Page One header image 1

Naming Names On The House Bill 9 Shenanigans

March 22nd, 2013 · 4 Comments

Are you familiar with House Bill 9?

AN ACT relating to domestic violence.

Amend KRS 403.720, relating to domestic violence orders, to include dating partners among the class of persons allowed to obtain domestic violence protective orders.

It’s common sense legislation that would protect tens of thousands of Kentucky women from their dating partners and domestic violence. It’s so common sense, in fact, that 92 State Representatives – Democrats and Republicans – voted for passage:


Who voted AGAINST it in the House? These folks:


  • Joe Fischer — In his district there were 16 orders of protection, 292 orders of emergency protection and 94 orders of domestic violence in Fiscal Year 2012.
  • Mike Harmon — In his district there were3 protective orders, 170 orders for emergency protection and 106 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.
  • Kim King — In her district there were 208 orders for emergency protection and 117 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.
  • Stan Lee — In his district there were 67 protective orders, 1,087 orders for emergency protection and 701 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.
  • Mike Meredith — In his district there were 2 protective orders, 133 orders for emergency protection and 115 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.

Beyond absurd that Kim King – a woman – would vote against it. Just absurd. Look at the numbers for each of those districts, as well. Think about the thousands of constituents these people are ignoring.

Those who couldn’t be bothered to cast a vote won’t surprise you:


  • Johnny Bell — In his district there were 17 orders or protection, 587 orders of emergency protection and 277 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.
  • David Floyd — In his district there were 64 orders of protection, 570 orders for emergency protection and 472 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.
  • Jim Gooch — In his district there were 6 protective orders, 803 orders for emergency protection and 523 orders of domestic violence in FY2012.

They couldn’t be bothered to cast a vote. After the Kentucky State Police reported that there were 21,207 domestic violence cases in the Commonwealth during Fiscal Year 2012. 21,207! From Circuit, District and Family Courts. 21,207 cases! All of those individual cases impacting thousands of constituents in each of their districts and they still have the guts to act like this issue isn’t important enough for them to cast a vote.

These people are why Kentucky can’t have nice things.

Tags: Frustration · Spotted · Stats

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jerry // Mar 23, 2013 at 10:58 am

    As one has come to expect from Stan Lee.

  • 2 jtt // Mar 25, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Have to disagree on this one – for one reason. I would not have an issue if it was limited to allowing a judge to design to enter an appropriate order against a party after a hearing, but if it mirrors the current Assault 4th law, it would put law enforcement officers in a position of trying to figure out if a couple IS a dating couple – without providing any real definition of what that is? One date, two dates? It’s tough enough to figure out if a couple actually lives together, especially when one or the other lives at multiple locations.

  • 3 jake // Mar 25, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    There’s no reason that couldn’t have been defined in the legislation. Regardless, that’s just an excuse.

    It’s not tough to determine whether or not a couple lives together. Just like it’s not tough to determine if a domestic partnership is legit. Are there bills? Paperwork? Witnesses to attest to whether or not a couple is living together?

    When you swear out an emergency order, you’re called before the court to prove your case or it’s dropped. It’s silly to think the same can’t apply in this situation.

  • 4 Shannon // Mar 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Kentucky is one of two states that does not allow dating partners to file for protection. Two states. If other states can figure it out, we can too. This is ridiculous, backwards, and – most important – putting people at risk. How dare these legislators continue to deny Kentuckians basic protections that the rest of our nation (minus one other state) hold!