A watered down bill
will not protect all workers and their rights to
breathe clean air.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Re: One will see... [by Anonymous Citizen on November 29, 2006]
Pawlenty winning the midterm election was a great thing for Minnesota.

We can look forward to another term of balanced budget.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Pawlenty enough! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 2, 2006]
In 2003 Pawlenty squandered the $1.2 billion
tobacco prevention trust fund to fix his annual
state budget. This trust had been dedicated to
tobacco prevention and a public health endowment.
In 2005 Minnesota spent only 4% of the $554 million in tobacco-generated revenue from taxes and tobacco settlement payments on tobacco prevention.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Re: Pawlenty enough! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 6, 2006]
So Pawlenty "squandered" tobacco settlement money to FIX THE STATE BUDGET??!!!

Way to go Gov!! I love that guy!!

God knows, it would've been much better to blow all that cash putting out stupid public service ads that high school and college kids completely ignore anyway. (sarcasm intended)

And actually, I'm a huge advocate of the smoking ban. I can't get enough of all the great fresh air in bars and restaurants. The smoking ban was great idea.

But once again I am impressed by Pawlenty's priorities, and his ability to get the bloated Minnesota budget under control.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Casino Smoking! [by Anonymous Citizen on October 23, 2006]
Tribal casinos are the ninth largest employer in
Minnesota (nearly 14,000). Only 22% of these jobs
are held by American Indians. The second-hand smoke health hazard in these casinos is unsafe
to all their employees. The tribal nations must
work with the state of Minnesota to develop second-hand smoke policies. Other states with
tribal casinos have done this. There is no
safe second-hand smoke!
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Big Tobacco [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2006]
The big tobacco lobby is still at it with $3 million in contributions for this election.
And our Senator Coleman and wannabe Senator
Kennedy ranked in the top 10 for bucks from
this lobby. As the ad says, "Mark Kennedy you
should be ashamed."
Reply New Comment

Line

19) COMMERCE [by Anonymous Citizen on October 5, 2006]
WITH THE POWERFUL INFLUENCE THE MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAS ON SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS IT WILL
BE DIFFICULT TO GET A BILL PASSED THAT PROTECTS
ALL WORKERS OF RESTAURANTS AND STAND ALONE POUR
BARS FROM SECOND-HAND SMOKE. THEY ARE ADVOCATES
FOR BIG TOBACCO IN THE COURTS. I WILL NOT VOTE
FOR ANYONE ENDORSED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
THERE IS NO SAFE SECOND-HAND SMOKE! LET'S GET
THE STATEWIDE SMOKING BAN PASSED IN 2007!
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Non-smoking Bars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2006]
Smokers may be the minority in the world. I would not argure that because I have not idea. I would like to pose a question; If this is such a good idea why oh why is there not a non-smoking bar on every corner??, or even one corner. I will tell you why, because most people who drink also smoke, they go hand in hand or alteast used to. Many people have decided to just stay home.

When your new favorite non-smoking bar in your neighborhood closes because their new non-smoking customers only come out once a month, you can stay home too. Or maybe you could drink and smoke in a select county then drive to your home county to go home. What's next? No more grilled meat, french fries...How about government subsidies for the bar the owners that are going broke or the servers that can't pay their bills...

Stop the Madness
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Reply - Non Smoking Bars [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2006]
I'm sorry to read that your state is apparently considering this silly extension of the nanny state, as well. Unfortunately, as shown by a number of posts, common sense is already out the window in Minnesota, too.

I'm writing from Colorado, a state that recently passed a state-wide smoking ban. We're just a month into it and a number of smaller neighborhood bars across the metro-Denver area are hurting severely.

And for the commie-libs out there who make the claim, just to set the record straight, there aren't any credible studies that show a significant link between environmental tobacco smoke and disease rates in nonsmokers. There are studies that are credible; there are studies that purport to show a link; but you don't find both qualities in the same study.

Credible studies find no significant link.

This is why the EPA's finding that enviromental tobacco smoke posed a health risk was not allowed to be admitted and/or judicial notice taken in a civil trial as recently as 1998.

What's really going on here is that the Tobacco Nazi's found themselves at a loss to restrict smoking in certain public places that cater to smokers. At this point, such places are pretty much limited to bars and restaurants.

