Thursday, January 19, 2012
Jon Stewart Rips SOPA Proponents, Shows How Bill Would Affect 'The Daily Show'
As someone who makes a living mocking the online content that could become illegal under the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Jon Stewart turned the focus on himself and how much he relies on online content to produce "The Daily Show" night after night. Watch the full segment and hear a little about Stewart's already-full plate when it comes to dealing with legal copyright claims, even before the murmurs of SOPA began.
Rick Perry Is Dropping Out Of Presidential Bid
Rick Perry has told senior staff and supporters that he is withdrawing from the presidential race. According to reports from Politico, Perry is expected to endorse Newt Gingrich.
Perry entered the race this summer as a frontrunner. And he exits it before a single ballot has been cast in the American South. Erick Erickson, the conservative activist behind RedState.com introduced Perry into the race earlier this year, yesterday, he called on the Texas governor to drop out.
Perry had cancelled most of his schedule yesterday, and was attracting just 4 percent of potential South Carolina voters in the POLITICO/Tarrance poll released today. Like Jon Huntsman earlier this week, he is dropping out of the race before he did any further damage to his brand.
Perry's campaign will be the subject of lots of post-mortem analysis for the candidate's many verbal gaffes, and some of the odder positions he took, such as saying he would put American troops back in Iraq.
He attracted fewer votes in this primary season than Jon Huntsman, but spent more than twice as much as did Huntsman on his campaign.
Perry will give a press conference at 11am in North Charleston.
DEVELOPING...
Whither The Texas Primary?
With the Supreme Court yet to rule, questions inevitably have turned to whether there is any way it will be possible to keep to an April 3 primary.
Senator John Cornyn and many election law lawyers think that chance is becoming increasingly remote. In fact, many observers aren’t even certain when the primary could be held if it needs to be moved.
Consider the logistical challenges @ Michael Li's excellent TxRedistricting.org blog.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Texas Democrats' Rick Perry Opposition Book
To see the Texas Democrats' 500-page 0pposition book on Gov. Rick Perry, created by Texas Democratic campaign consultant Jeff Rotkoff and obtained by The Huffington Post from the super PAC Texans for America's Future, click here.
Poll: Republicans Trust Fox News And Nothing Else
A new PPP poll finds that while Democrats trust most news outlets, to varying degrees, Republicans trust only a single one — Fox News. While a massive 68 percent of Republicans trust Fox, the next highest rating among any major TV news outlet is PBS, which just 30 percent of GOPers trust, according to the PPP poll.
The numbers show just how powerful Fox can be in setting the agenda and influencing the world view of conservatives, with virtually no competition or accountability from the outside world.
This monopoly on news penetration for an entire half of the electorate would be bad no matter the network, but it’s especially troubling considering Fox’s shoddy, and often agenda-driven “reporting.” And unlike an openly-ideological news outlet like this Blog or Red State, which freely note their perspectives, Fox insists it’s a traditional “far and balanced” news outlet.
People who accept the Fox News world view are unlikely to be convinced by any argument of real fact. Modern American, when presented with facts they know to be false, they nonetheless reject it if it offends or undermines your belief system.
Dead People Voting? Let's Wait Until The Data Is Done Talking
From Humphrey School of Public Affairs blog
by Doug Chapin 
by Doug Chapin
Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School posted the following yesterday on Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog - and it's so good, so spot-on about the need to let data tell the whole story whenever election administration is concerned, that I want to share it in its entirety here.
[Image courtesy of degreesofmoderation]
In the wake of James O'Keefe's latest videos about fictitious "dead voters," now comes a new investigation in South Carolina, looking for "actual" dead voters.
In reviewing the South Carolina's motor vehicle records and its voting rolls, there is apparently evidence indicating that 900 people listed as deceased are also listed as voting in subsequent elections (I'm not sure what time period is involved).
With South Carolina filing a preclearance lawsuit over the new voter photo ID law that earned an objection from DOJ, and with the general media hubbub around the state's upcoming presidential primary, expect this to get an awful lot of attention ... along with an awful lot of misinformation.
Attorney General Wilson is right to ask for an investigation. I hope it's complete. And I hope that he publishes not only the full results, but also the methodology used to come to the initial 900-vote assessment, and the methodology used to investigate further.
There's already some skepticism, and for good reason. Exaggerated stories of dead voters crop up pretty regularly around Halloween, which gives me repeated topical opportunities to explain why the zombie voter hordes haven't taken over just yet. [It also gave me the opportunity to post the picture above - it's amazing what you get when you do an image search for "dead people voting" - DMCj] It sounds like the initial evidence in South Carolina is based on matching voter rolls to other lists. In follow-up of other, similar, allegations, further investigation has shown that:
- + The person who's dead isn't the same person listed on the voter rolls.
- + The person who's listed as voting didn't actually vote.
- + The person who's listed as dead isn't actually dead.
- + The person who's dead voted before she died.
- + There was actually a fraudulent ballot cast, absentee.
And when the salacious allegations turn out to be mundane glitches, or unconnected to proving identity at the polls, there's a lot less attention paid. So I look forward to the actual facts, whatever they may show. And I hope there's as much coverage at the end of the investigation as I anticipate at the outset.
Let the election geeks say, "Amen."
Why SOPA/PIPA Is A Threat To The Internet As We Know It
Today, sites like Wikipedia, Craigslist, Reddit, WordPress, and this site participated in the largest online protest in history, against the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) and the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011″ (PIPA). Some, like Wikipedia, have made their sites completely unavailable from 12AM EDT on January 18th to 12AM EDT on January 19th, 2012. Others, like this site, blacked out for just part of the day. Google has also blocked out their logo for the day, to show their disapproval of these bill.
Since many people seem to be unfamiliar with these bills, I wanted to share some videos which will help explain the bills better.
The first video is from khanacademy.org, a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education to anyone anywhere:
Congressman Lamar Smith, Author Of SOPA, Breaks Copyright Law On Campaign Website
From AddictingInfo.org By Jeromie Williams
On the same day that Wikipedia turned off their lights for 24 hours to protest the proposed “Stop Online Piracy Act” or SOPA as it is better known, the very politician who wrote the bill was called out by the 9GAG website for being caught red handed breaking copyright law on his official campaign website.
