It's three months until the midterm elections. Besides the 435 House seats and 36 Senate seats to be decided on November 4, voters will go to the polls to elect 46 state legislatures, 36 state governors, and numerous local officials. The last midterms in 2010 swept Republicans into control of the House of Representatives and state governments and broke the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. In 2010, Democrats lost 6 Senate seats and 63 House seats. The crushing defeats for Democrats were a primary motivator for writing this blog - my first post was "Anger and Lies in the Mid-terms." The 2010 midterms were a game changer. They led directly to the governmental paralysis at the national level that continues to this day. Just as importantly, increased Republican control of state governments resulted in gerrymandered districts and voter suppression laws geared to ensure Republican control of the House and to make more probable their takeover of the Senate. Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance laws and the Voting Rights Act also aid the Republican cause.
The midterms have historically led to losses for the President's political party. In the twenty-six midterm elections held since 1910, the President's party has lost, on average, 32 House seats and 4 Senate seats. Money and turnout determine elections. Money favors Republicans and turnout favors Democrats.
Thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court, the 2014 midterms will be the most expensive in history. The Open Secrets.org website tallies the financial activity for House and Senate races in 2013-2014. House races have generated $424 million for Republicans and $316 million for Democrats. Senate races have generated $207 million for Republicans and $197 million for Democrats.
Anyone doubting the influence of money on policy decisions will find it hard to explain policies that are opposed by the vast majority or that are morally bankrupt. We need only to look at the contributions to political campaigns and the amount spent on lobbying by, respectively, the pro-gun lobby ($4.3 million in political contributions in the 2012 election cycle; $22.2 million in lobbying for 2013-2014) and the pro-Israel lobby (Sheldon Adelson doled out $92.8 million to Republican super PACs in 2012; other pro-Israel groups contributed $16.1 million to the federal campaigns of both parties in the 2012 election cycle.) Anyone hoping for a change in policies that contribute to the income and wealth gap in the United States need only reflect on the contributions to political campaigns by the finance/insurance/real estate sectors ($228 million in campaign contributions to candidates and parties so far in the 2013-2014 election cycle).
Congressional disapproval ratings and the voter suppression laws increase the probability of low voter turnout. As of 2011, there were 42 million registered Democrats, 30 million registered GOPers, and 24 million independents. According to census figures, there are over 200 million people in the voting eligible population. About half the US voting population have not registered with a party or as independents. Turnout in midterm elections is even worse than that - the 2010 elections saw just 41% of the voting eligible population show up at the polls.
Both the money figures and the expected low turnout promise continued Republican control of the House and a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate. But where do the polls say we stand three months before the mid-term elections? Here's a look at the latest poll results for some specific races. (Data are from the Real Clear Politics website)
Governors
Florida - Charlie Crist (D) 43.8% v. Rick Scott (R) 42.5%
Wisconsin - Scott Walker (R) 47.0% v. Mary Burke(D) 46.3%
Texas - Greg Abbott (R) 50.5% v. Wendy Davis (D) 36.8%
Ohio - Jim Kasich (R) 47.0% v. Ed FitzGerald (D) 38.8%
Pennsylvania - Tom Wolf (D) 52.0% v. Tom Corbett (R) 39.0%
Two toss-ups, two Republican likely's and one Democratic likely in some of the most important Republican held states - some small gains in state governments but not a lot to cheer about here.
Senators
This is the key group. There are 21 Democratic seats and 15 Republican seats to be decided. Loss of the Senate majority would ensure an end to what's left of Obama's agenda and to any hope for progressive or even moderate appointments to the judiciary. These are the key seats in play in red or swing states currently with a Democratic incumbent Senator and/or with a retiring Democratic Senator:
Louisiana - Cassidy (R) 46.8% v. Landrieu (D) 45.8%
Alaska - Begich (D) 44.0% v. Sullivan (R) 41.0%
Arkansas - Cotton 47.4% (R) v. Pryor (D) 43.8%
North Carolina - Hagan (D) 45.8% v. Tillis (R) 44.0%
Virginia - Warner (D) 51.0% v. Gillespie 33.7%
Montana - Daines (R) 51.7% v. Walsh (D) 38.0%
South Dakota - Rounds(R) 44% v. Weiland (D) 29.5%
Iowa - Ernst (R) 44.8% v. Braley (D) 44.0%
Michigan - Peters (D) 43.8% v. Land (R) 39.2%
It's still early and many of the key races are toss-ups. But, if the vote were held tomorrow and the current poll figures held, Democrats would lose 5 Senate seats, making for a 50-50 split. Democrats would technically retain the majority only because of the Vice President's tie-breaking role in votes brought to the Senate floor.
Representatives
The composition of the current House of Representatives is 233 Republicans, 199 Democrats, and 3 vacancies. The most recent RealClearPolitics polling analysis shows 230 seats going to Republicans, 188 going to Democrats and 17 tossups. Splitting the tossups roughly in half makes for a Republican majority of 239 to 196 Democrats. In the best of all possible worlds - all tossups going to Democrats - the Republican majority would still be 25 seats - 230 to 205.
Finishing James Brady's fight for gun background checks [Newark Star Ledger editorial, Aug 4]
James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, died Monday at the age of 73. Brady was shot in the head during the attempted assassination of Reagan in 1981. He was permanently disabled and lived with constant pain but remained, until his death, "a tireless fighter for gun safety laws -- particularly the most common sense reform of all, universal background checks." The "Brady Law" passed in 1993 made background checks "a requirement for gun purchases from licensed dealers." It is credited with stopping the sale of "more than 2 million illegal firearms sales -- half of them attempted purchases by convicted felons." But Brady knew the job wasn't finished. The loopholes that allow 40 percent of gun purchases without background checks have never been closed. "Universal background checks are now supported by 90 percent of Americans, 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members. They don't march in line with industry lobbyists. We can only hope that eventually, the political class will yield to a public opinion that James Brady started to shift."
Showing posts with label Voting Rights Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting Rights Act. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
Voter Suppression 2014
"There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax
and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to
limit a franchise that we see today."
Besides the threat to democracy from the Roberts Court's decisions removing restrictions on campaign financing (Citizens United and McCutcheon), there is an even more blatant and direct threat in the numerous state laws aimed at suppressing voter turnout. Republicans quickly realized after the 2008 election of Barack Obama that voter turnout was a key to his successful bid for the Presidency. They began a widespread effort to suppress the vote in states that they held - starting with voter ID laws, then purging voter rolls, then making it more difficult to register, then reducing early and absentee voting and, then, Obama's initiative to make voting easier notwithstanding, making it more difficult for people to make it to the polls. I don't think even Republicans believe their original canard of enacting these laws to "prevent voter fraud," which is less common than shark attacks. The suppression of the vote is nothing less than an assault on the most basic democratic right.
The Republican momentum towards this widespread denial of voting rights was well underway by the time of the 2012 elections. Based on the Brennan Center for Justice's October 2011 analysis, the laws in place by year end 2011 would have made it "significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012." Even so, it was not enough to stop Obama's re-election. Then in 2013, the Roberts Court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County vs. Holder. Encouraged by the ruling and now in control of several more state legislatures, the voter suppression effort was cranked up. The worst voter suppression laws were passed in North Carolina the month after the Roberts Court's ruling. As Ari Berman summarizes in his excellent article on the North Carolina law: "In short, the bill eliminates practically everything that encourages people to vote in North Carolina, replaced by unnecessary and burdensome new restrictions. At the same time, the bill expands the influence of unregulated corporate influence in state elections." In 2013 alone, at least 93 new restrictive voting bills were introduced in 33 states. [Brennan Center for Justice, Dec. 19, 2013]
Dana Liebelson writing on April 9 for Mother Jones notes the absolute wrong-headedness of the Roberts Court's decison to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on the basis that "our country has changed," and that blanket federal protection wasn't needed to stop discrimination. "States that were previously covered in some part by Section 5 moved quickly after it was invalidated." Besides North Carolina, the states of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina pushed through actions to restrict voting rights. Liebelson continues: "We found that 8 of the 15 states [previously covered by the Voting Rights Act], or 53 percent, passed or implemented voting restrictions since June 25, compared to 3 of 35 states that were not covered under Section 5—or less than 9 percent. Additionally, a number of states not covered by the Voting Rights Act actually expanded voting rights in the same time period. The three states not covered by the VRA that did pass restrictive laws after the decision (Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin) are all in the hands of Republicans. No surprise there.
In addition to the state level actions, action at the local level by politicians and operatives designed to discourage voting are also being implemented. These actions or attempted actions range from moving polling places out of the reach of public transportation in minority districts to attempts to squash voter registration efforts and absentee balloting to closing bathrooms at polling places. Honestly, you just can't make this stuff up.
The road back to fairness will be a long one. None of the Congressional efforts to restore voting rights have gone anywhere. Being somewhat cynical, I wonder: why should any Republican support fairness in voting when the objective of their party's effort is to suppress the vote of traditionally Democratic voters?
Some law suits have been filed - most notably in North Carolina where the ACLU and others filed in late March to overturn the voter suppression laws there. "The suit specifically targets provisions of the law that eliminate a week of early voting, end same-day registration, and prohibit "out-of-precinct" voting. It seeks to stop North Carolina from enacting these provisions, arguing that they would unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965." [ACLU website] The challenge is not expected to be heard until 2015, although the litigants may be able to get some provisions blocked before the 2014 midterms. Texas and Virginia voter ID laws are also being challenged, while, on the opposite side, Arizona and Kansas are suing the Federal government "for the right to require people to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. A win for the states could not only make it much harder to register voters in those places.... It would also do major damage to Congress’s authority to establish minimum national standards for voting—a power that’s crucial for any effort to improve elections." [MSNBC, Jan 15]
There is no more basic right nor distinguishing feature of a democracy than the right to vote. That right is now under attack and America is quickly losing its mantle as the chief supporter of democracy. Let's hope we can regain some of the moral ground we have lost in the coming months and years.
- Former President Bill Clinton, July 2011
The Republican momentum towards this widespread denial of voting rights was well underway by the time of the 2012 elections. Based on the Brennan Center for Justice's October 2011 analysis, the laws in place by year end 2011 would have made it "significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012." Even so, it was not enough to stop Obama's re-election. Then in 2013, the Roberts Court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County vs. Holder. Encouraged by the ruling and now in control of several more state legislatures, the voter suppression effort was cranked up. The worst voter suppression laws were passed in North Carolina the month after the Roberts Court's ruling. As Ari Berman summarizes in his excellent article on the North Carolina law: "In short, the bill eliminates practically everything that encourages people to vote in North Carolina, replaced by unnecessary and burdensome new restrictions. At the same time, the bill expands the influence of unregulated corporate influence in state elections." In 2013 alone, at least 93 new restrictive voting bills were introduced in 33 states. [Brennan Center for Justice, Dec. 19, 2013]
Dana Liebelson writing on April 9 for Mother Jones notes the absolute wrong-headedness of the Roberts Court's decison to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on the basis that "our country has changed," and that blanket federal protection wasn't needed to stop discrimination. "States that were previously covered in some part by Section 5 moved quickly after it was invalidated." Besides North Carolina, the states of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina pushed through actions to restrict voting rights. Liebelson continues: "We found that 8 of the 15 states [previously covered by the Voting Rights Act], or 53 percent, passed or implemented voting restrictions since June 25, compared to 3 of 35 states that were not covered under Section 5—or less than 9 percent. Additionally, a number of states not covered by the Voting Rights Act actually expanded voting rights in the same time period. The three states not covered by the VRA that did pass restrictive laws after the decision (Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin) are all in the hands of Republicans. No surprise there.
