U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has managed to force a full House vote on a measure that could allow new moms in Congress to vote remotely.

Luna previously filed legislation that would allow members to vote by proxy for six weeks after giving birth to a child. But the St. Petersburg Republican faced resistance from leadership in her own party, and the bill hasn’t advanced in the chamber.

So Luna filed a discharge petition, a method open to all members to gather enough support to force a vote on a bill if 218 Representatives agree.

That measure reached the requisite signatures required Tuesday, when Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler of New York signed on. Ultimately, only 12 Republicans supported the effort, along with 206 Democrats.

But Luna said the bill represents family values that conservatives should rally behind.

Luna gave birth to her first child during her first term in Congress, and previously said it surprised her that she couldn’t vote by proxy when all members were allowed that ability in the pandemic.

“When my son was born last Summer, leadership told me I would not be allowed to vote by proxy while I recovered from childbirth. Yet, during COVID, the entire House of Representatives was allowed to do so!” Luna told Florida Politics.

“This is a double standard we can’t ignore. My resolution to amend the House Rules would allow a Congresswoman who gives birth to vote by proxy for the first six weeks after her baby is born.”

Democrats had controlled the chamber when proxy voting was allowed in the pandemic, and many Republicans criticized the legality at the time. When Republicans won a majority, the policy was quickly abandoned.

Nine other Florida lawmakers supported Luna’s discharge petition, including Republican U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds and Democratic U.S. Reps. Kathy Castor, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Lois Frankel, Maxwell Frost, Jared Moskowitz, Darren Soto, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Frederica Wilson.

Discharge petitions are often filed, usually by members of the minority party, but rarely force issues to the floor. Of note, one of the last successful petitions was also filed by a Florida Representative. U.S. Rep. Greg Steube, a Sarasota Republican, successfully passed a disaster-related tax relief bill last year using the process.

Post Views: 0

For decades, asphalt shingles have been the roofing material of choice for Florida homeowners, providing an affordable and reliable solution to protect homes from the harsh Sunshine State climate. Yet recently, reports have circulated that legislators may consider restrictions favoring alternative roofing materials.

This idea, driven more by market interference than sound policy, misrepresents the reality of Florida’s roofing industry and could ultimately hurt the very homeowners our laws should protect.

I’ve been a roofer and business owner my entire adult life, so I’ve spent decades on rooftops across Florida. I know firsthand what works in our state’s unique climate and what doesn’t. I also had the honor of serving in the Florida Senate and House and recognize bad ideas that would favor a select few at the expense of the general public.

Metal roofs are a great option that homeowners should have access to, but they should not be pawns in choosing winners and losers. Asphalt shingles have proven themselves to be a cost-effective, durable, and accessible roofing option for millions of homeowners. Any effort to restrict them would do more harm than good.

Asphalt shingles remain the most widely used and versatile roofing material in Florida, covering approximately 70-75% of homes. This isn’t by accident — homeowners choose asphalt shingles because they offer a combination of affordability, durability, and aesthetic appeal that other materials often can’t match.

Some critics point to the large number of insurance claims related to asphalt shingles as the reason to push for alternatives and restrict the use of asphalt. But this argument ignores a basic fact: asphalt shingles simply cover more roofs in Florida than any other roofing material. Damage doesn’t occur because of the roofing material itself – instead, it’s affected by whether the roof meets modern standards and, in some cases, by the quality of installation.

Government overreach is going to cost homeowners more money without any benefits. Rather than restricting options for Florida homeowners, we should be focused on strengthening overall roofing performance across all materials.

Over the years, Florida’s building codes have improved significantly and modern asphalt shingles have evolved to meet higher standards for wind resistance, hail impact, and fire protection. The industry continues to innovate, with manufacturers working alongside regulators to improve installation practices and durability.

There are already proposals to further enhance Florida’s building codes to improve roofing resilience — without placing unnecessary financial burdens on homeowners and would-be homebuyers.

If Florida were to impose new restrictions or disincentives on asphalt shingles, the biggest losers would be working families and middle-class homeowners who can’t afford more expensive roofing materials like metal or tile. Roofing policies shouldn’t be dictated by the commercial interests of those selling competing products but should instead prioritize consumer choice and economic fairness.

As someone who has built a career in the roofing industry, I know that no two homes — and no two budgets – are alike. Homeowners should have the freedom to choose the roofing materials that best fit their needs.

As a roofer, a business owner and former legislator, I urge policymakers, industry leaders, and regulators to take a measured, fact-based approach to roofing discussions. Let’s focus on ensuring strong building standards, promoting consumer education, and allowing homeowners the freedom to choose the roofing materials that best fit their needs and budgets.

___

Keith Perry is a former member of the state Senate representing Alachua, Putnam, and part of Marion counties in North Central Florida.

Post Views: 0