July 2012

by Jeremy Leaming

In a piece examining stringent voter ID laws implemented by a string of states, The New York Times likely in pursuit of balance or so-called objectivity trumpets the defense of the new impediments to voting.

The laws, Ethan Bronner writes are called “voter suppression” by Democrats, and proponents of them say they are really about ensuring integrity of the nation’s elections, by wiping out voter fraud. And besides, those supporters note, we live in an “era when photo identification is routine for many basic things including air travel.”

But Viviette Applewhite, interviewed for the piece, gets closer to the truth.

She’s a 93-year-old Philadelphian who had no difficulty voting in 2008, but because of the state’s new voter ID law is looking at the possibility of not participating in a fundamental component of democracy this time around. “They’re trying to stop black people from voting so Obama will not get re-elected,” Applewhite, whose purse with all her identification was stolen, said. “That’s what this whole thing is about.”

A Pennsylvania Republican who helped shove the rigid voter ID law through the legislature claimed that it would help the party’s presidential candidate carry the state.

More importantly, the Constitution does provide that citizens “shall not be denied” the ability to vote because of race. Purchasing a cocktail or an airplane ticket is an action that often requires photo identification. Voting, however, is rather integral to democracy. So equating voting with other actions that require photo IDs is lame.

By Thomas McGarity, the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long Endowed Chair in Administrative Law, University of Texas School of Law; McGarity is also a Member Scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is one of the surviving monuments of the era of progressive social legislation (extending from the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s) during which Congress enacted the nation’s foundational health, safety and environmental laws. That statute empowered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to write safety and health standards designed “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.” A separate “general duty clause” required every employer to provide a workplace that was “free from recognized hazards” that were likely to cause “death or serious physical harm.”

During the ensuing four decades, OSHA’s efforts to implement that statute have brought about substantial reductions in workplace injuries and illnesses, but far too many workers are still hurt or killed.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. private sector employers in 2010 reported nearly 2.9 million injuries and around 200,000 workplace illnesses. The actual numbers are likely much higher because some employers underreport workplace injuries, and doctors frequently fail to inquire into the likelihood that particular diseases, like cancer, have a workplace origin. A total of 4,690 workers died on the job, which represents a fatality rate of about 3.6 deaths per 100,000 full-time employees. These rates declined slightly during the recession of 2009, but were on their way back up in 2010

The sad fact of occupational life in the United States is that OSHA has not lived up to its potential, primarily because for the 30 of the past 40 years, OSHA has been the subject of unrelenting attacks by the business community. These attacks have rendered OSHA largely incapable of promulgating new occupational safety and health standards and only barely able to enforce existing standards the general duty clause. In 2010, the Center for Progressive Reform published a report detailing serious regulatory dysfunction in OSHA due primarily to a lack of resources, a weakened regulatory process, intrusive review by the White House, and an outmoded statute.

Today we publish The Next OSHA: Progressive Reforms to Empower Workers,offering a wide variety of suggestions for how Congress, OSHA, and workers themselves can make the nation’s workplaces safer and healthier. I co-authored the report with fellow CPRMember Scholars Martha McCluskey, Sidney Shapiro and Rena Steinzor, and CPR Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Shudtz.