In addition to the state level actions, action at the local level by politicians and operatives designed to discourage voting are also being implemented. These actions or attempted actions range from moving polling places out of the reach of public transportation in minority districts to attempts to squash voter registration efforts and absentee balloting to closing bathrooms at polling places. Honestly, you just can't make this stuff up.
The road back to fairness will be a long one. None of the Congressional efforts to restore voting rights have gone anywhere. Being somewhat cynical, I wonder: why should any Republican support fairness in voting when the objective of their party's effort is to suppress the vote of traditionally Democratic voters?
Some law suits have been filed - most notably in North Carolina where the ACLU and others filed in late March to overturn the voter suppression laws there. "The suit specifically targets provisions of the law that eliminate a week of early voting, end same-day registration, and prohibit "out-of-precinct" voting. It seeks to stop North Carolina from enacting these provisions, arguing that they would unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965." [ACLU website] The challenge is not expected to be heard until 2015, although the litigants may be able to get some provisions blocked before the 2014 midterms. Texas and Virginia voter ID laws are also being challenged, while, on the opposite side, Arizona and Kansas are suing the Federal government "for the right to require people to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. A win for the states could not only make it much harder to register voters in those places.... It would also do major damage to Congress’s authority to establish minimum national standards for voting—a power that’s crucial for any effort to improve elections." [MSNBC, Jan 15]
There is no more basic right nor distinguishing feature of a democracy than the right to vote. That right is now under attack and America is quickly losing its mantle as the chief supporter of democracy. Let's hope we can regain some of the moral ground we have lost in the coming months and years.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Obstructing the Judiciary
Justice too long delayed is justice denied.
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
The President of the United States is responsible for nominating judges to the Federal judiciary. It is the Senate's responsibility to confirm or deny these nominations. With just 7 months remaining before the 2014 midterm elections, there are 86 vacancies in the Federal courts - roughly 10% of the total Federal judgeships. Nearly all vacancies have resulted from Republicans blocking Obama nominees in an attempt to deny the Democratic President his choices and ensure continued Republican control of the judicial branch. The obstructionism on presidential nominees to Federal judgeships is unprecedented in recent history.
Harry Reid was able to change the Senate rules to prevent filibustering of these nominees to the federal courts. Should the Republicans gain control of the Senate in 2014, this will no longer matter. You can rest assured that any Obama nominee sent to a Republican Senate will not be confirmed. Just look at the decisions of the currently composed Supreme Court to see what the future holds. Democracy-challenged supporters of the corporations and the wealthy, appointed by Republican Presidents, fill most of the seats on the Court and they've brought us such decisions as Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Who can ever forget the Republican majority Supreme Court stopping the vote recount in Florida and handing Bush the Presidency even though Gore had garnered more than a half-million more popular votes nationally?
The Court's favorable ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act was still detrimental to the "non-ruling" class. By making the expansion of Medicaid optional, they effectively eliminated this option for low-wage-earners in most Republican-controlled states. There has been some movement but as of now, there are still 25 states not moving forward with the ACA's provision for Medicaid expansion. In the end, those finally denied affordable medical insurance will be in the millions.
The Roberts' corporate court sided with the Chamber of Commerce in 13 of 16 cases during the 2009-2010 term. Then, in the 2010-2011 term, "the Roberts Court cut down an exemplary Arizona statute that leveled the financial playing field, rejected a [gender discrimination] suit by 1.6 million women against...Wal-Mart, shielded the makers of drugs from lawsuits by patients who had been harmed, smothered lawsuits against mutual fund cheaters and liars, and disallowed a suit by a death row inmate even though the prosecution failed to turn over exculpating evidence." [Reno News & Review, "Top 10 Worst Supreme Court Decisions", March 2012]Currently there are 49 nominees pending for the 86 vacant judgeships. Mr. President, please wake up and bring forward nominations for the remaining 37 vacancies before the mid-terms. Senator Reid, please put these nominations on a fast track.
 | |
| 2014 Senate seat contests -lighter color indicates retiring Senator |
This year's elections promise to the most expensive mid-terms ever. The money unleashed by Citizens United is flowing freely into the electoral process. Fact-free negative ads are bouncing around the airwaves. Voter suppression measures will be taking full effect in November and "government of the people, by the people and for the people" may become a thing of the past. With the addition of corporate judges to the Federal courts should the Republicans gain the Senate, the oligarchy will be entrenched for a long, long time.
Image
The 2014 Senate election map is from Wikipedia.
The Medicaid expansion map is from the Kaiser Family Foundation website.
Links
"If you prick a corporation, does it not bleed?..." cartoon [New Yorker, March 14, 2011]
Options for low-income people in states denying Medicaid expansion [AllVoices.com, March 22]
Saturday, August 24, 2013
March on Washington
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."
- Martin Luther King
Fifty years ago, on August 28, 1963, a quarter of a million people gathered in Washington, D.C. The theme of the March on Washington, as it came to be called, was "jobs and freedom." It was probably the largest rally for human rights in the history of the United States. It was here that Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, a call for racial harmony and equality. The March spurred the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which have done so much to ensure our democracy. The latter legislation, renewed by overwhelming majorities in Congress in 2006, was effectively destroyed by SCOTUS' 5-4 decision in Shelby County vs. Holder. Shelby County vs. Holder, coming at a time of Republican-orchestrated voter suppression efforts across the country, undoubtedly ranks among the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.
The Republic has come a long way since that day 50 years ago. We have an African-American President. De jure segregation has ended. De facto segregation is becoming less common. Only in the most backwards parts of the country among the most backwards segments of society is blatant racism tolerated. Still, challenges remain. Voter suppression efforts are among the most obvious assaults against the freedoms won in the Civil Rights era. Mistreatment of immigrants, discrimination based on sexual orientation, prejudice against Muslims, racial profiling - these all argue that we have a long way to go before true equality is reached in this nation.
This Saturday, August 24, a smaller crowd, though still numbering in the tens of thousands, gathered in Washington to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the historic event. Speakers praised participants and leaders in the earlier civil rights movement and addressed today's equality issues. There has been plenty of coverage of Saturday's rally and I'll just give a couple of links here...
CBS News' coverage of Saturday's rally - especially stirring is John Lewis' speech today - "the vote is precious...almost sacred..it is the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy". Lewis was arrested 40 times during the 1960's and is the only surviving speaker from the 1963 March.
MSNBC's coverage of Saturday's rally
...and a link to MLK's speech
Link to Complete Audio and Text of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech (American Rhetoric website)
"And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
- Martin Luther King
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Sunday Round-Up - August 11, 2013
This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media. Today we look at post-Constitutional America, the recently eviscerated Voting Rights Act, the "liberal media" and the surprising allies in the unfolding drama in Egypt. Sources include TomDispatch.com, The Daily Kos, Mother Jones, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
__________________________________________________________________
Quote of the Day
__________________________________________________________________
Quote of the Day
Judging from the main portions of the
history of the world, so far,
justice is always in jeopardy.
- Walt Whitman
__________________________________________________________________
Post-Constitutional America
In a TomDispatch post on August 4, former State
Department whistle blower Peter van Buren paints a chilling
picture of the America that we are now living in. Two hundred thirty
five years to the day after the Continental Congress established the
first whistle blower protection law (see below), Wiki-leaker Bradley Manning was
convicted on 20 of 22 counts and now faces up to 136 years in prison.
The government's actions have "ushered us, almost unnoticed,
into post-Constitutional America." Van Buren notes that in
recent years, "weapons, tactics, and techniques developed in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as in the war on terror have begun arriving in
the homeland." His examples include up-armored police
departments, drones, and "above all, suveillance technolgy."
Also present in our post-Constitutional nation is a "new
Guantanamo-ized definition of justice." And so to the arrest
and detainment of Bradley Manning. After his arrest, Manning was
subjected to "three years of cruel detainment, where, as might
well have happened at Gitmo, Manning, kept in isolation, was deprived
of clothing, communications, legal advice, and sleep. The sleep
deprivation regime imposed on him certainly met any standard, other
than Washington’s and possibly Pyongyang’s, for torture." As
for the trial itself, "rules of evidence reaching back to early
English common law were turned upside down." So what are some
aspects of post-Constitutional America as it is beginning to
take shape? Just a few examples from Van Buren's post:
- "Post-9/11, torture famously stopped being torture if an American did it, and its users were not prosecutable by the Justice Department."
- "Full-spectrum spying is not considered to violate the Fourth Amendment and does not even require probable cause."
- "Government whistleblowers are commanded to return to face justice, while law-breakers in the service of the government are allowed to flee justice."
- "Secret laws and secret courts can create secret law you can’t know about for “crimes” you don’t even know exist. You can nonetheless be arrested for committing them."
The "Liberal Media"
The Daily Kos had a great post on August 7: "15 Things Everyone Would Know If There Were a Liberal
Media". From the impact of outsourcing on the US job market to
the outrageous Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts
to US market-driven health care costs (highest per capita in the
world) to the number of prisoners in US jails (we have 25% of the
world's prisoners and rank #1 in this department), the post is well
worth a read. Here's one of the neat graphics from the post.
1965 Voting Rights Act
On the 48th anniversary of the Voting
Rights Act being signed into law by LBJ, Mother Jones had a post reminding us of how much the law has meant. MJ presented "five recent and
egregious examples of minority discrimination that were blocked by
Section 5, the part of the law the Supreme Court eviscerated in
June." Here are two of them:
- The all-white board of aldermen in the town of Kilmichael, Mississippi (pop. 830), canceled town elections after an unprecedented number of black candidates made it onto the ballot. The DOJ forced an election and the town elected its first black mayor and three black aldermen.
- After the 2010 census showed that blacks had become a majority in Georgia's Augusta-Richmond, the state Legislature passed a bill that "rescheduled voting from November, which had a traditionally high black voter turnout, to July, which had a low turnout overall, but especially for blacks. The change only affected Augusta-Richmond, and, not surprisingly, was rejected under Section 5."
The Egyptian Restoration
Sarah Chayes, in an August 1 article for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "The
Egyptian Restoration", tries to address recent developments in
Egypt. "Much of the Egyptian population now embraces the very
military it seemed bent on ejecting from power during the 2011
revolution. What's the reason for the about-face?", she asks.
Chayes offers a reappraisal of the Egyptian Arab Spring based on
interviews she conducted in 2011 and in July 2013:
1. The 2011 protesters were not
revolting against the military. "The protests were enraged
not at Mubarak’s army but at a tight network of high-rolling
capitalists who were seen to have hijacked the Egyptian government
(military included), rewriting the laws, awarding themselves
privileged access to land and other public resources, and employing
police repression, all for personal gain."
2. Democracy, per
se, was not the aim of the 2011 revolution. "Protesters...were
not demanding the vote for the sake of the vote. They were demanding
the deliverables that are supposed to result from democracy...[They
were demanding] that the perpetrators of the heist of public
resources be subject to repercussions...the return of stolen or squandered public assets; an end to the
pervasive corruption, which cascaded down from the top of the system
to include daily shakedowns by auxiliary police, institutionalized
graft in public tenders at all levels of government, and ad hoc fees
demanded even by teachers and doctors."
3. The Morsi
government was seen to be merely substituting Muslim Brotherhood
networks for those of Mubarak. Many Egyptians became convinced "that
the Muslim Brotherhood had no intention of enacting the type of
systemic corrections the revolutionaries had demanded."
4. The Egyptian military is
neither as powerful nor as competent as it is cracked up to be.
5. Some in both
the Brotherhood and the military have an interest in continuing the
violence. "The goal (achieved masterfully by the Algerian
government in the 1990s) would be to present the people—and the
international community—with a stark choice between
authoritarianism and terrorism."
6. "Egyptians,
for now, seem to have convinced themselves that this is indeed the
choice they are facing. And they have chosen the former. They have
opted for Restoration."
Other Stuff
Comics
Continental
Congress' "Whistle Blower" Protection Law (July 30, 1778)
"...it is
the duty of all persons in the service of the United States to give
the earliest information to Congress or other proper authority of any
misconduct, frauds, or misdemeanors committed by any officers or
persons in the service of these states.”
Who Is "Mother
Jones"?
Mother Jones is a courageous source of investigative
journalism. But who, if anyone, is the publication's namesake?
Well, according to Wikipedia: "Mary Harris "Mother"
Jones (July 1837– 30 November 1930) was an Irish-American
schoolteacher and dressmaker who became a prominent labor and
community organizer. She then helped coordinate major strikes and
cofounded the Industrial Workers of the World."
Monday, August 5, 2013
Democracy - The What's Left of It Edition (Part 2)
This is the second post on the state of our democracy. In the July 31 post, I listed my personal choices of the #10 through #6 threats to American democracy. To wit: (10) Wealth disparity, (9) Misinformed citizenry, (8) Government spying, (7) Special interest money, (6) Political attack ads. Concluding the countdown, here are the top five attacks on democracy in this country.
For these seven gerrymandered states,
Republicans were awarded 73 House seats; Democrats, 34 - a 39 vote
margin when the popular vote was nearly evenly split.
#2 - SCOTUS destroys the Voting Rights Act
#5 - The Filibuster
The 60 vote requirement to break a
Senate filibuster is the equivalent of 9 stolen elections. Instead of the majority needing 51 votes to pass legislation, they need 60. The
filibuster's original purpose - preventing the hasty but perhaps
unwise action of the majority - has been distorted and abused in an unprecedented fashion in the past several years after the election of Barack Obama. When
first conceived, the filibuster required Senators to actually speak about the
legislation under consideration. The primary purpose of the now
non-talking filibuster as wielded by Senate Republicans today has
been to block Presidential nominations (both judicial and executive)
and to block legislation supported by the majority of the American
people (e.g., universal background checks for gun purchases). Since
Republicans lost the Senate in 2006, there have been 425 cloture
motions. Cloture motions only represent the attempts to break the
filibuster. Sometimes the majority will not even get that far. The
Senate can change its own rules. Eliminating the filibuster
altogether would be the right (democratic) thing to do. Failing
that, there should be limits placed on debate. Senators need to talk
to the issue and after a given number of hours of debate be required
to give an up or down vote.
#4 - Congressional district
gerrymandering
One man/woman, one vote, right? Well,
thanks to the magic of gerrymandering of Congressional districts by
state legislatures, that isn't always the case. Boundaries are often
redrawn to give an advantage to the party in power in the state.
Republicans have been excellent at it, taking full advantage of the
most recent census and their victories in the 2010 elections. As noted on the PolicyMic website: "The Republican State Leadership
Committee (RSLC) has an agenda. It has been costly but its goal is
simple: Get more congressional seats without actually winning them.
This wildly undemocratic goal has been successfully pursued in seven
states: Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia,
Florida, and Ohio." In the current version of the 113th
do-nothing Congress, Republicans hold a 34 vote majority. Yet
nationwide, Republican House candidates received fewer votes
than the Democrats in the 2012 elections. So how did they end up
with ~54% of the House seats when they had less than 50% of the vote?
I've created this chart from the PolicyMic post that goes some way
towards explaining it.
| State | Dem Popular vote | Rep Popular vote |
House seats Dems | House seats Reps |
| North Carolina | 51 pct | 49 pct | 4 | 9 |
| Michigan | 52 pct | 47 pct | 5 | 9 |
| Wisconsin | 51 pct | 49 pct | 3 | 5 |
| Pennsylvania | 50.65% | 49.34% | 5 | 13 |
| Florida | 48 pct | 52 pct | 10 | 17 |
| Ohio | 47 pct | 53 pct | 4 | 12 |
| Virginia | 49 pct | 51 pct | 3 | 8 |
The next step in the Republican plan is
to try to pass "electoral college" legislation in states
they control but which have typically voted for Democrats in national
elections. This scheme would award electoral votes according to who
wins the Congressional district rather than the popular vote across
the state. Had this been the case in 2012 with the gerrymandered
districts, we would be talking about President Romney's policies
today even though Obama received more than 50% of the popular vote
nationwide.
#3 - SCOTUS' Citizens United
ruling on corporate "free speech"
SCOTUS' infamous Citizens United
decision gave corporations the status of persons - at least as far as
freedom of speech goes. The decision eliminated the ban on political
spending by corporations and unions. As summarized on the Center for Public Integrity's webpage on the subject: "The Citizens United ruling,
released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on
making independent expenditures and financing electioneering
communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to
spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for
the election or defeat of individual candidates." A companion
ruling several weeks later in Federal court (SpeechNow.org)
decided that limits on individual contributions to groups that make
independent expenditures are unconstitutional. It further allows
non-profits and so-called "social welfare organizations" (
aka 501(c)(4)), such as business leagues, to keep their donor lists
secret. And what was the result? "The 2012 election was the
most expensive and least transparent presidential campaign of the
modern era." The flood of super-PAC and "social welfare
group" money was astounding. And it was mainly spent in
opposition to candidates. 266 Super-PAC's spent $546.5 million
dollars during the 2012 Presidential election cycle. More than half
of the Super-PAC money ($290 million) was spent trying to defeat just
one candidate - Barack Obama. Then there is the "dark money"
from social welfare organizations and non-profits. Dark money is
so-named because unlike PAC's, these organizations do not have to
reveal their donors. Overall, dark money spent on the 2012
elections totaled $300 million. The financing of election campaigns
is totally out-of-control thanks to these Supreme Court and lower
court rulings. Several states have begun working on a
Constitutional Amendment that would overturn Citizens United.
This appears to be the only way out of the morass - both on a national and state
level. It's obvious that there will be no relief from the current
Supreme Court, who saw fit in their wisdom to overturn a 100 year-old
Montana law limiting individual campaign contributions in February
2012.
#2 - SCOTUS destroys the Voting Rights Act
This has been previously blogged (June25, 2013 SCOTUS: R.I.P. Voting Rights Act) so I'll just sum up a few
salient points here. Justice Ginsburg's dissent said it well:
"The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure
to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The
Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the
specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no
longer needed." The provision has proven "enormously
successful" in increasing minority registration and access to
the ballot and preventing a "return to old ways," Ginsburg
said. Even in jurisdictions where discrimination may not be overt,
"subtle methods" have emerged to diminish minority turnout,
such as racial gerrymandering. With the House in Republican hands
and Mitch "Mr. Filibuster" McConnell leading the Senate Republicans, Sections 4 and 5
will not be rewritten by Congress in the foreseeable future. The decision has unleashed what MoJo blogger Kevin Drum describesas a "GOP feeding frenzy". The North Carolina legislature
recently passed the worst voter suppression law in the
country. For a complete listing of the provisions of this incredible attack on the right to vote see Ari Berman's post on the Moyers & Company website. Berman's post points out that "Six Southern states have passed or implemented new voting restrictions since the Supreme Court’s decision last month invalidating Section 4 of the VRA, which will go down in history as one of the worst rulings in the past century." The right to vote is the most fundamental and
distinguishing feature of a democracy. A constitutional Amendment
guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote is needed if we are to
ensure democracy's survival.
And the #1 threat to American democracy
is....state voter suppression laws.
For the most part, Republican voter
suppression laws did not succeed in the 2012 elections - certainly
not in their main objective: to defeat Barack Obama. Aimed at
denying the vote to traditionally Democratic voters, these laws were
a combination of overly restrictive voter ID laws, reductions in
early voting days, limitations on voter registration drives, and
elimination of or severe restrictions on provisional balloting - what
happens when you show up at the wrong polling place. These throw
backs to the now unconstitutional poll taxes of yesteryear were
overcome by a combination of judicial action in state and Federal courts and
executive action (enforcing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) and a massive
turnout effort on the part of Democrats. And a good thing they were.
Based on the Brennan Center for Justice's October 2011 analysis, the laws in
place by year end 2011 would have made it "significantly harder
for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012."
States implementing these restrictive voter ID and registration laws
"will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the
270 needed to win the presidency." This figure of 171 electoral
votes was revised upwards to 189 in a March 2012 update. Democracy escaped
Republican clutches this time but in 2014 and 2016, we may not be so
fortunate. North Carolina recently enacted the most
restrictive voting law in the country in the aftermath of SCOTUS'
gutting of the Voting Rights Act. (If you haven't gone to the Moyers & Company website, here's another chance - North Carolina really has passed a most incredible law.) Five other Southern states have done likewise. And if
someone without Obama's drawing power and organizational savvy
becomes the Democratic candidate, the laws will certainly have their
desired effect. The best short-term hope to blunt this blatant
attack on voting rights will be the Administration's challenging of
the voter ID laws. They'll need to spend a lot more effort on this
now that SCOTUS has effectively destroyed the Voting Rights Act .
Many of the problems affecting our
democracy are rooted in our election laws and the way we finance
public elections. Under the current system, money wins elections.
Period. Public financing of all Federal elections has no chance of
being enacted for now. Nor is there any chance of bi-partisan
reform of existing laws passing the obstructed 113th Congress. So,
in the meantime, we need to take our gains, limited as they are by
the Citizens United decision, and defend our rights, as difficult as it may be, wherever we can. In the end, it
may be down to a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote - this most basic
right of a citizen of a democracy.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
SCOTUS: R.I.P. Voting Rights
The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, renewed by Congress in 2006, is in. While not ruling on the constitutionality of the law itself, the right-wing majority, in a 5-4 vote, struck down one of the most important clauses of the act and effectively invalidated another. Hang with me on this. SCOTUS struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 4 is a key provision that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws approved by the Federal government or in Federal court. In striking down Section 4, the right-wing justices effectively emasculated the even more important Section 5, which enforces review of voting rule changes. The justices did not rule specifically on Section 5 but as reported in the Huffington Post : "...the court ruled that the current formula that determines which
states are covered by Section 5 is unconstitutional, effectively
eliminating Section 5 enforcement, at least for the time being." What do you think the possibility of getting an amended Section 4 through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Republican-filibuster-hamstrung Senate is? The majority argument seems to have been "times have changed" and we don't need this any more. Effectively, SCOTUS has declared dead the Voting Rights Act, one of the most important and fundamental achievements of the Civil Rights Era.
What utter nonsense! With the move towards restrictive voter ID laws aimed primarily at minorities and the continuing use of so-called poll watchers for intimidation purposes, these sections of the Act are needed just as much now as then. As recently as the 2012 elections, the Voting Rights Act has been used to block a voter ID law in Texas and delay implementation of another in South Carolina.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent says it effectively: "The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed." The provision has proven "enormously successful" in increasing minority
registration and access to the ballot and preventing a "return to old
ways," Ginsburg said. Even in jurisdictions where discrimination may not
be overt, "subtle methods" have emerged to diminish minority turnout,
such as racial gerrymandering. [Huffington Post] [Photo: Mother Jones]
The reaction from civil rights leaders was swift - unanimous condemnation as the activist court interfered with Congressional authority to pass laws regarding the right to vote. Obama expressed his deep disappointment and called on Congress "to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls." Honestly, has he been asleep for the past 3 or 4 years? The well-organized effort of Republican-controlled state legislatures with Republican governors has been undertaken to ensure that this equal access does not occur.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent is 37 pages long and contains page after page of well-reasoned and passionate argument and numerous examples. Fortunately, Mother Jones has selected the ten best quotes from the Justice in a June 25 post. Here's just one of them: ""Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one earlier made would expose Congress to a catch-22. If the statute was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime."
The most fundamental right in a democracy, the single most important difference from other political systems whether they be dictatorships, tyrannies, monarchies, or theocracies, is the right to vote. Denying this right strikes at the heart of what it means to be a democracy. Not protecting the voting rights of all brings us another step closer to plutocracy - a government of, by, and for the wealthy and the powerful.
Other Links
John Nichol's post in today's The Nation
Previous TLBC Posts on Voter Suppression Efforts
Stealing an Election
Keystone State is Key
What's with Florida?
Florida 2000 Redux
What utter nonsense! With the move towards restrictive voter ID laws aimed primarily at minorities and the continuing use of so-called poll watchers for intimidation purposes, these sections of the Act are needed just as much now as then. As recently as the 2012 elections, the Voting Rights Act has been used to block a voter ID law in Texas and delay implementation of another in South Carolina.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent says it effectively: "The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclearance is no longer needed." The provision has proven "enormously successful" in increasing minority
registration and access to the ballot and preventing a "return to old
ways," Ginsburg said. Even in jurisdictions where discrimination may not
be overt, "subtle methods" have emerged to diminish minority turnout,
such as racial gerrymandering. [Huffington Post] [Photo: Mother Jones]The reaction from civil rights leaders was swift - unanimous condemnation as the activist court interfered with Congressional authority to pass laws regarding the right to vote. Obama expressed his deep disappointment and called on Congress "to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls." Honestly, has he been asleep for the past 3 or 4 years? The well-organized effort of Republican-controlled state legislatures with Republican governors has been undertaken to ensure that this equal access does not occur.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent is 37 pages long and contains page after page of well-reasoned and passionate argument and numerous examples. Fortunately, Mother Jones has selected the ten best quotes from the Justice in a June 25 post. Here's just one of them: ""Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one earlier made would expose Congress to a catch-22. If the statute was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime."
The most fundamental right in a democracy, the single most important difference from other political systems whether they be dictatorships, tyrannies, monarchies, or theocracies, is the right to vote. Denying this right strikes at the heart of what it means to be a democracy. Not protecting the voting rights of all brings us another step closer to plutocracy - a government of, by, and for the wealthy and the powerful.
Other Links
John Nichol's post in today's The Nation
Previous TLBC Posts on Voter Suppression Efforts
Stealing an Election
Keystone State is Key
What's with Florida?
Florida 2000 Redux
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Critical Decision Time at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will hear two cases in the coming months that could set back the United States' standing as a modern democracy. The right-wing activist judges on the court will have the opportunity to overturn both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the federal campaign contribution limitations on individuals. After Citizens United which did away with limits on corporate and labor union contributions, this additional one-two punch to our democracy would set us even further down the road to a plutocracy.
The Voting Rights Act was one of the most palpable results of the civil rights movement of the late 1950's and early 1960's. In her excellent analysis in yesterday's New York Times, Linda Greenhouse asks: "How can it be that one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement, a provision upheld on four previous occasions by the Supreme Court and re-enacted in 2006 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress (98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House), a law that President George W. Bush urged the justices to uphold again four years ago in one of his final acts in office, a law that has demonstrably defeated myriad efforts both flagrant and subtle to suppress or dilute the African-American vote, is now hanging by a thread?"
And what a thin thread that is. In his opinion on an earlier Voting Rights Act case (2009) involving an election district in Austin, Texas, Chief Justice Roberts stated that "things have changed in the south". Fortunately the Court did not at that time overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This time around, when the Court hears Shelby County, Alabama petition, we may not be so fortunate.
Section 5, the pre-clearance provision, requires that the United States Department of Justice or a panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction." Covered jurisdictions are those with a history of past voting discrimination and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote in 1964. Because of their Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and the jury-rigged literacy tests with their so called "grandfather clauses", many Southern states require pre-clearance before they can change their voting laws. Thing of the past, you say? Just consider the voter suppression laws that numerous Republican-controlled states tried to enact this past election cycle. Texas' voter suppression law was invalidated before the November election because it was not granted pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act has done enormous good in allowing all citizens to exercise their right to vote with language that mirrors the 15th Amendment . That Amendment, ratified in 1870, provided that, "The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Let's hope the current Supreme Court keeps it that way.
Alabama also plays a role in the case arguing against aggregate spending limits for individuals. The case is brought by Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama man, and, surprise, surprise, the Republican National Committee. They argue that the current aggregate limits for a two-year cycle , $46,200 for contributions to candidates and $70,800 for contributions to groups, are too low. As noted by Adam Liptik in the New York Times on February 19: "Should the court agree that those overall limits are unconstitutional, however, its decision could represent a fundamental reassessment of a basic distinction established in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, which said contributions may be regulated more strictly than expenditures because of their potential for corruption." Is there any hope at all that this Court, responsible for declaring corporations persons in Citizens United and for striking down campaign finance laws in Vermont (2006) and Montana (2012), will do the right thing for the democracy and prevent the further incursion of Big Money into the political process?
At a time when the influence of money in politics is so overwhelming that even common-sense gun control legislation is bottled up indefinitely in Congress, at a time when Republican governors and legislatures seem hell-bent on denying people their right to vote, the Supreme Court can strike a blow for democracy by holding the line on these two cases. The Court either can do what is good for the country or it can agree with the right-wing ideologues that have dominated the political conversation for more than 30 years. These cases will be a test of how far we've gone down the road to plutocracy and how far we've strayed from protecting citizens' right to vote. I cannot say that I am hopeful.
The Voting Rights Act was one of the most palpable results of the civil rights movement of the late 1950's and early 1960's. In her excellent analysis in yesterday's New York Times, Linda Greenhouse asks: "How can it be that one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement, a provision upheld on four previous occasions by the Supreme Court and re-enacted in 2006 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress (98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House), a law that President George W. Bush urged the justices to uphold again four years ago in one of his final acts in office, a law that has demonstrably defeated myriad efforts both flagrant and subtle to suppress or dilute the African-American vote, is now hanging by a thread?"
And what a thin thread that is. In his opinion on an earlier Voting Rights Act case (2009) involving an election district in Austin, Texas, Chief Justice Roberts stated that "things have changed in the south". Fortunately the Court did not at that time overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This time around, when the Court hears Shelby County, Alabama petition, we may not be so fortunate.
Section 5, the pre-clearance provision, requires that the United States Department of Justice or a panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction." Covered jurisdictions are those with a history of past voting discrimination and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote in 1964. Because of their Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and the jury-rigged literacy tests with their so called "grandfather clauses", many Southern states require pre-clearance before they can change their voting laws. Thing of the past, you say? Just consider the voter suppression laws that numerous Republican-controlled states tried to enact this past election cycle. Texas' voter suppression law was invalidated before the November election because it was not granted pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act has done enormous good in allowing all citizens to exercise their right to vote with language that mirrors the 15th Amendment . That Amendment, ratified in 1870, provided that, "The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Let's hope the current Supreme Court keeps it that way.
Alabama also plays a role in the case arguing against aggregate spending limits for individuals. The case is brought by Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama man, and, surprise, surprise, the Republican National Committee. They argue that the current aggregate limits for a two-year cycle , $46,200 for contributions to candidates and $70,800 for contributions to groups, are too low. As noted by Adam Liptik in the New York Times on February 19: "Should the court agree that those overall limits are unconstitutional, however, its decision could represent a fundamental reassessment of a basic distinction established in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, which said contributions may be regulated more strictly than expenditures because of their potential for corruption." Is there any hope at all that this Court, responsible for declaring corporations persons in Citizens United and for striking down campaign finance laws in Vermont (2006) and Montana (2012), will do the right thing for the democracy and prevent the further incursion of Big Money into the political process?
At a time when the influence of money in politics is so overwhelming that even common-sense gun control legislation is bottled up indefinitely in Congress, at a time when Republican governors and legislatures seem hell-bent on denying people their right to vote, the Supreme Court can strike a blow for democracy by holding the line on these two cases. The Court either can do what is good for the country or it can agree with the right-wing ideologues that have dominated the political conversation for more than 30 years. These cases will be a test of how far we've gone down the road to plutocracy and how far we've strayed from protecting citizens' right to vote. I cannot say that I am hopeful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)