Representative Lamar Smith (R - TX 21), the politician in question that has been pushing the bill that has even the tech Gurus over at Mashable screaming foul over SOPA’s extreme overreach and censorship capabilities, has allegedly used a photograph for the background of his campaign website without giving credit to the photographer or paying for its use. That’s right, the guy who wants to stop online piracy is apparently an Internet pirate himself – Arrrrrrr
Full story @ AddictingInfo.org
Full story also @ Vice
Announcement: Democratic Blog News To Go Dark On Jan. 18 To Protest SOPA/PIPA
ACT NOW
TO STOP INTERNET CENSORSHIP
TO STOP INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Democratic Blog News will join thousands of tech activists, entrepreneurs and corporations on Wednesday and go dark in protest of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), legislation that has generated national outrage among Internet experts.Democratic Blog News will go dark 7 am CST until 7 pm CST on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, more than 7,000 websites are expected to voluntarily "go dark," by blocking access to their content to protest the bill, according to organizers of SOPAStrike.com. Some of the biggest names on the Internet plan to participate in the blackout, including Wikipedia, Mozilla, Reddit and WordPress. Many of the sites are promoting an alternative to SOAP called the OPEN Act -- a bipartisan bill drafted by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Democrats File 1 Million Signatures To Recall Wisc. Gov. Scott Walker
Democrats and organizers filed petitions with more than one million signatures Tuesday afternoon as they seek to force a recall election against Republican Gov. Scott Walker. One million signatures is a massive number that is nearly double the 540,000 signatures needed to force a recall election. It would mark the first such gubernatorial recall in state history – in all of U.S. history there have been only two successful recalls of a governor. Organizers also filed enough signatures to recall Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and three GOP state senators. They had already filed petitions to recall Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican Senate Majority Leader.
The number of signatures filed to recall Gov. Walker nearly equals the total votes cast for Walker in November 2010 election and ensures the recall election will be held, said officials with the state Democratic Party and United Wisconsin, the group that launched the Walker recall. ”It is beyond legal challenge,” said Ryan Lawler, vice chairman of United Wisconsin.
Former U.S. Rep. Dave Obey, who has been in state politics for a half-century, called the recall effort “an amazing development.” But, “what is unprecedented is the way that the governor and his allies ran roughshod over normal legislative and political procedures,” said Obey, declining to say whether he might run against Walker. “He’s abused the very process that elected him, and that’s what’s got people so angry.”
Full Article: Democrats to file 1 million signatures for Walker recall – JSOnline .
Monday, January 16, 2012
NAACP Puts Voter Photo ID Laws in Crosshairs
The Root: Before a South Carolina rally, NAACP President told The Root of plans to fight the laws and educate young black voters.
The joint appearance of NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Monday morning at the annual "King Day at the Dome" rally at the State House in Columbia, S.C., speaks volumes in and of itself. Monday marks the first time Holder will have been in the Palmetto State since Dec. 23, when the U.S. Department of Justice struck down its new voter photo ID law, which DOJ says would likely have disenfranchised minorities, students and disabled voters alike.
The optics of their joint appearance -- the leader of the nation's oldest and most storied civil rights organization and the country's top law-enforcement officer -- send a signal about the intent, through legal challenges and social advocacy, to make voting rights a high priority in an already contentious election year. The rally takes place five days before the South Carolina primary.
The United States is a nation with a patchwork of laws on voter identification -- some states with strict policies, others with no policy at all. Thirty-one states require voters to show IDs before voting. In 2011, eight states -- Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin -- enacted variations of the same rule, requiring some form of photo identification. Critics of the laws argue that they disenfranchise voters of color and young voters, who are less likely to possess and be able to afford the required identification.
In an interview with The Root before his South Carolina address, Jealous spoke about the importance of the Justice Department action against South Carolina, the possible impact of new voter ID laws and the strategies for blunting their potentially suppressive impact on voter turnout in the 2012 election.
Jealous, who has appeared at previous King Day at the Dome rallies, noted that the 2012 event takes place amid growing attention to voter ID laws in general, and specifically a tough new immigration law enacted in South Carolina. A federal judge blocked some of that law's more restrictive parts, such as allowing police and authorities to check the immigration status of any suspect. But the amended measure -- widely seen as a copycat of Arizona's controversial immigration law -- went into effect on Jan. 1, despite lawsuits by the Justice Department and advocacy groups.
"This state, like so many others in the Deep South, has engaged in state-sponsored voter suppression," Jealous said. "Two years ago we were dealing with a recession; what's different this year is that the state has sought to focus special energy on suppressing voters of color. But there's also been a ruthless attack here on migrant workers' rights. The attack on the rights of immigrants will be a focus of my comments [Monday] and on this march."
U.S. Attorney General Vows to Protect Voters’ Rights At MLK Day Services
Attorney General Eric Holder defended his department’s civil rights agenda today, delivering a speech at an event honoring Martin Luther King Jr. at South Carolina's state capitol in Columbia. Holder’s speech was sponsored by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, took place at the state capitol in Columbia, S.C., where the Confederate flag still flies on the north end after it was moved from atop the dome in 2000 following NAACP protests.
The speech comes one month after Mr. Holder delivered a voting rights speech on the University of Texas campus at the library of President Lyndon B. Johnson in Austin. (More on Holder's LBJ Library speech here and here.)
South Carolina’s passage, and the U.S. Justice Department’s subsequent rejection of, a controversial voter photo ID law last year has sparked a rancorous political fight putting South Carolina and the Department of Justice on a collision course with the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act verses state's rights.
The rallying cry of states' rights was used to defend slavery before the Civil War and racial segregation during the post-World War II battles over civil rights.
Holder’s Justice Department opposes very restrictive voter photo identification laws such as passed by the South Carolina and Texas legislatures in 2011. The department announced last month it would block South Carolina’s attempts to require voters to show one of a very limited selection of dated and unexpired government issued photo identification, which up to 25% of some minority groups do not hold. Minority and senior citizen advocacy groups oppose these restrictive photo ID laws because there is a strong evidence that the laws will restrict the voting rights of elderly, poor, and racial minority voters.
South Carolina’s controversial restrictive voter photo ID law was the subtext for Mr. Holder's address to those gathered to honor the life and work of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In reference to the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Mr. Holder said:
Section 5 – which requires preclearance of proposed voting changes in parts or all of sixteen states – continues to be a critical tool in the protection of voting rights. In 2006, it was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan – and near-unanimous – support in Congress, before being signed by President Bush. However, despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged as unconstitutional by several jurisdictions. Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.
I wish this were the case. But the reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common. And though nearly five decades have passed since Dr. King shared his vision from the mountaintop – despite all the progress we’ve made, the barriers we’ve broken down, and the divisions we’ve healed – as a nation, we have not yet reached the Promised Land.
That’s why the Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend Section 5 against challenges to its constitutionality.
Full text of Mr. Holder's speech courtesy of the Department of Justice website.
Updated January 16, 2012 @ 6:45pm
In July 2006, President Bush signed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in a ceremony praising the participation of civil rights leaders, including family members of Dr. King. The bill passed 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House. Although there were Republican members of the House and Senate who voiced objections that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (requiring states with a history of discrimination to get permission from the federal government before changing their voting rules) violated states' rights, President Bush ignored those objections.
At the South Carolina Republican presidential debate tonight, that 2006 bipartisan Republican support of the Voting Rights Act evaporated in favor of the old south's "states' rights" argument. Fox News’ Juan Williams asked Texas governor Rick Perry whether the federal government still has a role to play in protecting voting rights in a state like South Carolina, [which has a history of using Jim Crow type laws to prevent African Americans from voting,] in reference to the USDOJ’s denial of preclearance of South Carolina’s voter ID law and South Carolina’s threat to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
Juan Williams: Are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the voting laws of states where minorities were once denied the right to vote?”
Governor Perry responded: “I’m saying that the state of Texas is under assault by the federal government. I’m saying also that South Carolina is at war with this federal government and with this administration. When you look at what this Justice Department has done, not only have they taken them to task on voter i.d.,…”
(Watch the video)
More:
Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King
Dr. Martin Luther King
(Jan. 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968)
Ironically, the 1964 Act had resulted in an outbreak of violence in the South. White racists had launched a campaign against the success that Martin Luther King had had in getting African Americans to register to vote. The violence reminded Johnson that more was needed if the civil rights issue was to be suitably reduced.
Johnson introduced to Congress the idea of a Voting Rights Act in what is considered to be one of his best speeches:
"Rarely are we met with a challenge…..to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue…..the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong - deadly wrong - to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country."With his commitment to the cause, Congress realized that Johnson would not back down on this issue and if they hindered or failed to back it, Americans would view the failure to be one by Congress alone.
The Act was passed. It outlawed literacy tests and poll taxes as a way of assessing whether anyone was fit or unfit to vote. As far as Johnson was concerned, all you needed to vote was American citizenship and the registration of your name on an electoral list. No form of hindrance to this would be tolerated by the law courts.
The impact of this act was dramatic. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the traditional 13 Southern states, had less than 50% of African Americans registered to vote. By 1968, even hard-line Mississippi had 59% of African Americans registered. In the longer term, far more African Americans were elected into public office.
The Act was the boost that the civil rights cause needed to move it swiftly along and Johnson has to take full credit for this. As Martin Luther King had predicted in earlier years, demonstrations served a good purpose but real change would only come through the power of Federal government.
"I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s address at the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. Washington, D.C.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Poll: Republicans Could Be Heading For A Devastating 2012 Defeat
PoliticusUSA on Democracy Corps poll
According to Democracy Corps, for the first time in two years the Democratic Party has taken the lead on the generic congressional ballot, 47%-44%.
The bad news for the GOP is that Independents have shifted back to the Democratic Party. In the previous surveys congressional Republicans led congressional Democrats by a net 9 points in October and 19 points in August with Independents, but today Democrats have taken a two point lead.
Why have the Democrats surged? The answer is that the behavior of Republicans in Congress has turned off voters. By a margin of 53%-39% respondents said the more they watched the Republicans in Congress, the less they like what they are offering. Approval of Republicans in Congress has dropped to a new low of 28%, and 8% strongly approve of the Republican caucus.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Texas Responds to USDOJ With Requested Minority Voter Photo ID Information
On Thursday, the Texas secretary of state’s office sent the minority voter photo ID information to the U.S. Department of Justice that the USDOJ had requested last September and again on November 16, 2011. If Texas had not returned the requested information to the USDOJ by Monday, January 16, 2012, the USDOJ would likely have rejected Texas request for preclearance of Senate Bill 14 - Texas' voter photo ID legislation. The USDOJ now has up to 60 additional days to review the recently submitted information before rendering a decision to approve or block the law.
When the U.S. Justice Department blocked South Carolina's new voter ID law on December 23, 2011, because of possible discrimination against minorities, attention quickly focused on Texas, which passed nearly identical photo ID legislation in 2011.
Of the eight states that passed voter ID bills last year, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas -- because of a history of past discrimination against minority voters -- must have pre-clearance from the Justice Department before instituting new procedures. Under Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department reserves the right to review laws that affect voter participation before they are enacted.
The four other states enacting voter photo ID laws in 2011, which are not covered by the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement, are Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wisconsin. Mississippi adopted its photo ID law by voter referendum in November 2011 as an amendment to the state Constitution. Indiana and Georgia were already enforcing strict voter photo ID laws for the 2008 presidential election. Governors vetoed bills passed by legislatures in 2011 in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.Originally set to go into effect on January 1, 2012, the Texas law would require voters to present one of a limited selection of government issued photo IDs to election Judges in order to qualify to vote. The accepted forms of currently dated photo identification are: Department of Public Safety issued Texas driver's license, Texas election ID , or personal identification card; Texas concealed handgun license; U.S. military ID card; U.S. citizenship certificate; or U.S. passport.
In the letter, Herren informed the Texas Director of Elections, Ann McGeehan, that without the requested information the USDOJ is unable to determine if the voter photo ID law will “have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” The USDOJ must make that determination before the law may be implemented.
Texas had 60 days from the date of Herren's Nov. 16th letter to respond with the requested data.
The Secretary of State filed its original request for preclearance in July, but the USDOJ determined in September that it needed more information. Specifically the USDOJ requested the racial breakdown and counties of residence of the estimated 605,576 registered voters who do not have a state-issued license or photo ID, and how many of them have Spanish surnames. It requested the same information for registered voters who do have valid IDs.
The Texas Secretary of State (TXSOS) had initially told the DOJ that 605,576 registered Texas voters do not appear to have a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card. The SOS report indicates that in 27 of Texas' 254 counties, at least 10 percent of the registered voters might be unable to cast ballots. In Presidio County in Southwest Texas as many as 25.9% of registered voters might not have the required photo ID, which will block as many as 1,313 out of the 5,066 registered voters in that county from casting ballots in any election.
Last fall, the Brennan Center for Justice issued a report on its research that shows as many as 11% of eligible voters nationwide do not hold a government issue photo ID. With 18.8 million voting age citizens in Texas, as counted by the 2010 U.S. census, as many as 2.1 million (11 percent) registered and unregistered voting age citizens in Texas possibly do not hold a Texas driver’s license, personal ID card or other government issued photo ID document.
On October 5 Texas responded to the USDOJ by saying it did not have the requested information because it does not collect race data on voter registration applications. So instead, it submitted a spreadsheet list of all the Hispanic surnames in Texas, as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The spreadsheet shows how many voters did not provide an ID when they registered to vote, how many voters did not provide an ID, but whose records matched an ID record in the Department of Public Safety database — meaning they have been issued an ID — and those who did not provide an ID and could not be matched with a DPS record.
The Texas Democratic Party followed up with its own letter and spreadsheet to the USDOJ showing that in at least 46 Texas counties, over half the voters who do not have one of the required photo ID's are Hispanic. The Texas Democratic Party and various organizations staunchly opposed SB14 on the grounds it will disenfranchise elderly and minority voters.