The path of least resistance for the Nazi's to continue their crusade was to fall back on the myth of that there was some danger to exposure to secondhand smoke. The myth was created years ago, but it offered a convenient ruse for the do-gooders of today: By declaring tobacco smoke a significant health hazard, the nannies have pierced the protections offered by traditional private property rights and are able to regulate smoking out of all public places, including bars, using the same justification by which food and beverage safety is enforced.

The reality is that this isn't a health issue for nonsmokers. It's a property rights issue, plain and simple. The alleged hazard that secondhand smoke presents is nothing more than a red herring by which the anti's can get into your pub and enforce their preferences.

It's not a step in the right direction...unless you're a socialist or something.

Jim
Westminster, CO
Reply New Comment

Line

22) non smoking bars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 4, 2007]
have non smoking bars in large city which you are from might work. but what about all the small towns that make up a large percentage of the bars in this state this bill will see alot of small town bar closing there doors
Reply New Comment

Line

23) State Wide Ban - YES [by Anonymous Citizen on September 22, 2006]
My God, would that be terrific. Imagine being able to enjoy all those public areas without enduring lung-clogging, artery-hardening smoke.

I was standing with 5 other people under a bus shelter on a rainy day in downtown Minneapolis yesterday. Everyone gave her looks, but she obviously and purposely ignored each and every person, preferring instead to gratify herself and kill everyone else in the bus shelter. That is the choice smokers make in public every day.

Also, it is obvious in reading this message board that the pro-smoking posts are canned messages written by special interest groups, made to look like independent citizens.

Please pass this excellent legislation and lower health costs statewide.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) brush up on the bill of rights [by Anonymous Citizen on April 23, 2007]
i am not a special intrest group my name is abe thornton, i live and work in cottage grove. there is no reason that senate bill 404 and house bill 405,fyi. the smoking ban bills, sould even be in debate in legislation. it is your right not to smoke it is also your right to choose where you work, eat, and drink. no one is holding a gun to your head making you do these things in a smoky enviernment. YOU CHOOSE TO!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

25) What?! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2007]
So by that logic, if I want to go into a bunch of bars and restaurants and spray rat poison around at people, that's OK because it's my right.

And people shouldn't have a thing to say about it, because they are in the restaurant because they CHOOSE to be. They don't have to be in that restaurant when I'm spraying rat poison around if they don't want to.

See how ridiculous that sounds??

I think smokers need to wake up to the fact that they have an unhealthy habit that is killing other people. Harming other peoples' health is NOT YOUR RIGHT.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) re: Non-smoking Bars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2006]
You sound like a smoker. You should try to quit. Those cancer sticks'll kill ya'.

Anyone who tells you bars are closing because of smoke-free bar laws is full of BS, plain and simple. Most people who write those messages are just making stuff up on the 'net, because they want to politicize the issue.

I go to the bars all over the twin cities metro area all the time, and they are as busy and packed as ever. The only difference is that they are now much, much more enjoyable, since they are now fresh and clean, and free of filthy, disgusting, and lung clogging smoke.

You mentioned banning red meat. Well, you may (or may not) be bright enough to see the difference between red meat and smoking. Red meat may kill YOU, but smoking will kill YOU and OTHERS as well. I realize most smokers are too short sighted and selfish to think of anyone but themselves, so they really don't care. That's why we need laws like the excellent smoking ban.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) non-smoking bar... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2006]
Nope, not a smoker, just a business man. You sound like a liberal Democrat that supports big and bigger government.

The politicans made it political, not the bar owners.


Reply New Comment

Line

28) re: non-smoking bar [by Anonymous Citizen on June 12, 2006]
Nope, I'm not a Democrat.

In fact, I'm a conservative Republican who writes on blogs and avidly listens to AM1280, the Patriot.

So you can see that this is an issue that is so obvious that both Republicans and Democrats can agree -- People shouldn't kill other people with cancer in bars and restaurants.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) abolish the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2006]
Every person should have a right to smoke outside of his or her home. Prohibiting smoking will not get citizens to quit, also people who are afraid of getting a second hand smoke should not be around those who do smoke if they are so concerned for they're health. When a person lights up a cigarette he or she asks if it botheres the non-smoking person. If it does they usually move away, smoke then comeback, it should be a matter of opinion of an individual. Why pass a bill that will only get citizens to stop going places where the smoking is prohibited? What would happen if there was a bill that prohibited public display? You are taking away individuals right, and that's not alright.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) I don't care if you smoke as long as it doesn't affect me [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2006]
I have never had anyone ask me if they minded if they smoked. I find your arguement pretty shallow. Countless studies have proven that second hand smoke is bad. It needs to be banned. If you want to end your life early by smoking, I don't care. However, I do care when it negatively affects other people.

Go to the Body Worlds exhibit at the science museum. Check out the smokers lungs and enlarged heart (from smoking).
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Excellent Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2006]
I normally do not like the idea of Gov't intervening in people's lives, but this is one instance where it is warranted and needed. Here's why:

There are no benefits to smoking. None. Not one single aspect of smoking is a good thing. Most people who smoke wish they didn't. Of course, there are some (crazy) people who will say that they are glad they smoke. But most people wish they didn't. Unfortunately, quitting smoking is very difficult, and people who smoke often lack the resolve and the discipline to try very hard. These kinds of bans will help smokers in that struggle. Of course, it will take time. But eventually, the continued absence of smoking from all sorts of establishments will make it easier for smokers to kick the habit. As they say, "out of sight, out of mind".

Also, for those of us that put forth the effort to take care of our health and to not smoke, it is always an annoyance to be around a smoker. 99% of the time, we don't say anything, but that doesn't mean we enjoy having the second-hand smoke clogging our lungs and arteries.

I wish these bans had come along 20 years ago. It would have been great during my younger years to go to the bars and have clean, fresh air.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) to all non smokers [by Anonymous Citizen on March 30, 2007]
As long as the government allows the sale of and profits from the taxes of a highly addictive and dangerous product they should allow the pour slobs who have become addited to smoke with at least some form of shelter and comfort. Some of us can not quite smoking unless we are confined and sedated which is not practical. Also, I can't wait to hear you all moaning about your taxes going up because not enough money is being generated from cigarette sales anymore! How about a bill to force cigarette manufacturers to make a safer product.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Smoking Ban [by Anonymous Citizen on March 2, 2005]
A fine example of our MN government legislating
the population into lifestyles they consider healthier and more appropriate, while totally ingnoring facts and private property rights.
It's also a way for Sen Belanger to level the
playing field for his district.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) Whatever [by david54 on March 13, 2005]
People that work in restaurants need to have their health protected just like everyone else who has to work for a living. How come so many people don't care about workers rights?
Reply New Comment

Line

35) louie679 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 17, 2008]
doesn't everyone have the choice not to work in the place that allows smoking and to apply at a smoke free bar or cafe? I own a bar and my employees all smoke we have to leave the bar and go outside with the customers FREEDOM ha ha
Reply New Comment

Line

36) re whatever [by Anonymous Citizen on June 6, 2007]
no makes them take and keep those jobs
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Just another voice [by Anonymous Citizen on March 26, 2005]
For the past 8 years I have worked in a restaurant and not wanting to work in a smoking enviroment is the last thing on the servers minds! Though, what is on there minds is *I need to make $$$ today*. Most of the non-smoking servers that I work with are very pissed about the smoking ban. The others could care less. We are a 24 hour restaurant and get rushes at seperate times in smoking and non. Take away some of the smokers (generally the college kids getting some homework done, girlfriends out for lunch and the regular that comes in on his lunch break) and you would be cutting my tips in about a third and some days half!
The BEST jobs you could have w/o a college degree is as a server, bartender or a stripper. With this smoking ban you are taking away valuable money from the people who have little to nothing. How are the kids in college going to pay for their tuition if they have to work more than 20 hours a week to even make the bills??
I know that the smoking ban will not effect every severs income for life but there is going to be a transition period and we will be effected.
Tell the single waitess Mom with 2 kids who ran away wifebeating husband that you supported this ban and she will tell you about how she can hardly buy new shoes for her growing boys.
My other point that this is a sad world and maybe we should be focusing on the more important issues rather than telling everyone that smokes that they suck and should go away because it is bad for YOUR health.
How much goverment money did we spend creating another reason to hate one another??
Reply New Comment

