June 2012

  • June 8, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott has attracted plenty of attention for his heavy-handed attempt to purge “noncitizens” from the voter rolls. But that voter purge, which the Department of Justice has ordered the state to halt, is only part of that state’s Republican-led effort to suppress voter turnout.

    A relatively new Florida law, H.B. 1355, created onerous restrictions on voter-registration drives, cut early voting opportunities and created new burdensome voter identification requirements. Similar laws have been enacted in other states with Republicans in charge, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. In all those states, Republicans claim widespread voter fraud is the justification for the onerous restrictions.

    Civil liberties groups, such as Brennan Center, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), ACLU, however, argue that voter fraud is practically nonexistent, and thus a blatantly lame excuse for the new laws. This is really an effort to suppress the vote of minorities, college students, and the poor.

    A new ACS Issue Brief by Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levitt examines the new Florida law, concluding that “these burdens are not only real and inequitable but also unnecessary, which renders them suspect as a matter of constitutional law and fundamentally flawed as a matter of public policy. Not only do they make it more difficult for eligible Americans to vote, but they do so without any meaningful benefit.”

    Levitt’s Issue Brief, “The New Wave of Election Regulation: Burden Without Benefit,” details how Florida’s new law disproportionately burdens minority voters, saying that it is now very likely non-Hispanic white voter turnout will remain much higher than minority voters in 2012. In 2008, Levitt notes that a persistent gap between minority voters and non-Hispanic white voters had substantially narrowed for the first time.

    The restrictions on early voting and the new voter identification requirements are likely to sharply restrict minority, low-income and elderly voters. The “available date clearly show that those without government-issued photo ID are more likely to be nonwhite, more likely to either younger voters or seniors, and more likely to be from low-income households, and more likely to have less formal education,” Levitt states.

  • June 8, 2012

    by Samantha Berkovits

    Image preview

    After nearly two years and the support of two consecutive Republican home state senators, the U.S. Senate has confirmed Toledo defense lawyer Jeffrey Helmick to a judicial emergency seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Confirmed by a 62-36 vote, those opposing his nomination cited his work defending a suspected terrorist. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) defended Helmick “zealously, comparing him with Founding Father John Adams, who defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has spoken out against judicial obstruction, said, "He's only controversial in the Senate Judiciary Committee ... He's not controversial in Ohio, where they know Jeffrey Helmick the best.” The Senate also confirmed Judge Timothy S. Hillman to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts this week.

  • June 8, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Joel Rogers, who teaches law, political science, sociology and public affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he also directs COWS, a high road think-and-do tank. He’ll be leading a breakout session on “ALICE” at the ACS National Convention next week.


    ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), for nearly 40 years the best kept open secret of the American Right, has certainly been in the news lately, with reporting from Bloomberg Businessweek, The New York Times, National Public Radio, and many others. ALEC’s authorship of much of the GOP legislative playbook last year -- to obliterate public sector unions, restrict voting by students and the poor, roll back environmental and consumer protections, and privatize much of government -- spurred press attention. As the Times remarked afterward, “it is no coincidence that so many state legislatures have spent the last year taking the same destructive actions.” So did, more recently, ALEC’s promotion of the ”stand-your-ground” law made famous by Trayvon Martin’s killing. Special credit for increasing public knowledge of ALEC’s antics should go to ALEC Exposed, which last year published several hundred of ALEC’s model bills, helped organize a special issue of The Nation devoted to them, and has kept up a drumbeat of ALEC-watchdogging ever since. Worried about the publicity, a growing number of household name corporations, most recently Walmart, have ended their membership in the group.

    This new awareness and scrutiny of ALEC is all to the good. But even better would be a progressive counter to its influence. What that would really require is probably beyond anyone’s immediate means, as it would mean matching the vast political infrastructure the Right has built in states over the last 40 years. Along with ALEC’s conferences and library of model bills, this includes broad and deep networks for mass and internal communication, staff and leadership development, candidate recruitment and training, enough recognized leadership to permit assessments of progress and strategy discussion, and a dedicated pool of patient capital for all these things. National progressive donors and institutions have never shown commitment to matching this machine, much less the coordination that such matching would require.

  • June 7, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While the marriage equality movement appears to be on the upswing – poll numbers show more support for same-sex marriages and President Obama has provided eloquent backing – the broader landscape for the LGBT community remains fraught with enormous challenges.

    The LGBT community continues to fight for protections against discrimination in the workplace, and struggle against callousness from government officials who are intent on cutting social safety net programs. And many LGBT youngsters, a new report finds, are growing up in hostile environments.

    A report by the Human Rights Campaign surveying more than 10,000 LGBT youths nationwide, perhaps not surprisingly, shows the overwhelming number of LGBT youngsters report facing harassment, discrimination and isolation. The Los Angeles Times says the report “paints an often stark picture of the challenges of growing up gay in this country, even as same-sex marriage gains support among many Americans and other legal and cultural barriers to gay equality begin to fall.”

    Linda Spears, vice president of policy for the Child Welfare League of America, told the newspaper that the HRC study confirms “our worst fears about LGBT kids. These kids are often so vulnerable in the way their lives are being led because of the lack of support they have."

    The report found that LGBT youth are “more than two times as likely as non-LGBT youth to say they have been verbally harassed and called names at school. Among LGBT youth, half (51%) have been verbally harassed at school, compared with 25% among non-LGBT students.”

    Four in ten LGBT youth, 13 to 17 year-olds, said they lived in a community not accepting of them. The report found that only 21 percent of LGBT youth say they reside in a place with a community that helps LGBT people.

  • June 7, 2012
    BookTalk
    So Rich, So Poor
    Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in the United States
    By: 
    Peter Edelman

    By Peter Edelman a law professor at Georgetown University, co-director of the University’s Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy, and Faculty Director for the school’s Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy. Edelman is also the chair of the American Constitution Society’s Board of Directors, and will be signing copies of his book at the ACS National Convention next week.


    It’s never hard to find a policy hook to discuss poverty in the United States, but one we have just now is the recent budget for FY 2013 proposed by Paul Ryan and the House Republicans which proposes to slash virtually every program that helps low-income people in our country.  My new book is called So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in the United States. Paul Ryan and colleagues are definitely a policy hook for talking about my book.

    I could just say that people like Paul Ryan and the House Republicans are the reason why it’s so hard to end poverty in our nation. That’s not wrong, but the story is much more complicated than that. We have a long list of successful programs without which we’d have 40 million additional people in poverty over and above the 46 million we have now. Don’t let anybody tell you that nothing works. Paul Ryan’s line is that if we have 46 million people in poverty now, it’s because the programs are a failure – because social security, food stamps, the earned income tax credit, housing vouchers, and Medicare and Medicaid are failures. And some people – all too many -- take him seriously.    

    No, we have 46 million people in poverty and tens of millions more struggling every day to make ends meet for other reasons. There are two problems here, actually: the millions who work as hard as they can and can’t get out of poverty or near-poverty, and the smaller (but not small) group who are virtually destitute, with incomes below half the poverty line, or below $9,000 for a family of three. The first group – whose basic problem is the huge number of low-wage jobs now extant in our economy – now constitutes a third of the population, 103 million people who have incomes below twice the poverty line (below $36,000 for a family of three). The second – those in deep poverty – now number 20.5 million, up by almost 8 million since 2000. Both numbers are staggering, each in its own way.