Though the state subsequently said it would use DPS data to compile a breakdown of Hispanic surnames, it had yet to submit the information to the USDOJ by mid-November. On November 16, USDOJ Civil Rights Division Voting Section Chief T. Christian Herren Jr. sent a letter to the Secretary of State's office reminding the state that it provided “incomplete” information that does not enable USDOJ Civil Rights officials to determine whether their proposed voter ID law would be discriminatory.
“Although you did not indicate a date when this information would be available, you noted that the state will provide the results of its analysis as expeditiously as possible,” the letter stated.
On Thursday, January 12, 2012 the Texas secretary of state’s office finally sent the additional information to the USDOJ, which restarts the 60 day clock on when the department must to make a decision about whether the law complies with the Voting Rights Act. The USDOJ may make that determination at anytime before the new March 13, 2012 deadline.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
SCOTUS And The Texas Redistricting Dispute
In a rare afternoon session on Monday, only a month after accepting the case, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard a Texas redistricting dispute that is complicated in every way except its bottom line: four new congressional seats that have the potential to decide which party controls the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court justices signaled, through their questions to the lawyers arguing the case for each side, that it is unlikely the court will simply allow elections for this cycle to go forward using the state's maps drawn by the legislature last summer, or the interim maps drawn by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio.
It is widely thought that the Justices will vacate the San Antonio court's decision on the interim maps and instead allow the D.C. circuit court three judge panel to answer with finality the Section 5 Voting Rights Act questions on the state's maps drawn by the legislature. All side are impatiently waiting the Supreme Court's decision.The D.C. circuit court trial starts Jan 17 and will run through the first week of February. This would at least mean another postponement for Texas' primary election, and probably means a bifurcated primary.
In an email to party members this morning, Texas Republican Party Chair Steve Munisteri said that a split primary is looking more likely. Munisteri explained that the state conventions planned by the Texas Democratic and Republican parties are set for June and can't be rescheduled.
"There has to be a primary for at least some races by early April, in order to have the two parties' state conventions," Munisteri wrote. "Cancelling the state conventions is not an option for several reasons. First, the already incurred contractual obligations of the parties would jeopardize the financial health of both parties. Second, it is important that the State of Texas be able to pick delegates to the Republican National Convention so that we can have an impact on the Presidential race....Third, the Texas Election Code requires that we have a state convention. And fourth, we need to have elections for party officers, including State Chairman, Vice-Chairman, National Committeeman and Committeewoman, and the members of the State Republican Executive Committee."
Even if the primary is only delayed until May, instead of June, Munisteri explained that that still would not allow enough time for the Texas Republican Party to properly plan for its June state convention. With few options left, hosting two Texas primaries may end up the only viable solution remaining.
Another change to the primary election schedule will give Texas election officials a genuine headache and Texas tax payers a pain in the wallet. As reported in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Holding two primaries would likely double the costs to Texas taxpayers, election officials have said. The Texas secretary of state's office reimburses Republican and Democratic parties around the state for much of the expenses related to hosting the primaries. In 2010, the state paid party organizations $13.9 million for primary elections and runoffs, state records show.Locally, the final election schedule is likely to create logistical and financial issues for the Tarrant County Elections Office. Elections Administrator Steve Raborn has said hosting two primaries could end up costing Tarrant County more than $700,000.
Delaying the primaries until June could also pose problems. Raborn noted that many schools that serve as polling places are likely to be closed or undergoing construction or maintenance over the summer.
Other concerns include finding enough election workers over the summer and potential overlap from the local city and school district elections scheduled for May. Runoffs for those elections are currently scheduled for June.
Either way Texas voters and taxpayers look to lose. All because Texas Republicans couldn't draw fair maps that took into account the state's rich diversity.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Other Republicans Agree Not to Tell Rick Perry Where Next Debate Is
CONCORD, NH (The Borowitz Report)
In a move that they are calling “the only humane thing to do,” the other Republican candidates for President have agreed not to tell Texas governor Rick Perry where the next debate is being held.
The candidates reached the decision after a two-debate weekend in which Mr. Perry put in a performance that, in the words of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, was “brave, but painful to watch.”
Immediately following the final New Hampshire debate on Sunday morning, an awkward scene unfolded onstage as Mr. Perry asked the other candidates, “So, where is everyone going now?”
“Um, I don’t know, Rick,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, looking down at his shoes.
“Isn’t there going to be another debate after this?” Mr. Perry persisted.
“Not that I know of, Rick,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, pretending to text with his phone. “I’ll let you know if I hear anything.”
After Mr. Perry left the stage, Mr. Romney told a reporter that he “felt bad about fibbing to Rick,” but added, “Putting him out there onstage again would just be cruel.”
The Borowitz Report - Satire
For a less tongue in cheek story on Rick Perry read, "Rick Perry Relegated to the Side Stage in the 2-for-1 New Hampshire Debates" by Eileen Smith @ The Texas Observer.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
U.S. Supreme Court On Monday Will Hear Texas Redistricting Arguments
SCOTUS Blog
At 1 p.m. on Monday, the Supreme Court will hold 70 minutes of argument in three cases — being heard on an expedited schedule — on the new election districts that Texas will use in 2012 balloting for the state legislature and for its expanded delegation in Congress. Arguing for the state of Texas, with 30 minutes of time, will be former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, now in private practice in Washington with the Bancroft law firm. He will be followed by Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing for the federal government as an amicus, with ten minutes. Arguing next, for the challengers to the state legislature’s redistricting maps, with 30 minutes, will be Jose Garza, a private attorney in San Antonio who has been representing the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in these cases.
Background
Just as the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling two years ago in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has become a major influence on the financing of the 2012 elections, the Court’s coming decision this Term on three legislative redistricting cases from Texas may have a strong impact on who wins some key election contests — and might even help settle control of the new U.S. House in the Congress that gathers next January. The ruling also may bring a severe test of the constitutionality of America’s most important law on the voting opportunities of minorities, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For a case that could be decided on very narrow grounds, it has developed potentially historic proportions.
But no matter what the Supreme Court justices decide, congressional and legislative maps need to be in place before the preparations for the primary election, now scheduled for April 3, can go forward.
Should Any Democrat Call Themself A Ron Paul Supporter?
Some Democrats cheer Ron Paul because of his devastating critique of crony capitalism, his equally trenchant challenge to imperialistic wars and his opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act provisions that pose a threat to our civil liberties. But just because Ron Paul opposes crony capitalism, imperialist interventions in foreign countries and government over reach doesn’t mean he has a liberal or progressive bone in his body.Summer Ludwig at the excellent blog Addicting Info says:
As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.As Ted McLaughlin writes of these 10 points at his excellent jobsanger blog:I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
- Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
- Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights [by supporting government regulation over women's reproductive decisions and health services]
- Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
- Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
- Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
- A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
- Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to GLBT citizens.
- Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
- Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
- Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
Read the detailed explanation of each of these 10 points at Addicting Info.
But after studying the list for a while, I had to admit to myself that this list would be a good one for ANY of the Republican candidates this year. I initially had some doubts about a couple of the reasons -- numbers 6 and 8. There is no doubt that foreign policy under Ron Paul would be radically different than under the other Republican candidates, since he is an isolationist (and that is a ludicrous idea in this modern world). But all of the others would re-institute the Bush foreign policy, which was an abject failure and had even our friends angry with us. Truly, the foreign policy of any of the Republican candidates would create a negative image for the United States on the world stage.The Nation: Three Myths About Ron Paul - Civil libertarians and non-interventionists on both the right and left are praising Paul, but they should know his views are wrong on more than economics:
That list is a good one, and it provides some very valid reasons for not voting for Ron Paul. But it also provides some valid reasons for not voting for any of the Republican candidates. A Republican vote in 2012 is a vote for national disaster.
In general, Paul’s commitment is only to limiting federal power, not proactively protecting individual rights. Paul is adamantly opposed to federal protections of civil rights from states or private enterprises. Paul says the Americans with Disabilities Act “should never have been passed,” because “it’s an intrusion into private property rights.” He even says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If Congress passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ban discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, Paul would presumably veto it.Since the foundation of the Supreme Court's Roe decision is the court's 1965 fundamental right of privacy Griswold v. Connecticut decision, Paul presumably wants that court decision repealed, too. In Griswold v. Connecticut the court found state laws forbidding the sale, purchase and use of books and products for the purpose of birth control were unconstitutional.
Paul also opposes abortion rights and says he wants Roe v. Wade repealed so the issue can be decided by the states.
Finally, as Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor for The Atlantic, writes: Paul’s "Shaggy Defense" of his newsletters — which have garnered attention for their racist passages — is at best questionable.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
AARP: Can We Still Vote?
AARP: Many older Americans will not be allowed to vote this year.
by Marsha Mercer
The midwife at the 1949 home birth in rural South Carolina delivered a healthy baby girl but didn't file a birth certificate. Donna Jean Suggs grew up, got a Social Security card and found work as a home health aide. Try as she might, though, she couldn't get a birth certificate. That meant she couldn't get a driver's license or register to vote.
"I fought with them and fought with them," she said of the local and state officials. "I prayed and prayed." In time, said Suggs, 62, who lives in Sumter, S.C., "I gave up on things" — like voting.
Having a driver's license or photo identification card is commonplace for most Americans, but about 11 percent of adult citizens — more than 21 million people — lack a valid, government-issued photo ID, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
Increasingly, this puts their right to vote at risk. A year ago, only Georgia and Indiana required photo ID cards to vote. Since then, 34 states have introduced voter ID laws. Five enacted them, governors in five other states vetoed them, and other states are considering them.
"What's new is the no-photo-no-vote" laws, said Jennie Bowser, a senior fellow specializing in elections at the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures. "The 2010 elections' big shift toward Republican control of state legislatures was certainly a piece of that."
Older voters most affected
The trend alarms voting advocates like Lawrence Norden, acting director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, who said photo ID laws hit older people, the poor, African Americans and students the hardest. "This is the first time in decades that we have seen a reversal in what has been a steady expansion of voting rights in the United States," Norden said. "There's no question that citizens over 65 will be particularly impacted. The older you get, the more likely you won't have an ID."
Nearly one in five citizens over 65 — about 8 million — lacks a current, government-issued photo ID, a 2006 Brennan Center study found. Most people prove their eligibility to vote with a driver's license, but people over 65 often give up their license and don't replace it with the state-issued ID that some states offer non-driving residents. People over 65 also are more likely to lack birth certificates because they were born before recording births was standard procedure.
Strict new photo ID laws could make voting this year more difficult for 3.2 million voters in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, if the new laws stand, according to the Brennan Center.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Voter Registration Cards On Hold Until High Courts Draw Redistricting Lines
If you are a registered voter with an expired [voter registration] card, then you will not receive a new one until the courts decide on how the Texas congressional and state house lines will be drawn. [County election officials may also have to wait until the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and possibly the federal courts rule on Texas' new voter photo ID law.]
“A lot of voters are calling because their cards are expired,” Kristi Allyn, Taylor County Elections Administrator, said. All Texas voter registration cards expired at the end of 2011.
Usually, election officials mail out new cards [in December], but this year, things are a little different. “We will be sending out new cards, we’re not sure when,” Allyn said.
Election offices across the state are on hold until the redistricting limbo is all settled. “We’re just waiting at this point to see what districts we’ll have to put on the cards,” Allyn explained.
Full Article: Voter Registration Cards On Hold Until High Courts Draw Redistricting Lines – Abilene News Story – KTXS Abilene.
Will USDOJ Approve Or Reject Texas' Voter Photo ID Law?
Within the next ten days we should know whether the U.S. Department of Justice will approve or reject Texas' new voter photo ID law.
On November 16, 2011 Christian Herren Jr., the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) Civil Rights Division Voting Section Chief, informed the Texas Secretary of State’s office by letter that the state has yet to provide the voter photo ID related information the USDOJ requested at the end of September.
In the letter, Herren informed the Texas Director of Elections, Ann McGeehan, that without the requested information the USDOJ is unable to determine if the voter photo ID law will “have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” The USDOJ must make that determination before the law may be implemented.
Texas has 60 days from the date of Herren's Nov. 16th letter to respond. If Texas does not return the requested information to the USDOJ by Jan. 16, 2012, the USDOJ will likely reject Texas application for preclearance of SB14 - Texas' voter photo ID legislation. The USDOJ will likely state roughly the same objections it stated to reject South Carolina's photo ID law on Friday, December 23, 2011. Texas, then, would likely appeal the rejection through the courts.
In early December, this blog published an article asking, "Does Texas Want the USDOJ To Reject Its Voter Photo ID Law?" Given Texas still has not replied to Herrin's letter of Nov. 16th, it is becoming ever clearer that Texas wants to the USDOJ to reject its voter photo ID law, so the state can appeal the USDOJ's rejection to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) challenging the constitutionally of the preclearance rule, included in Section 5 of the VRA. Texas and South Carolina undoubtedly will jointly take their "constitutionally" arguments to the SCOTUS.
"Now the REAL Debate Can Begin: How DOJ's SC Voter ID Objection FINALLY Brings Data to the Discussion" - by Doug Chapin, Humphrey School of Public Affair - Program for Excellence in Election Administration:
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Is Section 5 On The Line Right Now?
Scotus Blog
A lively discussion that has gone on among those following the Texas redistricting cases — coming up for argument in the Supreme Court next Monday afternoon — has focused on whether the Justices might say something in those cases about the constitutionality of the key voting rights law’s provision that is centrally involved in the cases. That is Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and how it is enforced is what the three Texas cases are all about. In a new brief filed Tuesday, the state of Texas has given a very broad hint that Section 5′s validity could actually be on the line right now.
Read the full story @ Scotus Blog
Texas Primaries Await U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
If Texas is going to hold primary elections on April 3, the federal courts will have to pick up the pace. (see revised schedule)
A panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., is deciding whether congressional and legislative district maps drawn by the Legislature last year give proper protection to minority voters under the federal Voting Rights Act. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether an interim map drawn by federal judges in San Antonio is legal.
In the meanwhile, there are no maps in place for the impending Texas elections.
A panel of federal judges in San Antonio has the job of deciding whether the maps legislators drew last year properly account for population growth and representation, and that court will also finally approve maps to be used for this year's elections. But since the D.C. judges moved slowly in deciding whether the maps follow the Voting Rights Act, and the election season was almost under way, the San Antonio judges drew interim maps to be used in the meantime.
Instead of starting with the Legislature's maps, the San Antonio court started with the maps currently in use. As a result, their maps weren't as strongly Republican as the ones that lawmakers drew.
The state objected and took its case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which put everything on ice and scheduled hearings for next week.
Read the full story @ Texas Tribune
Monday, January 2, 2012
Texas Medicaid Cuts Leave Elderly And Cancer Patients Without Care
By Alex Branchabranch @ star-telegram.com
A new state Medicaid policy could leave some elderly and low-income Texans without access to certain treatments, including crucial cancer medications, critics say. Starting today, Medicaid will no longer cover the full co-payment of patients who also qualify for Medicare, a change that would affect 333,000 people known as "dual-eligible" clients.
The change is expected to save $1.1 billion over the remainder of the two-year budget cycle, about $475 million of which will be state funding, according to state health officials. However, the Texas Medical Association and state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, say the financial ramifications for physicians could force them to limit the number of dual-eligible patients they treat because the cost of service would not be adequately covered.
In particular, providers who treat cancer patients with chemotherapy medications have raised concerns that the change could make it "difficult to impossible" for patients to receive their medications, Davis wrote in a letter last week to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. "I would like to know how the Heath and Human Services Commission evaluated the anticipated impact of these reimbursement cuts," she wrote.
Stephanie Goodman, a health and human services spokeswoman, said in an e-mail response to the Star-Telegram that the state is looking into Davis' concerns and has asked the state medical association to help identify doctors or specialists disproportionately affected. The process will reveal whether "we need to make any changes or exempt certain kinds of providers or services from the new policy," she said
Read more @ star-telegram.comSaturday, December 31, 2011
US AG Holder’s Voting Rights Gamble - The Supreme Court Voter ID Showdown
During 2011, this blog published many articles about the GOP's push to pass legislation requiring one of a very limited selection of government-issued photo IDs (like a driver’s license, passport or gun permit) to vote.
The new laws require specific identification not carried by a disproportionate portion of certain demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic. These groups include Blacks, Hispanics, the poor, seniors, and the young.
Because such laws do have a disproportionate on certain demographic groups, the U.S. Department of Justice, last Friday, blocked South Carolina's new voter photo ID law. It is widely thought the Justice Dept. will move to also block Texas' new voter photo ID law in the coming weeks.
Two of our articles looked at the pending show down down between the U.S. Department of Justice and the conservative leaning justices on the Supreme Court of the United States overt the voter photo ID laws and possibly the 1965 Voting Rights Act, itself:
- Does Texas Want the USDOJ To Reject Its Voter Photo ID Law?
- DOJ v. SCOTUS On Texas' Voter Photo ID Law
On Friday, Slate published an article that also looks at the pending USDOJ v. SCOTUS showdown:
On the Friday before Christmas Day, the Department of Justice formally objected to a new South Carolina law requiring voters to produce an approved form of photo ID in order to vote. That move already has drawn cheers from the left and jeers from the right. The DoJ said South Carolina could not show that its new law would not have an adverse impact on racial minorities, who are less likely to have acceptable forms of identification.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley denounced the DoJ decision blocking the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: “It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights.” The state’s attorney general vowed to fight the DoJ move in court, and thanks to an odd quirk in the law, the issue could get fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, which could well use it to strike down the Voting Rights Act provision as unconstitutional before the 2012 elections.
The current dispute has an eerie echo. More than 45 years ago in 1966, South Carolina also went to the Supreme Court to complain that Section 5 unconstitutionally intruded on its sovereignty. Under the 1965 Act, states with a history of racial discrimination like South Carolina could not make changes in its voting rules—from major changes like redistricting to changes as minor as moving a polling place across the street—without getting the permission of either the U.S. Department of Justice or a three-judge court in Washington, D.C. The state had to show the law was not enacted with the purpose, or effect, of making minority voters worse off than they already were.
... In its 1966 South Carolina v. Katzenbach decision, the Supreme Court said the law requiring “preclearance” of voting changes, while an extreme intrusion on states’ rights, was necessary because lesser measures—like federal government suits over each discriminatory voting practice—had not worked. ... Today, Some conservatives argue that Section 5 is no longer constitutional, because the states subject to preclearance don’t present a special danger of racial discrimination.
... If South Carolina argues in court [in 2012] that it is unconstitutional to require it to submit its voter ID law for federal approval, and the three-judge court rejects that argument, it is hard to imagine the Supreme Court conservatives refusing to hear that case.
... Why did the Obama DoJ deny preclearance, knowing it could well set up this massive confrontation and potentially lead to the downfall of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? There are both principled and political reasons.
First of all, it was the right thing to do. As the DoJ letter explains, South Carolina presented no evidence that its law was necessary to prevent voter fraud, and the evidence was uncontested that minority voters were less likely to have ID
Second, if the Court is going to strike down Section 5, it might be politically better for this to happen before the 2012 elections, so that Obama can run against a Supreme Court, and the possibility that a President Romney could appoint a young version of Justice Scalia to take a retiring Justice Kennedy’s seat on the court, solidifying the court’s conservative majority for a generation.
It’s a gamble, both legally and politically, and no one knows for sure how it will turn out. But South Carolina may fare much better before the Roberts court this spring than it did before the Warren court in 1966.
Read the full article @ Slate.
Voter Photo ID Related Stories:
Keeping Students From the Polls
Among the findings of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 7-11, 2011:
"There is a sharp difference by age when it comes to the word liberal – while 61% of people under age 30 react positively, just 34% of those age 65 and older say the same. By contrast, reactions to the word conservative are almost identical across all age groups."In 2008, enthusiasm about Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” toward more liberal (progressive) ideals drew college students and other young adults to volunteer for political groups, to register to vote and to head to the polls on Election Day. In 2008, nearly 70 percent of voters 29 and younger voted for Obama — the highest share of youth votes ever to go to any one candidate, according to exit polls. (note: for the Nov. 2012 election, those young 2008 voters will be age 34 and younger.)
In a national survey of Americans, ages 18-29, conducted by Harvard’s Institute of Politics in March 2011, 80 percent said they have a Facebook account. Among college students, 90 percent use the account. Facebook friend statuses were second only to major national newspapers in sources that young adults said they would be interested in turning to for information about the 2012 campaign.
Republican state lawmakers in seven states, including Texas, have passed strict laws requiring one of a very limited selection of government-issued photo IDs (like a driver’s license or a passport) to vote. Many college and university students carry only their student ID cards and don’t have one of the newly required voting IDs. Many of those new photo ID laws have been interpreted as prohibiting out-of-state driver’s licenses from being used for voting, which will further restrict the states' "non-resident" students for voting.
It’s all part of a widespread Republican effort to restrict the voting rights of demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic. Blacks, Hispanics, the poor and the young, who are more likely to support President Obama, are disproportionately represented in the 21 million people without government IDs. On Friday, the Justice Department, finally taking action against these abuses, blocked the new voter ID law in South Carolina.
Republicans usually don’t want to acknowledge that their purpose is to turn away voters, especially when race is involved, so they invented an explanation, claiming that stricter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud. In fact, there is almost no voter fraud in America to prevent.
"I don't want everybody to vote," Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the billionaire-funded Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and other conservative organizations, said while addressing a conservative Republican audience. "Our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down," he added after he denigrated those who seek "good government" through maximum, informed voter participation as people who suffer from the "goo goo syndrome." Weyrich was also a co-founder of the Council for National Policy, a strategy-formulating organization for social conservatives; co-publisher of the magazine Conservative Digest; and national chairman of Coalitions for America, an association of conservative activist organizations.
William O’Brien, the speaker of the New Hampshire State House, told a Tea Party group earlier this year that students are “foolish” and tend to “vote their feelings” because they lack life experience.
“Voting as a liberal,” he said, “that’s what kids do.” And that’s why, he said, he supported measures to prohibit students from voting from their college addresses and to end same-day registration.
New Hampshire Republicans even tried to pass a bill that would have kept students who previously lived elsewhere from voting in the state; fortunately, the measure failed, as did the others Mr. O’Brien favored.
Many students have taken advantage of Election Day registration laws, which is one reason Maine Republicans passed a law eliminating the practice. Voters restored it last month, but Republican lawmakers there are already trying new ways to restrict voting. The secretary of state said he was investigating students who are registered to vote in the state but pay out-of-state tuition.
Wisconsin once made it easy for students to vote, making it one of the leading states in turnout of younger voters in 2004 and 2008. When Republicans swept into power there last year, they undid all of that, imposing requirements that invalidated the use of virtually all college ID cards in voter registration. Colleges are scrambling to change their cards to add signatures and expiration dates, but it’s not clear whether the state will let them.
Imposing these restrictions to win an election will embitter a generation of students in its first encounter with the machinery of democracy.
- CHECK: REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL' http://on.fb.me/Who-Framed-LiberalsFriday, December 30, 2011
‘Progressive’ Is The Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
Why are Republicans always calling President Obama a socialist -- everybody hates socialists, even liberals, even Occupy Wall Streeters. The socialist name calling, echoed without challenge by the main stream press, seems to be working, too. Americans perceive Barack Obama as furthest away from their own political viewpoint, according to a just released Gallup poll.
These are among the findings of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 7-11, 2011.
Both of the ideological descriptions used most frequently in American politics – conservative and liberal – receive more positive than negative reactions from the American public. But the positives for conservative (62%) are higher than for liberal (50%).
This conservative v. liberal gap mainly reflects the balance of what people call themselves; more people consistently call themselves conservative than liberal in public opinion polling, even though surveys consistently show a majority of Americans favor liberal (progressive) policies and programs, including, for example, Social Security, Medicare, and everyone paying their fair share to support public transportation systems and public education. Those who think of themselves as politically “moderate” give similarly positive assessments to both words.
As many Democratic strategists have argued, the term progressive receives a far more positive reaction from the American public than the term liberal (67% vs 50%), though the difference is primarily among Republicans. 
Last year the Republican National Committee urged fundraisers to stoke fear by calling President Obama, and Democrats in general, "socialists."
Democrats dubbed the GOP fundraising plan, contained in a private GOP document, "RNC Fear-Gate." The document layed out a full "strategy-of-fear" and included unflattering caricatures of House minority leaded Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A copy of the document was left at the hotel that hosted the retreat, and a source provided it to Politico.
RNC member Donna Lou Gosney of West Virginia said, "You have to identify something and label it so you can talk about it and 'socialism' is a good scare word."
More Americans consistently call themselves conservative than liberal in public opinion polling because many have been conditioned by conservative messaging, largely echoed unchallenged by the main stream media, to view the word "liberal" negatively. The main stream media also does not challenge the conservative messaging meme that Americans are predominately right of center in their political views. Fox News, for example, continually pushes the right-wing talking point that "America is a center-right country."
In fact, on issue after issue, polls are clear that Americans favor progressive policies:
Republicans Slash Public Education To Fuel Private 'For Profit' Corporate Schools
The 2011 Texas Legislature slashed the state's funding of public K-12 schools, colleges and universities. The real motivation for underfunding public education is to replace our low cost public system of education available to every citizen with a high cost private 'for profit' education system.
While for-profit colleges do indeed educate more low-income and minority students than other institutions, this is in large part because support for the traditional alternative, community college, has failed to keep pace with demand.
Though no one maintains a comprehensive list of state funding for community colleges, state and local support for community colleges on a per-student basis declined by 5 percent in 2009 from a decade earlier, according to Department of Education statistics compiled by the Delta Project, a nonprofit research group that studies higher education spending. The total subsidies provided to students by community colleges, including funding from public sources and other outside support, fell by 10 percent over the last decade, on a per-student basis.
The Obama administration has significantly boosted funding for Pell Grants, which are available to low-income students. Over the last three years of the program, the federal government has more than doubled spending on Pell grants, budgeting $20 billion more this year than in the 2007-08 school year. For-profit colleges have captured an outsized share of this pool -- roughly 25 percent -- despite educating only 12 percent of college students nationwide, according to the most recent federal data.
Had the $7.5 billion that for-profit institutions received via Pell Grants during the 2009-2010 school year gone instead to fund community college systems nationwide, that money could have created capacity for an additional 629,000 community college students, The Huffington Post calculated, using available estimates for the average expenditure per student. That would represent a 20 percent increase in the number of full-time community college students currently enrolled nationwide.At California's community colleges -- the nation's largest system of higher education, serving a quarter of community college students nationwide -- an estimated 200,000 students will be turned away from classes next school year, according to the state community college chancellor's office, following state cutbacks of nearly 20 percent across the entire system. That amounts to more than 7 percent of the entire state's community college student body, and that does not count those who gave up on plans to enroll due to the difficulties of securing classes.
After accounting for inflation, California is now spending the same amount on community colleges that it did six years ago, despite adding more than 175,000 students in that period, a nearly 20 percent increase. On a per-student basis, the state is spending less this year than it was 15 years ago.
The for-profit college programs that have been absorbing the resulting overflow of students are on average more than five times as expensive as their community college counterparts, according to a Senate report that examined such schools nationally. While only about one in five students at community colleges takes out loans to finance their tuition, four of five students at for-profit two- and four-year schools sign off on loans, according to Department of Education data.
Because of the high costs and high debt loads, students at for-profit colleges are responsible for about 45 percent of all student loan defaults.
In the eyes of public education advocates, for-profit colleges are the inevitable, opportunistic outgrowth of a society that simultaneously rewards those with greater education while it eliminates traditional support for public campuses.
"The economy is essentially telling people that you have to get some kind of post-secondary degree or credential," said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce. "So the demand is growing very fast, and our ability to fund this function is crashing. It's not just declining, it's crashing. The public sector is basically getting out of the business, so the costs are shifting to the individual students."
Read the full article @ Huffington Post
Friday, December 23, 2011
USDOJ Blocks South Carolina Voter Photo ID Law
The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina's law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. South Carolina's law, which is almost identical to Texas' voter photo ID law, was the first voter ID law to be refused by the Obama administration. The Justice Department must approve changes to South Carolina's election laws under the federal Voting Rights Act because of the state's past failure to protect the voting rights of blacks. Texas, also covered by the Voting Rights Act, may soon receive a similar letter in response to it's preclrearance request. (USDOJ's letter to SC at the bottom of this post)
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said South Carolina's law didn't meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Perez said tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina's law because they don't have the right photo ID.
South Carolina's new voter ID law requires people casting ballots to show poll workers a state-issued driver's license or ID card; a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport.
South Carolina is among five states that passed laws this year requiring some form of ID at the polls, while such laws were already on the books in Indiana and Georgia, whose law received approval from President George W. Bush's Justice Department. Indiana's law, passed in 2005, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. This USDOJ decision places the federal government squarely in opposition to the types of voter ID requirements that have swept through mostly Republican-controlled state legislatures.
“Put differently, although non-white voters comprised 30.4% of the state’s registered voters, they constituted 34.2% of registered voters who did not have the requisite DMV-issued identification to vote,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division, wrote in the letter to South Carolina. “Non-white voters were therefore disproportionally represented, to a significant degree, in the group of registered voters who, under the proposed law, would be rendered ineligible to go to the polls and participate in the election.”
Perez wrote that the number of minority citizens whose exercise of the francise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements “runs in the tens of thousands.” He wrote that the state had “failed entirely to address the disparity between the proportions of white and non-white registered voters who lack DMV-issued identification.”
Because Justice Department lawyers reached the conclusion that South Carolina’s voter ID law would have the effect of suppressing minority voter turnout, they found it was unnecessary to examine whether that was the intent of the legislators who voted for the law. Cases based on intent to discriminate are usually more difficult to prove even though they don’t require the government to prove the effect was discriminatory.
The Texas Secretary of State filed the the state's request for preclearance in July, but the USDOJ determined in September that it needed more information. Specifically the USDOJ requested the racial breakdown and counties of residence of the estimated 605,576 registered voters who do not have a state-issued license or photo ID, and how many of them have Spanish surnames. It requested the same information for registered voters who do have valid IDs.
The Texas Secretary of State (TXSOS) had initially told the DOJ that 605,576 registered Texas voters do not appear to have a Texas driver’s license or personal ID card. The SOS report indicates that in 27 of Texas' 254 counties, at least 10 percent of the registered voters might be unable to cast ballots. In Presidio County in Southwest Texas as many as 25.9% of registered voters might not have the required photo ID, which will block as many as 1,313 out of the 5,066 registered voters in that county from casting ballots in any election.
The Texas Democratic Party followed up with its own letter and spreadsheet to the USDOJ showing that in at least 46 Texas counties, over half the voters who do not have one of the required photo ID's are Hispanic. The Texas Democratic Party and various organizations staunchly opposed SB14 on the grounds it will disenfranchise elderly and minority voters.
Although most Americans have government-issued photo ID, studies show that as many as 11-12% of eligible voters nationwide do not; the percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Last month, the Brennan Center for Justice issued a report on its research that shows as many as 11% of eligible voters nationwide do not hold a government issue photo ID. With 18.8 million voting age citizens in Texas, as counted by the 2010 U.S. census, as many as 2.1 million (11 percent) registered and unregistered voting age citizens in Texas possibly do not hold a Texas driver’s license, personal ID card or other government issued photo ID document.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said he would fight the Justice Department in federal court. He said the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar law in Indiana several years ago. "Nothing in this act stops people from voting," Wilson said. The ball is now in Wilson's court;
If the state does nothing, the voter photo ID provisions of the law is nullified.
Alternatively, Wilson can advise the state to provide new data to the USDOJ (the state told USDOJ 55 days into the 60 day review period that the data they originally turned over was flawed) and ask for reconsideration. Or, Wilson can advise the state legislature to pass a different law with less restrictive identification requirements. Or, Wilson can appeal the decision through the courts. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008, so the state may think it has a good chance to win on appeal, though the question of racial disparity wasn’t the focus of SCOTUS’s 2008 decision.
USDOJ officials are still reviewing Texas' ID law. The USDOJ likely will send a rejection letter to Texas in mid-January at the end of the current 60 day clock on its Texas preclearance decision. Since the laws and issues are so similar between TX and SC, the Tx letter is likely to say much the same thing as today's SC letter.
It is widely expected that South Carolina (and Texas) will take the USDOJ's preclearance rejection to the three judge court in DC, with direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also expected that South Carolina (and Texas) will argue that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional — an issue that has been simmering in other VRA cases.
South Carolina (and Texas) likely will seek expedited review of the USDOJ's rejection in the DC court as well as in the Supreme Court, on grounds that the states want to use their new voter photo ID laws in the 2012 election. That would put the VRA constitutionality question raised in the voter photo ID case before the Supreme Court at about the same time SCOTUS will be considering the constitutionality of the San Antonio court's redrawing of Texas' House, Senate and Congressional district maps. This would give the conservative activist Supreme Court Justices a chance to not only weaken section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional before the 2012 election, but to strike it down all together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)