Line

38) Non-Smoking Student [by Anonymous Citizen on March 27, 2005]
Did it ever occur to you that smokers make up a minority in this country? Did it occur to you that they die younger? If bars and restaurants were so damn smokey, I would go out more. I don't want to get dressed up only to smell like crap when I leave and who knows how much nasty crap from smoke I will inhale. Why do you think it's only the smokers who go out? That's always the false argument. You don't lose a few smokers, you gain alot of non-smokers who also tend to have more income. Mostly poor and down on their luck people smoke. If you're concerned about earning money, you need to tap into the non-smokers. You should also spend more time on your college english courses. Don't use these old, worn out smoker responses. Who do you think is paying for your medical bills. Why don't these smoking advocates offer medical insurance for their customers? They are allowing people to be sickened in their establishments and claiming they care about their customers. Give me a break!!! It's about the few last pennies they have left after they drink and smoke away their minimum wage pay.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) Just for Non-Smoking Student [by Anonymous Citizen on March 27, 2005]
Did it ever occur to you that I could be a non-smoker?? Did it ever occur to you that many non-smokers could give a sh** about the smoke that they go out to have fun and not complain about it or anything for that matter?? What is really great is that you will find that many wealthy and lucky people smoke also. Why you ask because it is their right to do so!! I also have to mention that not everyone who smokes, drinks or vise versa. Oh and thanks by the way for paying for my medical insuance if you would just send me your name and address I will be happy to forward the bill to you!

Sorry, I am also being mean, but I did it to get your attention. If you would have read my OPINION for the uses as is was intended, you would have seen that many poor people would be affected, not just the wealthy bar and restaurant owners. My message was never intended for you, as it was a repy to WHATEVER by David54. My point was that if you have or ever worked in a restaurant/bar it was for the money because you needed it and not because you were worried about your health. And I guess for you...not for BOOZE as you previously wrote about.

This message forum is for people who want to have a voice, discuss and debate a little, not to yell or insult each other.

You need to chill out a little, I don't hate you or your opinion. If I have never worked in restaurant I would be all for the ban but you have to look at both sides of the spectrum. Would you seriously go out 4-5 times a week if the ban was in effect right now? When you get a craving for one of the Green Mills pasta dishes would your really denie yourself what you want because you would have a unknown% chance in an unknown amount of years of develpoing lung cancer? Or you might just have to spary a little parfume on yourself after you get out of there. Did you know that there are over 70 carcinogens that start with the letter "A"?? Did you know eating meat cooked at a high temp (which most restaurants do) causes cancer. Sweetie we live in a world of cancer, there is no escaping it. The numbers are just going to keep on growing year after year and no affence to us humans but we are just not smart enough to stop it whether is be for wealth or poverty. You are going to give yourself cancer just by worring about it too much.
And for the stench, well maybe everyone will quit and eventually it will be illegal or Camel will come out with a jasmine scented cigarette.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) I want to be 100% safe. [by Anonymous Citizen on March 13, 2005]
Let's ban everything which could ever possibly harm anyone. This would of course include: All fast food, autos, bikes, playground equipment, glass bottles, all string, rope, wire, knives, fishing hooks, all bodies of water, all snowmobiles, riding horses, lawn chemicals, even fire, and about a couple million more items. (The bill would require a large amount of paper to print up ). The bill should also ban "Legislators" which are the biggest threat to all citizens of Minnesota.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Another new bill [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2005]
Amen to that. They could title the new bill "Just stay home and inside".
Reply New Comment

Line

42) SMOKERS BARS [by Anonymous Citizen on June 2, 2007]
WHY DON,T YOU JUST LET US SMOKERS HAVE SMOKER BARS AND YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE AFRAID OF YOUR OWN SHADOW YOUR NON-SMOKING BARS
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Re: SMOKERS BARS [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2007]
There IS a "smoker's bar". It's called "your home". Go kill yourself and your innocent children with cigarettes over there.

But leave your "death sticks" out of public places.

FACT: SECOND-HAND SMOKE KILLS OTHER PEOPLE.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: