, Ohio Secretary of State (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The first page of the Voting Rights Act. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: sticker passed out to voters by the Ohio Secretary of State (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Quote of the Day
“The Court also notes, with grave misgivings, that [Ohio Secretary
of State Jon Husted] changed an election rule on a Friday evening for
an election scheduled for the following Tuesday, after repeatedly
asserting, to both this Court and the Sixth Circuit, that he could not
comply with injunctive relief ordered by this Court because he lacked
sufficient time prior to the election. The surreptitious manner in which
the Secretary went about implementing this last minute change to the
election rules casts serious doubt on his protestations of good faith.
Thus, in addition to the Plaintiffs’ successful legal arguments, the
equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel is grounds for denying the
relief sought by the Secretary and granting that sought by Plaintiffs.”
—Federal District Judge Algenon Marbley, in today’s provisional ballot ruling.
—Federal District Judge Algenon Marbley, in today’s provisional ballot ruling.
Florida As Election Disaster Area: Exhibit 1000
WSVN: “Nearly a thousand ballots that were not included in Florida’s final count have been found in a warehouse in Broward County.”
Don’t worry. Election officials tell us this is “routine” in Broward.
Don’t worry. Election officials tell us this is “routine” in Broward.
“Friends in Congress Have Helped Drug Compounders Avoid Tighter Rules”
NYT: “Despite
two decades of dire health warnings and threats of federal
intervention, the specialty drugmakers at the center of the nation’s
deadly meningitis outbreak have repeatedly staved off tougher federal oversight with the help of powerful allies in Congress.”
“Judge Rules in Favor of NEOCH Plaintiffs in Ohio Provisional Ballot Case”
Moritz: “Nov. 13 (6:45 PM) - U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley today issued an opinion and order granting a motion by the plaintiffs in NEOCH v. Husted.
Judge Marbley agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that a directive
issued by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted violated an April 2010
consent decree. The state has already filed a notice of appeal.”
A spokesperson for SOS Husted told BuzzFeed that Husted is appealing because the ruling, if allowed to stand, would “allow potentially fraudulent votes to be counted.”
( Ah, yes. The promotion of voter disenfranchisement as righteous custodian of the public trust. )
A spokesperson for SOS Husted told BuzzFeed that Husted is appealing because the ruling, if allowed to stand, would “allow potentially fraudulent votes to be counted.”
( Ah, yes. The promotion of voter disenfranchisement as righteous custodian of the public trust. )
“Roberts’ Iffy Support for Voting Rights:” Revisiting My 2005 LA TImes Oped
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the
constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act this term, I
thought it might be useful to reproduce my August 3, 2005 Los Angeles
Times oped, which for some reason is not available on the newspaper’s
website. [UPDATE: It looks like it is now available here.] It is below.
Roberts’ iffy support for voting rights
By Richard L. Hasen
At the beginning of the 1980s, African American voters made up about one-third of the electorate of Mobile, Ala. Studies showed clearly that these black voters preferred different candidates than white voters, but the nature of the electoral system in the city — in whichcandidates for city commissioner were elected by majority vote throughout the entire city –meant that the candidates backed by blacks were never elected. The two-thirds of the electorate that was white always outvoted the one-third that was black.
African American civil rights organizations sued, claiming that the at-large voting system unconstitutionally “diluted” their votes. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Mobile’s election system did not violate the 14th or 15th Amendments because there was no evidence it had been designed with the intent of discriminating against minority voters. In response, the civil rights community pushed to have Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 amended to allow such a “vote dilution” claim to go forward without proof of discriminatory intent. It would be enough to show that election laws such as Mobile’s had a discriminatory effect.
In the Reagan administration at that time was a 27-year-old lawyer named John Roberts. As a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Roberts was a major force behind the administration’s efforts to oppose the new Section 2, according to newly released papers. He drafted Op-Ed articles, questions and answers for senators and documents aimed at defeating the new Section 2.
In these documents, Roberts wrote that the new Section 2 would “establish a quota system” and “provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.” He added that it “would be difficult to conceive of a more drastic alteration of local government affairs.” Imposing the new Section 2 nationwide, he concluded, would be “not only constitutionally suspect, but also contrary to the most fundamental [tenets] of the legislative process on which the laws of this country are based.”
One could perhaps argue that Roberts’ writings did not reflect his personal views and weresi mply the arguments of a zealous advocate for a client. But the papers I have seen suggest otherwise.
During the Senate debates, for instance, Roberts wrote that the attorney general had to “get something out somewhere soon” [original emphasis] explaining the administration’s position because the “frequent writings in this area by our adversaries have gone unanswered for too long.” He called on the administration to take an “aggressive stance” against the changes to Section 2. When it was over and Section 2 had been amended, Roberts wrote that “we were burned.”
None of these statements absolutely proves that Roberts is hostile to expansive voting rights legislation, but as he wrote in his talking points for the attorney general, circumstantial evidence (rather than a “smoking gun”) should be enough to prove intent.
How many fewer minority legislators would be in office in Congress and in state and local legislatures if Roberts’ position had prevailed in 1982? It is hard to say. But this is not just about the past; Roberts’ view of voting rights may also have an effect on the future. Portions of the act (though not Section 2) are set to expire in 2007, and Congress is expected to reauthorize them in some form. The most important provision up for renewal, Section 5, requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination — for instance, many cities and counties in the South — to get “preclearance” from the Department of Justice before making any changes in voting procedures. The Justice Department grants preclearance only when the jurisdiction shows that the changes have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.
When Congress reauthorizes Section 5, will the Supreme Court uphold it against charges that it tramples states’ rights? Some worry the court may not.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s votes in these federalism cases have been pivotal, and her vote in 2004 to uphold a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act had given those in the civil rights community grounds to be optimistic that a renewed Voting Rights Act could pass constitutional muster.
Roberts’ writings, on the other hand, show much more skepticism of congressional power, particularly on voting rights. Because Roberts viewed the “effects” language in Section 2 as an “intrusive interference” that is a “drastic alteration” of American government and “constitutionally suspect,” why would he look charitably on a renewed Section 5?
I would not count on him to uphold it.
Credit: Richard L. Hasen teaches election law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. The documents he referred to are posted on his website, electionlawblog.org.
Many Americans know that the United States is not a Republic but a “corporatocracy,” in which we are ruled by a partnership of giant corporations, the extremely wealthy elite and corporate-collaborator government officials. However, the truth of such tyranny is not enough to set most of us free to take action. Too many of us have become pacified by corporatocracy-created institutions and culture.
Petition here if you haven't had a chance to sign. I'd like to have many more to send to the USDA and include SOCC as well.
Stop Approval of Agent Orange Corn
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/STOP-2-4D-CORN/
Roberts’ iffy support for voting rights
By Richard L. Hasen
At the beginning of the 1980s, African American voters made up about one-third of the electorate of Mobile, Ala. Studies showed clearly that these black voters preferred different candidates than white voters, but the nature of the electoral system in the city — in whichcandidates for city commissioner were elected by majority vote throughout the entire city –meant that the candidates backed by blacks were never elected. The two-thirds of the electorate that was white always outvoted the one-third that was black.
African American civil rights organizations sued, claiming that the at-large voting system unconstitutionally “diluted” their votes. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Mobile’s election system did not violate the 14th or 15th Amendments because there was no evidence it had been designed with the intent of discriminating against minority voters. In response, the civil rights community pushed to have Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 amended to allow such a “vote dilution” claim to go forward without proof of discriminatory intent. It would be enough to show that election laws such as Mobile’s had a discriminatory effect.
In the Reagan administration at that time was a 27-year-old lawyer named John Roberts. As a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Roberts was a major force behind the administration’s efforts to oppose the new Section 2, according to newly released papers. He drafted Op-Ed articles, questions and answers for senators and documents aimed at defeating the new Section 2.
In these documents, Roberts wrote that the new Section 2 would “establish a quota system” and “provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.” He added that it “would be difficult to conceive of a more drastic alteration of local government affairs.” Imposing the new Section 2 nationwide, he concluded, would be “not only constitutionally suspect, but also contrary to the most fundamental [tenets] of the legislative process on which the laws of this country are based.”
One could perhaps argue that Roberts’ writings did not reflect his personal views and weresi mply the arguments of a zealous advocate for a client. But the papers I have seen suggest otherwise.
During the Senate debates, for instance, Roberts wrote that the attorney general had to “get something out somewhere soon” [original emphasis] explaining the administration’s position because the “frequent writings in this area by our adversaries have gone unanswered for too long.” He called on the administration to take an “aggressive stance” against the changes to Section 2. When it was over and Section 2 had been amended, Roberts wrote that “we were burned.”
None of these statements absolutely proves that Roberts is hostile to expansive voting rights legislation, but as he wrote in his talking points for the attorney general, circumstantial evidence (rather than a “smoking gun”) should be enough to prove intent.
How many fewer minority legislators would be in office in Congress and in state and local legislatures if Roberts’ position had prevailed in 1982? It is hard to say. But this is not just about the past; Roberts’ view of voting rights may also have an effect on the future. Portions of the act (though not Section 2) are set to expire in 2007, and Congress is expected to reauthorize them in some form. The most important provision up for renewal, Section 5, requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination — for instance, many cities and counties in the South — to get “preclearance” from the Department of Justice before making any changes in voting procedures. The Justice Department grants preclearance only when the jurisdiction shows that the changes have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect.
When Congress reauthorizes Section 5, will the Supreme Court uphold it against charges that it tramples states’ rights? Some worry the court may not.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s votes in these federalism cases have been pivotal, and her vote in 2004 to uphold a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act had given those in the civil rights community grounds to be optimistic that a renewed Voting Rights Act could pass constitutional muster.
Roberts’ writings, on the other hand, show much more skepticism of congressional power, particularly on voting rights. Because Roberts viewed the “effects” language in Section 2 as an “intrusive interference” that is a “drastic alteration” of American government and “constitutionally suspect,” why would he look charitably on a renewed Section 5?
I would not count on him to uphold it.
Credit: Richard L. Hasen teaches election law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. The documents he referred to are posted on his website, electionlawblog.org.
Many Americans know that the United States is not a Republic but a “corporatocracy,” in which we are ruled by a partnership of giant corporations, the extremely wealthy elite and corporate-collaborator government officials. However, the truth of such tyranny is not enough to set most of us free to take action. Too many of us have become pacified by corporatocracy-created institutions and culture.
Tell Romney to Explain His Role in Sweatshop Brutality
Save Our Crops Coalition SELLS OUT to Dow's Agent Orange Corn
Petition here if you haven't had a chance to sign. I'd like to have many more to send to the USDA and include SOCC as well.
Stop Approval of Agent Orange Corn
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/STOP-2-4D-CORN/
Inflammation ; the main cause of many diseases
In this section of Seattle Organic Restaurants I’m going to talk about inflammation. There are many illnesses and chronic diseases like cancer, dementia and adverse cholesterol level that are caused because of systemic inflammation. Life style changes and change in diet could help to prevent chronic inflammation of different organs in the body.
RT shared a link.
Knowledge of Today shared Collective Evolution's photo.
Knowledge of Today shared True Activist's photo.
Knowledge of Today shared Collective Evolution's photo.
Knowledge of Today shared True Activist's photo.
( And what of the often secret spreading of dispersant Core-Exit 9500 by the Coast Guard, magnifying toxicity, making containment impossible...and killing oil eating bacteria and sea life? What is the effect of clearing a sea area for uncontested population by high temperature anaerobic life ? But hey...the food's safe, right ? If you believe that, it's time to sell you seafront property...in Arizona. )
( And what of the often secret spreading of dispersant Core-Exit 9500 by the Coast Guard, magnifying toxicity, making containment impossible...and killing oil eating bacteria and sea life? What is the effect of clearing a sea area for uncontested population by high temperature anaerobic life ? But hey...the food's safe, right ? If you believe that, it's time to sell you seafront property...in Arizona. )
Related articles
Judge Blasts Ohio's Last Minute Disenfranchisement Effort: 'I Don't Want To See Democracy Die In The Darkness'(thinkprogress.org)
Federal Judge on Ohio's Ballot Order: 'Democracy Dies in the Dark'(theatlantic.com)
Husted appealing court ruling(toledoblade.com)
Harris-Perry to OH Secretary of State: Voters won't forget vote suppression attempts(rawstory.com)
Election Day Legal Fights Begin With Pennsylvania ID Ban(bloomberg.com)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment