Federal judge on voter suppression: Oops, these ARE bad laws

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHXdZ39pOezxMaYjoorO-YNlsUUAFY1jqpTC_epO0dahH3ZneFySSAz04RLKytu9YcaQg_cl_tzhqT0Ng28fw7daKJqv6LvDVbNN2Q5YOpMtZ3jbV6qCWzrvOBTH8HLk6Q7eQwgh7BjFh2/s1600/voter_suppression.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHXdZ39pOezxMaYjoorO-YNlsUUAFY1jqpTC_epO0dahH3ZneFySSAz04RLKytu9YcaQg_cl_tzhqT0Ng28fw7daKJqv6LvDVbNN2Q5YOpMtZ3jbV6qCWzrvOBTH8HLk6Q7eQwgh7BjFh2/s1600/voter_suppression.png" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Former federal judge <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner" rel="nofollow">Richard Posner</a> wrote a new book saying laws that suppress voting are a really bad idea.<br /><br /> Well that’s pretty obvious. But six years ago Posner didn’t think so. He wrote the majority opinion in a case defending voter suppression laws that use unattainable ID </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">requirements to disenfranchise working-class voters. Posner’s arguments in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board" rel="nofollow">Crawford v. Marion County Election Board</a> unleashed a wave of strict voter suppression laws in states all over the country.<br /><br />Now Posner, a Reagan appointee, says <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/judge-in-landmark-case-disavows-support-for-voter-id.html" rel="nofollow">he was very wrong</a>:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">In an interview last week, Posner was asked more bluntly if he had gotten the ruling wrong:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">In other words, Posner said he didn’t realize how dangerous voter suppression laws could be. But plenty of other people did, including dissenting Judge Terrance Evans:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">T</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">here were many others making the same point. John Nichols at <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/176641/judge-who-framed-voter-id-laws-constitutional-says-he-got-it-wrong" rel="nofollow"><em>The Nation</em> writes</a>:<blockquote class="tr_bq">Judge Posner should have paid closer attention to the detailed amicus brief filed in 2006 by the Brennan Center for Justice, which explained how the Indiana law threatened to “<a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/crawford-v-marion-county-election-board" target="_blank">exclude many eligible voters from participating in our democratic process</a>.”</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Because voter ID requirements have been <a data-ls-seen="1" href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/voter-id" target="_blank">widely criticized as weighing more heavily of specific classes of voters</a>—people of color, students, low-income voters, the elderly—legitimate concerns have been raised about equal protection and a host of other constitutional concerns.</blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Crawford case was a gift to Republican extremists and groups like <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed" rel="nofollow">ALEC</a> that have been trying to block likely Democratic voters from the polls for years. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">On the heels of the Supreme Court gutting key parts of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965" rel="nofollow">Voting Rights Act</a>, extremist lawmakers have aggressively pushed voter suppression laws in states like Texas and <a href="http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2013/08/nc-governor-signs-voter-suppression-bill.html">North Carolina</a>, citing the Crawford case to justify their schemes. While they claim the laws are aimed at stopping voter fraud, they <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/" rel="nofollow">can barely conceal their real agenda</a>, which is to use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)" rel="nofollow">poll-tax</a>-like restrictions to rig elections they can’t actually win.</span><br /><br />As <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/voter_id_judges_shocking_admission_we_got_it_wrong/singleton/" rel="nofollow"><em>Salon</em> reports</a>:</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">In Texas, according to the <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9177">DoJ’s analysis of the state’s own data</a> supplied to them, “Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification.” In South Carolina, where the DoJ <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9007">blocked a similar law there last year</a> under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, they <a href="http://bradblog.com/Docs/Justice-Department-Letter-To-South-Carolina-Blocking-Voter-ID-Law_122311.pdf" rel="nofollow">found</a> that — again, according to the state’s own data — “minority registered voters were nearly 20 percent more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised” by the state’s new Photo ID restriction law.</blockquote>Even though the judge who authored the Crawford decision has now changed his mind, anti-worker radicals who support voter suppression certainly haven’t changed theirs. So the fight for voting rights continues.

supreme court voter ID voter suppression voting rights Federal judge on voter suppression: Oops, these ARE bad laws

Former federal judge  Richard Posner  wrote a new book saying laws that suppress voting are a really bad idea. Well that’s pretty obvious. ...

Read more »

Colbert Report on high court case on campaign finance (it only hurts when we laugh)

<embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="247" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:429572" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="288" wmode="window"></embed><br /><br />Only <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/429573/october-07-2013/banksy-s-new-york-reign-of-terror" rel="nofollow">Stephen Colbert</a> could make you laugh at a segment on Supreme Court case on campaign finance. It's something<a href="http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2013/10/Corporate-america-wants-more-freedom-to-buy-elections.html" rel="nofollow"> working people need to be really, really worried about</a>. If this very conservative Supreme Court rolls back limits on spending by millionaires and billionaires, they'll have more freedom to pass laws that take away workers' rights, suppress voting, empower corporations and enable corporate tax evasion.<br /><br />Just watch.

campaign finance supreme court Colbert Report on high court case on campaign finance (it only hurts when we laugh)

Only Stephen Colbert could make you laugh at a segment on Supreme Court case on campaign finance. It's something working people need t...

Read more »

Corporate America wants even more freedom to buy elections

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://act.rootsaction.org/images/we-the-corporations-citizens-united.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="107" src="http://act.rootsaction.org/images/we-the-corporations-citizens-united.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>An upcoming Supreme Court case could make it a lot easier for anti-worker billionaires to buy elections -- not that it's exactly difficult for them to do so already.<br /><br />It seems the 2010 <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" rel="nofollow">Citizens United</a></em> decision declaring money is speech and flooding our democracy with corporate cash just isn't enough. <em>McCutcheon v. FEC</em> could allow the super-rich to pour millions of dollars <em>directly</em> into the campaign coffers of their preferred candidates.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-segal/millennials-vs-millionair_b_4036342.html" rel="nofollow">Huffington Post explains</a>:<em> </em><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">An Alabama millionaire named Shaun McCutcheon is challenging a long-standing law on how much money individual donors can give directly to candidates and party committees. If Mr. McCutcheon wins his case, a single wealthy individual could give a total of more than $2.4 million to his or her favorite candidates, and another million-plus dollars to the party committee of their choice - for a total of 3.5 million dollars.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Mr. McCutcheon claims money is speech and that any legislative measure which hinders his dollar offends "liberty." But irrespective of the patriotic rhetoric, what McCutcheon is really suing for is the right to buy elections. Because 93 percent of the time, the candidate who raises the most money, wins.</blockquote>Call it Citizens United II. Except this time corporations and billionaires want even more freedom to rig elections, Wall Street-style. <br /><br />According to <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission-the-next-citizens-united/" rel="nofollow">Constitution Daily</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">In 2010, the Supreme Court delivered its controversial 5-4 decision in <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>, which set the stage for enormous sums of money to be spent in elections through super PACs and other independent entities.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">On Tuesday, October 8—less than three years after deciding <i>Citizens United—</i>the Supreme Court will hear arguments in <i>McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission</i>, a case which has the potential to flood millions of dollars more into United States elections—and this time, directly into the coffers of candidates for elected office.</blockquote>This <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/assets_c/2013/09/mccutcheonmultiplying-11360.html" rel="nofollow">graphic</a> from the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/" rel="nofollow">Center for Responsive Politics</a> shows <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/mccutcheons-multiplying-effect-why.html" rel="nofollow">what's at stake in the McCutcheon case</a>. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of McCutcheon, it would have a multiplying effect on the impact of wealthy donors:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">One of the first things that would surely happen without overall limits would be a wave of newly created PACs focused on specific candidates' campaigns, which would allow donors to give $5,000 to any number of committees that would then give the money directly to the candidates.   </blockquote>In 2012, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/24/citizens-united-ruling-accounts-for-78-percent-of-2012-election-spending/" rel="nofollow">78 percent of election spending</a> was attributed to the massive influx of outside money that <em>Citizens United</em> injected into the political process. That's <a href="http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16530772-citizen-united-ruling-opened-door-to-933-million-in-new-election-spending?lite" rel="nofollow">$933 million</a> more in political spending.<br /><br />And in states like <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/11/1193246/-Buying-Elections-Campaign-Spending-TRIPLES-Since-Citizens-United-If-You-Can-t-Win-Cheat" rel="nofollow">Wisconsin, campaign spending has tripled</a> since <em>Citizens United</em>. The recall election against union-busting Gov. Scott Walker was the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/07/citizens-united-helped-scott-walker-win-wisconsin" rel="nofollow">most expensive election in Wisconsin's history</a>, with Walker raising over $30.5 million -- seven times more than his opponent.<br /><br /><em>McCutcheon v. FEC</em> threatens to accelerate the damage that <em>Citizens United</em> has already done to our democracy. While arguments in the case will be heard tomorrow in front of the Supreme Court, <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=13344093&notoc=1" rel="nofollow">hundreds of workers, labor activists and others will be outside the Court rallying against big money in politics</a>. <br /><br />As a wealthy GOP backer, McCutcheon argues that limiting individuals' campaign donations is a restriction on their free speech. But for most people, the biggest limitation on their campaign contributions is their wallets. It's too bad then that McCutcheon isn't trying to overturn economic inequality instead of campaign finance restrictions.<br /><br />Citizens United and McCutcheon are leading a national conspiracy to make corporations into people in the eyes of the law. Of course, if corporations are "people," then real people like us are made to be less than people in our political system.

Citizens United corporate personhood super PAC supreme court Corporate America wants even more freedom to buy elections

An upcoming Supreme Court case could make it a lot easier for anti-worker billionaires to buy elections -- not that it's exactly difficu...

Read more »