Time is what I have

A History Lesson

2011-09-10T15:30:00.000-07:00

Voting Rights History
Two Centuries of Struggle

Preface

In part, this brief timeline describes an American history of oppression, persecution, and discrimination in regards to voting rights. In all of these cases those affected were not passive victims — rather they fought back with whatever means they had.

Similarly, much of this short summary is presented in the form of legislative and legal milestones. But all of those laws and court cases were the direct result of popular struggles and mass political pressure. In no case did benevolent legislators enact civil rights laws or magnanimous judges rule against discrimination without being forced to do so by we the people.

The stories of the freedom struggles and resistance to oppression that resulted in the milestones presented here would (and does) fill books. A single webpage cannot document the details of those battles, but it is crucial to remember that from every act of oppression grew a hundred forms of resistance. And every victorious milestone on the Freedom Road was achieved with blood, sweat, and tears.

Introduction

The two main issues addressed by the southern Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s were ending the "Jim Crow" system of segregation and winning the right to vote for Blacks (and Latinos, Native-Americans, Asians, and others) in the South and elsewhere.

But the Freedom Movement of the 1960s did not spontaneously spring up out of nowhere, nor did it disappear when its work was "done." Rather the Civil Rights Movement was but one episode in a centuries-long struggle for human freedom and civil rights that continues to this day. The Movement grew out of what came before and evolved into the struggles being waged today. Nothing illustrates this point better than the long battle for voting rights.

Voting Rights Milestones

In essence, the struggle for voting rights in America over the past two centuries has been a two-part battle. The first part was to win citizenship rights for people of color. The second part was to win voting rights for all citizens regardless of gender, economic status, race, or national origin.

1776: Abigail Adams asks the Continental Congress to support women's rights.

Her husband John Adams ridicules her request and vows to fight the "Despotism of the petticoat. "

1776-1828: Struggle to remove religious restrictions

Between the first Continental Congress in 1776 and adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 the former colonies evolved into states, some of which barred Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other "heretics," from voting or holding office. The 1778 Constitution of South Carolina, for example, stated that "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion." The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that: "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall ... also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
When the new United States Constitution is adopted in 1787 (see below), Article VI prohibits religion restrictions: "... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." But struggles to remove the pre-existing religious bars continue through the early 1800s, with Maryland finally extending voting rights to Jews in 1828.

1787: U.S. Constitution Adopted.

In the debates over adopting the U.S. Constitution there are bitter arguments over who should be allowed to vote. In particular, the slave-states insist that only white males be allowed to vote, yet they simultaneously demand that their Black slaves be counted when figuring up how many members of Congress each state is entitled to.
The Constitutional Convention cannot agree on any national voting-rights standard so they leave it up to each individual state. This results in an absurd system whereby the Federal government determines who can be a citizen for the nation as a whole, but each individual state determines which of their citizens have the right to vote.
Most of the states decree that only white males are eligible to vote, and most limit the vote to those white males who own a certain amount of property. (In other words, if you're an apprentice, or a renter, or homeless, you can't vote.) Since only a small minority of white males own enough property to qualify, the great majority of the population is denied the vote. By some estimates, less than 5% of the population are eligible to vote in the election of 1800.
(Note that under the original Constitution the only Federal office anyone could directly vote for was Congressman because the President was elected by the Electoral College, and Senators were appointed by the state governments. We still cannot directly vote for the President, which is why Bush occupied the White House in 2000 even though Gore received at least 500,000 more votes.)

1777-1807: Women lose the right to vote in all states.

The states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey which had previously allowed women to vote rescind those rights. After 1807, no state allows women to vote.

1790: Citizenship limited to "whites."

The 1790 Naturalization Law explicitly states that only "free white" immigrants can become naturalized citizens. Since "white" is defined as pure European ancestry, this effectively prevents immigrants from anywhere else (or immigrants of mixed-race ancestry) from becoming naturalized citizens.
And under the myth that Native-Americans are "citizens" of their "sovereign" Indian "nations" (meaning the reservations), they cannot be citizens of the United States. Therefore, Indians cannot vote.

1788-1856: Struggle to remove property restrictions.

For 68 years there are struggles and movements in the various states to remove the property restrictions on the right to vote. These battles are often bitter and occasionally violent.

1820-1865: Abolition movement to end slavery.

The first African slaves are brought to North American in 1619 (a year before the arrival of the Mayflower). Resistance begins immediately with intermittent slave uprisings and frequent escapes. Often the escaped slaves join Indian tribes who fight to defend tribal homelands against white encroachment and expansion of the slave system.
Political opposition to slavery among whites in the northern states begins to coalesce in the early 1820s. With the founding of the American Anti-Slave Society in 1833, a broad, inter-racial political movement committed to ending slavery commences — openly in the northern states, clandestinely in the south. This "Abolition Movement" grows in size and intensity and is met with increasingly violent opposition from slave-holders and slave states. Abolitionists are arrested, beaten, and murdered, their homes are burned and their presses destroyed.
But within the Abolition Movement there are bitter disagreements regarding the future of freed slaves. Some favor full citizenship including the right to vote, others advocate some form of 2nd-class citizenship without voting rights. Many want to expel freed slaves and send them "back" to Africa (though, of course, the vast majority of slaves have been born in America). In opposition to the Anti-Slave Society, these "colonizers" form the American Colonization Society which sends 20,000 former slaves to Africa where they carve out the nation of Liberia.

1836: Texas denies vote to Mexicans.

After revolting from Mexico in 1836, the short-lived Republic of Texas denies citizenship (and the right to own property) to anyone who had not supported the revolution. All non-Anglos are assumed to be part of that category — even those who had fought for the revolution.
When Texas is admitted to the union as a slave-state in 1845, the Mexicans remaining in Texas are granted U.S. citizenship and property-rights by the Federal government — in theory. But Mexican-Americans who try to independently vote face widespread beatings, burnings, and lynchings — except in cases where large landowners force their employees to vote as a group under supervision of their foremen who ensure that they all vote for the owner's preferred candidates.
After the Civil War, the methods used in Texas and other southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks are also applied to Mexican-Americans.

1848: Mexican-Americans are denied voting rights in the southwest.

Under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ends the Mexican-American war, Mexicans who remain in the new territories conquered by the U.S. are supposed to become full U.S. citizens according to legislation that Congress is supposed to pass.
For California that legislation takes the form of admitting it to the union as a state in 1850. While technically U.S. citizens, Mexican-Americans in both Texas and California are denied the vote through violence and state "voter eligibility" laws. (In other words, in regards to voting there are similarities between the situations faced by Mexican-Americans and "free" Blacks.)
But the territories of Arizona and New Mexico are not admitted to the union as states until 1912. During the 64 years between the signing of the treaty and statehood, Mexican-Americans in those territories are held in a kind of non-citizen legal limbo without voting rights and where their other civil rights can be (and often are) easily violated. And, of course, they also suffer the same kind of violence and legal trickery that is being directed against Mexican-Americans in Texas and California.

1848-1920: Women's Suffrage Movement.

In 1848 the first Women's Rights Convention is held in Seneca Falls, NY. It demands that women be granted all rights as full citizens including the right to vote.
For the next 72 years women — and some male supporters — speak out, petition, lobby, sue, protest, march, and engage in civil-disobedience, for the right to vote. They brave beatings, mob attacks, rape, jail, seizure and destruction of property, forced-divorce (and consequent loss of children), forced-feeding of hunger strikers, and murder, to fight for their right to be full citizens.

1850: Asian immigration.

With the California gold rush, Asian immigration becomes significant for the first time, mostly in the West. Under the "whites-only" clause of the 1790 Naturalization Law, Asian immigrants cannot be citizens — but what about their children born in America? Government officials try to avoid this "problem" by preventing Asian women from coming ashore. Many are sent back, but some avoid detection and manage to get off the ship. And some Asian men marry women of other races — some of whom are citizens — what happens when their boys reach age 21?

1856: Property restrictions removed.

The last state to finally eliminate the property qualification is North Carolina in 1856.

1861-1865: Civil War and Emancipation.

The struggle against slavery eventually leads to bloody Civil War. 360,000 Union soldiers — Black and white — die to defeat slavery. That is 130 out of every 10,000 persons in the Northern states. (For comparison, deaths in the Vietnam War numbered 3 out of every 10,000.)
The Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and the 13th Amendment (1865) eventually end slavery as a legal concept (though the actual treatment of share-croppers, tenant farmers, and plantation laborers continues to closely resemble slavery in all but the legal formalities).
But it is still left to individual states to determine who is eligible to vote. Some Northern states extend the vote to Blacks — but most states do not.

1867: 14th Amendment extends citizenship to Blacks.

Under the 14th Amendment all states are required to recognize Black (and white) males as citizens.
But for the first time women of all races are explicitly excluded in the Constitution from full citizenship in regards to voting.

1868: Women petition that womens' suffrage be included in the draft 15th Amendment.

The men of Congress deny their petition.

1870: 15th Amendment extends vote to Blacks.

Adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1870 extends voting rights to Black males — in theory.
In reality, there is massive resistance to the intent of the 15th Amendment, particularly in the Southern states, but also in the North and Midwest. Violence and economic reprisal are used to intimidate and prevent Black men from voting.
The 15th Amendment does not apply to Native-Americans or Asians because they cannot be citizens. Similarly, it does not apply to Mexican-Americans in New Mexico and Arizona because they live in territories that are not yet states. While legally eligible to vote in Texas and California, Mexican-Americans are still denied the vote through violence and economic retaliation.

1867-1877: Reconstruction.

During the Reconstruction period hundreds of thousands of Black men risk their lives and property to vote, and many are elected to office. In fact, for a period in the late 1860s more African-Americans are registered to vote than whites in the states of the former Confederacy.

1877: End of reconstruction, abandonment of 15th Amendment.

Because of widespread cheating on both sides, the vote-count and outcome of the 1876 presidential election between Hayes the Republican and Tilden the Democrat is bitterly disputed — particularly the count in the state of Florida. In the end, all disputed counts are resolved by a special committee appointed by Congress. Republicans outnumber Democrats on the committee by 8 to 7. All disputes are decided in favor of the Republicans by a vote of 8 to 7. Hayes is declared the winner even though most impartial observers believe that Tilden won the popular vote.
It is widely understood that there's a backroom deal with the Democrats who represent the overwhelming majority of white voters in the South. In return for the Democrats accepting Hayes' victory, the Republicans promise that Hayes will remove the troops and officials who have been providing at least some limited protection to Blacks in the South. And that the new Hayes administration will cease enforcing the 15th Amendment and other civil rights laws. This deal becomes known as the "Compromise of 1877." The "compromise" being that the Republicans retain power in Washington while white-racists throughout the country are given free reign to oppress and persecute non-whites.
Hayes takes office, the troops and officials are removed. Civil rights enforcement ends:

Reign of terror. The Ku Klux Klan and other racist terrorist organizations increase their attacks against African-Americans. Blacks are expelled from office. African-American males who try to vote are fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, beaten, and in many cases brutally lynched. Black property owners are burned out, Black businesses destroyed, and entire African-American towns are wiped out.

Legal disenfranchisement. New state laws are passed to sabotage and render ineffective the 15th Amendment. Among these are the so-called "Literacy Tests" that make it impossible for non-whites to register, and "Grandfather-clauses" that restrict voting rights to those men whose grandfathers had been eligible to vote — a requirement that descendants of slaves cannot possibly meet.

Poll taxes. Many states impose taxes on voting. Anyone — Black or white — who cannot afford to pay the tax cannot vote. Since the taxes are high and have to be paid in cash, voting is thus limited to affluent white males. In effect, this restores a property requirement for voting.

Segregation laws. Laws mandating separation of the races in education, government services, public facilities & accommodations, restrooms, transportation, drinking fountains and so on are passed throughout the South and Midwest. Known as the "Jim Crow" system, their goal is to force African-Americans into feudal semi-slavery. The many Blacks who resist are beaten, jailed, and murdered. Similar systems are imposed in Western states against Latinos, Native-Americans, and Asians.

Within a few years most Blacks are removed from the voter registration rolls and denied the right to vote. All African-Americans who hold elected office are driven out. In Louisiana, for example, by 1900 fewer than 5,000 African-Americans are registered to vote, down from a high of 130,000.

1870-1923: Asians denied citizenship.

The Naturalization Act of 1870 amends the 1790 Naturalization Law to limit citizenship to "white persons and persons of African descent." Thus the ban preventing Asian and Latino immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens is continued.
But the wave of Asian immigration to California and other Western states in the mid-19th Century begins to weaken the "whites only" provision, particularly in regards to children who are born in the United States and are thus (presumptively) American citizens.
In 1898 the Supreme Court confirms that children of Asians who are born in the United States are automatically citizens. In response to this "yellow peril," over the following decades a series of "exclusion acts," such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and "gentlemen's agreements," and court rulings are put in place to limit (or prevent altogether) any further immigration by Asians.
As with African-Americans, Latinos, and Indians, violence, lynching, and economic retaliation are widely used against Asians whether they are citizens or not.

1878: Woman Suffrage Amendment introduced in Congress.

The amendment is introduced in 1878. It takes 42 years of courageous struggle to finally ratify it in 1920.

1890-1920: Some states grant women the right to vote.

First Wyoming, then Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, and California extend voting rights to women. Other states follow.

1913: 17th Amendment requires direct popular election of Senators.

After decades of political action and public pressure from the Populist movement, a constitutional amendment is passed requiring direct election of Senators by the people rather than Senators being appointed by state legislators.

1920: 19th Amendment extends right to vote to women.

After an epic 72-year struggle, women finally win the right to vote. But prejudice and discrimination against women candidates and office-holders continues for decades.

1924: Native-American citizenship.

Congress passes legislation extending United States citizenship to all Indians born in the United States. Many states continue to deny Native-Americans the right to vote using the same kinds of legal fictions, violence, and economic retaliation that is used to deny the vote to Blacks, Latinos, and Asians.

1942-1952: Asian citizenship rights.

In order to strengthen the U.S. military during WWII, Filipinos in the United States and the Philippine Islands are declared to be American citizens in 1942. This means that they are eligible for military service and the draft. (In 1946 this citizenship declaration is revoked by the Recision Act in order to deny Filipinos their veteran benefits, voting rights, and of course citizenship.)
To strengthen the WWII alliance with China, the Chinese Exclusion Acts are overturned in 1943.
In 1946 the exclusion acts against immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are repealed. In 1952 all remaining Asian exclusion acts are replaced by the immigration "quota system" that allows for some Asian immigration but greatly favors European immigrants.

1944: "White-only" Primaries Ruled Unconstitutional.

After the "Compromise of 1877" ends Reconstruction, most southern Blacks are denied the vote. Out of loathing for Lincoln (a Republican), fury at their defeat by the hated "Yankees" in the Civil War, and rage at Emancipation of their Black slaves, southern whites refuse to vote for any Republican for any office — ever. Thus the "Solid South" comes into being — only Democrats can be elected. White southerners proudly declare themselves "Yellow-dog Democrats," meaning that if the Democratic Party nominates a yellow dog for office they will vote for the dog before they vote for a Republican candidate.
In practical terms, the "Solid South" means that the real election is the Democratic Primary because the Democrat who wins the nominatation inevitably wins the general election. In many southern states, the white-controlled Democratic Party decrees that only whites can vote in the Democratic primary. This effectively disenfranchises the few Blacks who have managed to register to vote because they are prevented from voting in the only elections that have any meaning (the primaries).
In 1944, NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall wins Smith v. Allwright in the U.S. Supreme Court which rules that "all-white" primary elections are unconstitutional.

1945-1960: GIs fight for civil rights.

When Black, Latino, and Indian GIs return from the battlefields of WWII (and later Korea), they demand that all American citizens have the right to vote regardless of race. They had fought and died for democracy abroad, yet they cannot vote at home. (One out of every eight American GIs was an African-American; Latinos and Native-Americans also made up significant portions of the armed forces, which for the most part were organized on a segregated basis.)
On local, state, and federal levels GIs fight against the laws, customs, and oppression denying them the vote and other civil rights. Before WWII the NAACP numbered around 50,000 members, in the post-war years it swells ten times to over 500,000.
But the racists who hold economic power and political office — particularly in the U.S. Senate — are too strong. Most legislative remedies are blocked and few court cases are successful. For the most part, the GI movements are defeated and suppressed. Many GIs who had fought to free Europe from Nazi tyranny find themselves imprisoned for demanding the right to vote, and others are viciously murdered — often by police and sheriffs.
Yet despite a wave of repression, they do manage to eliminate the poll tax in all but 5 states. And in 1948 the armed forces are de-segregated.

1948: State laws denying the vote to Native-Americans are overturned.

In one of the post-war period's few successful legal challenges, the Federal courts overturn the last state laws (Maine, Arizona, New Mexico) that explicitly prevent Indians from voting. Violence, economic retaliation, and different kinds of legal tricks continue to be used to prevent Native-Americans from voting.

1954-1960: Early Civil Rights Movement activity.

In the early 1950s, a number of school desegregation cases are filed in the federal courts by courageous students and parents who risk life and property by opposing the segregation system. In 1954 these cases are consolidated and won with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Board of Education.
In 1955 and 1956 African-Americans opposed to segregation boycott the city busses in Montgomery Alabama and Tallahassee Florida. These successful boycotts mark significant victories against segregation in the deep south.
Hundreds of voting-rights lawsuits are filed in state and federal courts. Most are either defeated, or if won they are left unenforced. But Citizenship Schools, voter education projects, and "I'm a registered voter — Are you?" campaigns begin to proliferate among African-Americans at the grass-roots level across the south.

1960-1965: Civil Rights Movement demands the right to vote.

With the explosion of the direct-action phase of the Civil Rights Movement — sit-ins, freedom rides, marches, boycotts — voting rights and segregation emerge as the two central issues, intertwined and inseparable.
Participatory direct-action organizations such as CORE, SCLC, and SNCC take the fight for voting rights and de-segregation into the deepest depths of the racist South — Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia. The slogan becomes "One Man, One Vote," and instead of lawsuits the strategy is to organize people at the grass-roots to directly challenge and defy the entire "whites-only" system by demanding de-segregation and the right to vote face-to-face, county-by-county, state-by-state.
Resistance to Black voter registration and defense of segregation by the KKK and White Citizens Councils is ruthless. And the entire range of law-enforcement — from the cop on the beat to FBI Headquarters in Washington — mobilizes to defend the established order. Tens of thousands of would-be voters are fired or evicted, entire tent cities have to be set up to house share-croppers thrown off their land for trying to register to vote. Hundreds, then thousands are jailed. Beatings, burnings, and economic retaliation are wide-spread. Many — the actual number has never been counted — are murdered. This resistance to civil-rights is co-ordinated and orchestrated by powerful political and economic interests.
But the Movement soldiers on, we bury our dead and weep for our wounded but we don't turn back. The Movement explodes in Albany, Americus, Birmingham, Bogalusa, Cambridge, Canton, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, Danville, Gadsden, Gainesville, Greenwood, Greensboro, Hattiesburg, Jackson, McComb, Monroe, Montgomery, Nashville, New Orleans, Rock Hill, Ruleville, St. Augustine, Selma, Shreveport, Tallahasse, and a thousand other towns and hamlets. It is a mass Movement of people, not lawyers or lobbyists (though they too play important roles).

1964: 24th Amendment ends poll taxes.

The 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes in federal elections.

1964-1965: Freedom Summer and the Selma to Montgomery March

During the "Freedom Summer" of 1964 close to a thousand civil rights workers of all races and backgrounds from across the country converge on Mississippi to support voting rights and confront segregation. This is followed in August by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party's challenge to the whites-only Mississippi delegation at the Democratic convention in Atlantic City. The self-evident justice of that challenge is ignored by Johnson and Humphrey and the challenge is denied.
A few months later mass protests and marches begin in Selma Alabama. Thousands of African-Americans put their lives on the line by attempting to register to vote in Selma and surrounding counties. They are met with savage violence from police and Klan. They face beatings, gassing, jailings, and murder. Mass marches in Selma, Montgomery, Demopolis, Marion, Camden and elsewhere are viciously attacked. Jimmie Lee Jackson, Rev. James Reeb, Viola Luizzo, and Jonathan Daniels are murdered. But the people refuse to back down and the movement grows as thousands of Americans from all walks of life come to Selma in support. 25,000 people — of all races — march to the Statehouse in Montgomery Alabama, the "cradle of the Confederacy."

1965: Passage of Voting Rights Act.

It takes 57 days of floor-fighting and mass protests in the streets of Washington to break the filibuster by Southern Senators determined to block the Voting Rights Act. For just the second time in history, a southern filibuster on a civil-rights issue is defeated on a bitterly divided vote. The Act is passed.
Though in some respects weaker than what had been hoped for, among other provisions the Voting Rights Act:

Outlaws voting phony "requirements" — such as "literacy tests," — designed to deny the vote to people based on their race or color. This applies not only to Blacks but also to Indians, Asians, and Mexican-Americans.

Authorizes the Federal government to take over registration of voters in areas where local officials have consistently denied voting rights to non-whites.

Establishes that fluency in English cannot be made a requirement for voting eligibility.

1966: Voting Rights Act takes effect.

By the end of the 1965, some 250,000 new Black voters have been registered in the South. By the end of 1966, only 4 out of the 13 southern states have fewer than 50 percent of African-Americans registered to vote. In the following years, Black registration in Alabama grows more than ten-fold, from 50,000 in 1960 to more than 500,000 in 1990. And by 1990, the number of southern Black legislators has risen from 2 to 160 — an increase of 8000%.
But though the legal barriers to voter registration are weakened or overturned by the Voting Rights Act, terror and economic retaliation continue to be used for a few more years against citizens-of-color who try to register to vote, particularly Blacks in the South and Latinos and Native-Americans in the Southwest. The Civil Rights Movement continues the fight, with the "Meredith Mississippi March Against Fear," and mass direct-action campaigns in towns such as Grenada and Natchez Mississippi.

1966: Poll taxes outlawed in state elections.

The Supreme Court finally rules that the use of poll taxes in state elections violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The last remaining poll taxes are eliminated.

1970: 26th Amendment lowers voting age to 18.

Faced with widespread protests against the Vietnam war and growing resistance to the military draft, the voting age is lowered to equal the draft age. (Anti-war protests and draft resistance continue.)

1975: Extension of Voting Rights Act to "language minorities."

The Voting Rights Act is expanded to address voting rights of "language minorities." Based on the determination that voting discrimination against language minorities "is pervasive and national in scope," provisions are added to ensure that citizens who speak languages other than English are not denied their voting rights. For example, non-English voting materials and assistance now have to be provided where needed.

2000: Republican-directed disenfranchisement of Blacks in Florida.

Prior to the election of 2000, Jeb Bush the Republican Governor of Florida — and brother of Presidential candidate George Bush — hires a private company long associated with the Republican party to "purge" the Florida voting rolls of "ineligible" voters. Along with voters who really are ineligible, tens of thousands of legally registered Black voters are illegally stripped from the rolls. When they arrive at the polls on election day, they are told they cannot vote.
This denial of voting rights to African-American voters in Florida is the direct cause of George Bush's supposed 537 vote "victory" in that state. It is this phony "win" (plus the votes of the 5 Republican appointees on the Supreme Court) that makes him President, even though Gore receives 500,000 more votes nation-wide than Bush.
According to the report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil rights:

Widespread voter disenfranchisement — not the dead-heat contest — was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election.

Violations of the Voting Rights Act occurred in Florida and there was widespread denial of voting rights.

Black voters were nearly 10 times more likely than non-Black voters to have their ballots rejected.

The state's highest officials responsible for ensuring fairness in the election failed to fulfill their responsibilities and were subsequently unwilling to take responsibility.

Had tens of thousands of Black voters not been illegally denied their right to vote, Democratic candidate Al Gore would certainly have carried the state by a comfortable margin — and he would have been President.

Today: Voting rights and the criminal justice system

1.4 million Black men (13% of adult African-American males) are denied the right to vote because they served time in prison. In 5 states (including Florida) more than one-in-four adult male African-Americans are disenfranchised. Latinos and Native-Americans are similarly affected.
From 1980 to 2000 the number of prisoners in the U.S. increased by more than 300% (while total population increased by only 24%). At the present rate of incarceration, the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 6.6% of Americans born in 2001 will spend time in prison. This is the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Despite having served their sentences and paid their penalties, many states disenfranchise ex-prisoners after their release:
14 states disenfranchise former inmates for life.
32 states disenfranchise former inmates while on parole.
29 states disenfranchise former inmates on probation.

Today: Voter Suppression

Beginning with the bitterly-contested Presidential election of 2000, political parties are increasingly devoting energy and money towards "suppressing" the turnout of demographic groups who traditionally favor the other side. The Republican Party is particularly active in targeting naturalized immigrant citizens, Blacks, Latinos, and those seniors who traditionally vote Democratic. Suppression tactics include both legal ploys and outright deceit. Some examples include:

Voter ID laws. In a number of states, Republicans have passed laws requiring voters to show a photo-ID before they can cast their ballots. These laws discourage voting by the elderly and poor who are less likely to own a car and are thus less likely to posses a valid drivers license or other form of photo ID.
Targeted voter purges. In Georgia and other states, minority, immigrant, and college-student voters have been disproportionately "purged" from the rolls on various pretexts.
Deceit. Political "dirty tricks" are increasingly being used by both parties to suppress voter turnout of those who tend to favor the other side. Examples include false notification that polling places have been changed, directing voters to phony email or web addresses where they can supposedly vote online, conducting voter-registration drives and then failing to turn in those forms where a voter registered for the opposing party, mass-mailings of counterfeit absentee ballots with false return addresses, and so on.

Tomorrow: The fight to have our votes count.

In the 19th and 20th Centuries we fought to expand the right to vote. The voting rights struggle of the 21st Century will be to have our votes count. Not the right to have our votes counted — though as we saw in Florida in 2000, that too may be a crucial issue — but rather the right to have our votes mean something.
The best democracy that money can buy. In the so-called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Republican-appointed 5-vote conservative majority on the Supreme Court decreed in 2010 that secret unlimited corporate funding for political ads is a form of Constitutionally protected "free speech." This decision dramatically shifts electoral influence away from individual voters by allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to covertly buy the election results they want with a flood of cash. At the same time, super-sized corporate campaign contributions given directly to candidates have become a legally-sanctioned form of outright bribery.

Un-elected global government. As more and more of us have won the right to vote, the power to make critical decisions has been moved out of the hands of elected local, state, and federal officials and into the grasp of un-elected global commissioners appointed and controlled by multi-national corporations. More and more, the vital decisions that affect our lives — decisions on the economy, trade, jobs, environment, worker-safety, privacy, communication, and so much more — are being made by world "trade" organizations such as the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, TRIPS, FTAA, and so on, who debate the issues that affect our lives in secret and issue decrees that cannot be appealed or amended. And their decisions over-ride those made by our elected officials at all levels.

Voter Suppression

2011-09-03T07:23:00.000-07:00

John Nichols: Voter ID rule is a poll tax

When Wisconsin legislators passed the most restrictive voter ID law in the country earlier this year, they enacted what legal experts and voting rights activists have correctly identified as a poll tax.

Proponents of the law argued otherwise. They pointed out that eligible voters who could not afford a state ID could obtain one without charge.

With the decision of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to direct DMV employees to refrain from actively informing the public about the ability to receive a free identification card for the purposes of voting, however, the potential that the voter ID law could serve as a poll tax becomes realistic — and legally significant. Notably, the head of the DOT is a former Republican legislator with close ties to Gov. Scott Walker, and the author of the memo on denying information to prospective voters is a political appointee.

The term “poll tax” has a sordid history. With roots in the anti-democratic practice of allowing only the landed gentry to vote, poll taxes became even more notorious when they were associated with the efforts of Southern segregationists to deny the franchise to African-Americans. A critical turning point came in 1962 with the ratification of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed poll taxes in federal elections.

In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court used the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to rule that poll taxes were unconstitutional for state and local elections.

And a lot of people thought that poll taxes would be buried along with the rest of the “Jim Crow” restrictions.

That was not to be the case.

The poll tax argument has been renewed with the national push by secretive right-wing groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, to pass voter suppression laws such as Wisconsin’s voter ID bill.

The point of this push is to narrow the franchise by making it more difficult to vote. The presumption is simple enough: A more economically elite electorate is likely to favor the conservative policies favored by groups such as ALEC — and its corporate funders — and so it makes perfect political sense to erect new voting barriers for people with low incomes or limited mobility, students and the elderly.

It does not, however, make legal — let alone democratic — sense.

When the Supreme Court took up voter ID laws in 2008, it held that they were constitutional — so long as they did not cross the poll tax line.

Writing for the high court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens explained that Indiana’s voter ID law was acceptable because the ID documents were free.

What’s different about Wisconsin’s law? Citizens face a higher burden. They must either pay for their ID or they must work their way through a bureaucratic maze expressly designed to deny them information about the fact that they have a right to a free ID.

This is a classic poll tax structure. While the law on the books may suggest flexibility, the implementation of the law has been designed to erect barriers to voting by those who cannot afford the fee.

John Nichols is associate editor of The Capital Times. jnichols@madison.com

GOP voter suppression evident in New Mexico

JOHN GREENFIELD |
Posted: Saturday, September 03, 2011 - 9

Karl Rove has never been accused of being stupid. Machiavellian and cunning yes, but never stupid.

He is the architect of the don't-get-out-the-vote scheme whereby Republicans have made it their goal to suppress the votes of low-income, young, and minority voters through restrictive legislation and rulings, all based on the mythical specter of voter fraud.

If you want to see the extent of this effort, just Google "Republican voter suppression" and you will see that it is nationwide. New laws in Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin and others have put roadblocks in front of these voting segments to make registration and voting as difficult as possible.

We all remember the Rove-engineered firing of Albuquerque U.S. Attorney David Iglesias for refusing to open an investigation into "fraudulent voting" because there was no "fraudulent voting." Here in New Mexico, our governor, who has frequently been slapped down by the New Mexico Supreme Court for her illegal actions, is trying to put up more roadblocks to voters.

State Secretary of State Dianna Duran, Susana's faithful ally, has signed onto the scam by presenting 64,000 names of "illegal voters" to the New Mexico State Police for investigation. I'm sure the state policemen are diligently digging through this list, doing the job that county clerks are supposed to do.

Duran also claimed that 37 foreign nationals voted in last year's election. It's been almost a year since the election, and we're still waiting, breathlessly, for the identification and prosecution of these foreigners.

Fortunately for all New Mexicans, the Democrat-controlled state Legislature sees this for what it really is, a back-door revival of Jim Crow-era poll taxes and literacy tests. They will kill any attempt to make it more difficult to register and vote.

John Greenfield is a retired Los Alamos computer programmer who lives in Santa Fe.

TPMMuckraker

Voter suppression: September 2011

Lindsey Graham Backs Federal Voter ID Law, Calls Restrictions 'The Future Of The Country'

Ryan J. Reilly | September 8, 2011

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Congress should follow in the footsteps of state legislatures and pass a federal voter ID law that requires voters to present photo identification at the polls, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Thursday.

Graham defended South Carolina's recently passed voter ID law, which is under review by the Justice Department.

PERMALINK | 172 Comments | RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Civil Rights Division, Civil Rights Division Voting Section, Justice Department, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Voter Identification, Voter suppression, Voting, Voting Rights Act, voter fraud, voter intimidation

Hans von Spakovsky

GOP Senators Trot Out Hans von Spakovsky To Defend Voter ID Laws

Ryan J. Reilly | September 8, 2011

Hans von Spakovsky

Democrats will have a longtime civil rights lawyer and a law professor who conducted an extensive study on voter fraud testify at Thursday's Senate hearing on the rash of voter ID laws sweeping states across the country. The Republicans will have Hans von Spakovsky.

PERMALINK | 22 Comments | RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Hans von Spakovsky, Voter Identification, Voter suppression, Voting, Voting Rights Act, voter fraud, voter intimidation

Wisconsin

Wis. Official To DMV Employees: Don't Offer People Free Voter-ID Cards Unless They Ask

Eric Kleefeld | September 7, 2011

Image From Laura Gangi Pond / Shutterstock

The Madison Capital Times reports that in the latest development in the controversy over the state's new Voter-ID law, recently passed by state Republicans, a memo written by a state Department of Transportation official instructs employees at the Division of Motor Vehicles not to directly offer applicants the option of a free photo identification card -- but only to assist if people directly ask for it.

The option of free photo identification is necessary in order to prevent the law from clearly becoming a poll tax -- a tax or fee required in order to vote, which was made unconstitutional under the 24th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1964. Unless applicants check the appropriate box on the DMV's new forms, there will be a fee of $28.

The memo written by Steve Krieser, executive secretary at the Department of Transportation, instructs DMV employees: "While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it."

Fundamental Injustice: Voter Suppression Threatens Democracy

Sen. Dick Durbin calls the recent rash of state voter suppression efforts, "a threat to our democracy." Yesterday he held a hearing on this disturbing trend at which the ACLU submitted a statement for the record.

In recent months, state legislatures across the nation have erected new barriers to the ballot through the passage of a range of highly restrictive voter suppression laws. Regressive measures were introduced in more than 30 states, and thirteen states proceeded to adopt new or expanded barriers to voting.

The newly passed state laws take many different forms, but all have the same result: to undermine our democracy by restricting access to the vote, a right protected by more constitutional amendments than any other. States are chipping away at this core American franchise with laws that require voters to present specific types of photo identification at the polls, make it more difficult to register or conduct registration drives prior to elections, reduce the opportunity for early voting, and disfranchise more citizens with past criminal convictions. These highly restrictive measures make it harder for citizens to get registered and to cast a ballot unless, for example, they have the resources to obtain government identification or to take time off from work to vote during certain hours on Election Day. This is particularly harmful to people with disabilities, people of color, low-income families, students, and senior citizens.

Troublingly, all of these measures have been enacted in the name of reducing fraud — even though there is scant evidence that voter fraud occurs at all, in spite of intensive efforts by the Bush administration's Department of Justice and others to uncover such evidence. As Rep. Charles Gonzales put it at yesterday's hearing, "Despite repeated claims, there are no cases of voter fraud that would be stopped by voter ID laws. The fact is, voter ID laws don't stop fraud, they just suppress voting." No wonder both Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who also testified at the hearing, called these laws "a solution in search of a problem." And while there is no evidence to support this phantom scourge of voter fraud, there is no question that these laws do serve to disfranchise many real voters — with real names and faces.

As Rep. Cleaver also noted at yesterday's hearing, it is regrettable that "as the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial was recently unveiled in our nation's capital … we are still fighting the battle to protect the right to vote — one of the causes Dr. King died for." As we reflect on that cause, we should aim to enact laws that encourage all citizens to exercise their right to participate in our democracy, not exclude them from it. And we must do this by ensuring that every eligible citizen is able to register, cast a ballot, and have that ballot counted.

The ACLU is urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to examine laws in states that are turning back the clock on our fundamental right to vote and to ensure that these laws comply with the Voting Rights Act. You can help by telling Attorney General Holder to fully enforce federal laws and protect every citizen's right to vote.

Learn more about voting rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Americans For Prosperity Accused Of Voter Suppression In Wisconsin Recall Elections

Author Claims People Who “Burden Society” Should Not Get To Vote

Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group backed by billionaires Charles and David Koch, has been accused of attempting to suppress Democratic voter turnout in the Wisconsin Senate recall elections.

Patch.com reported that Charles Shultz, a Democrat who lives in the 10th Senate District, received an absentee ballot application form last week from AFP that contained incorrect information on it. The form instructed him to mail it back to the wrong location by Aug. 11 -- two days after the recall election in his district between Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R) and Shelly Moore (D) is set to take place, on Aug. 9.

Politico obtained a copy of the AFP mailer, which was also distributed to voters in the 2nd District.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party filed a formal complaint Tuesday with the state's Government Accountability Board over the issue, accusing AFP of "falsely representing the time frame" for the upcoming August 9 recall election. Shultz filed his own complaint with the GAB on Saturday.

AFP may also be getting involved in the increasingly heated ad wars that have been leading up to the recall elections. According to One Wisconsin Now, AFP has reportedly purchased over $150,000 in television ad time in the Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee areas.

A spokesperson for Americans for Prosperity did not respond when asked for comment on the purchase, but One Wisconsin Now, a non-profit statewide progressive communications network, says the ad buy appears to be an effort to help the six Republican state Senators who were challenged by recall elections after supporting Governor Scott Walker's anti-collective bargaining legislation in early 2011.

Scot Ross, the Executive Director of One Wisconsin Now, said at least one of the AFP-backed ads will air in support of two Republicans, Sen. Luther Olsen (District 14) and Sen. Robert Cowles (District 2). The group has also confirmed a $90,000 AFP ad buy in District 12, currently represented by Sen. Jim Holperin, a Democrat who is being recalled.

Walker's legislation -- which eliminated collective bargaining and other rights for public employees and forced state workers to start paying more for their pensions and health care benefits -- prompted voters to stage mass protests and led to nine total recall elections.

Six Republicans and two Democrats are still trying to keep their seats. One Democrat, Sen. Dave Hansen, fended off a challenge from Republican David VanderLeest in July. If Democrats pick up a total of three new seats in the recall elections, their party will retake control of the Senate and gain an increased amount of influence over Walker's budget legislation.

Spending on the recall elections, much of which is coming from outside groups, is expected to top $20 million. Sen. Alberta Darling, a Republican facing a challenge from Assemblymember Sandy Pasch, is on track to set the record for the most money spent by a state Senate candidate in Wisconsin, having already put more than $600,000 toward her recall effort.

Americans for Prosperity has a history of backing Wisconsin Republicans. The organization previously paid for an ad entitled "Stand With Scott Walker," showing its support for the governor's budget-cutting plan and blaming President Barack Obama for the February protests in the state.

The group also sponsored "Wisconsin Freedom Phonebanks" at the RightOnline Conference in June, in which conservative activists called voters to "get the pulse of the community."

Gov. Walker's ties to the Kochs -- billionaire brothers who are behind the second-largest privately owned company in the United States -- have caused controversy in the past, particularly after an incident where a man believed to be Walker made controversial statements to Ian Murphy, editor of the news site the Buffalo Beast, as Murphy pretended to be David Koch.

In light of the continual protests and recall elections, Walker admitted to making mistakes during his rocky first term but still defended his policy choices. He acknowledged that his controversial budget-cutting decisions could make it hard for Republicans to prevail in the August recall elections.

"If the Republican candidates are outspent two to one, it's pretty difficult," Walker told Reuters about the recall effort, adding that the party will have a better chance of prevailing "if things end up being relatively even and the message gets out."

Most conservatives are slightly more guarded with their personal beliefs on voting. They hide behind “voter fraud.” They use subtle voter suppression tactics like having less ballots or machines in certain neighborhoods. They tend to pick just the right “targets” to ask to prove they have the right to vote. They suggest paying taxes, owning a home, or other qualifiers to limit who should be able to vote.

But it seems the the niceties are over. Now they are starting to just come out and say it.

The poor don’t deserve to vote.

The latest to just give up on the veiled language and simply ask that the right be stripped from the poor? Conservative columnist and author Matthew Vadum. According to Vadum, allowing the poor to vote is like “handing out burglary tools to criminals.”

Via Talking Points Memo, Valdum stated “It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote….Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn’t about helping the poor. It’s about helping the poor to help themselves to others’ money.”

So, if you are on welfare, if you receive unemployment benefits, if you get disability or food assistance, you no longer get to vote because you would vote for people more likely to continue these programs? Wouldn’t it be just as logical then to strip the vote from owners of corporations who benefit from government deregulation? Or the ultra wealthy who vote in politicians who will provide additional tax breaks, or even better, allow they to stop paying taxes on their stock earnings and other non-wage labor?

When it comes to handing out burglary tools to criminals, it might benefit everyone to take a closer look at who isn’t paying their fair share, first.

"H.B. 194, the Voter Suppression Bill, invalidates a vote where a voter properly marks the ballot in support of a particular candidate, but also writes in the name of that same candidate."

Rep. Marcia Fudge says state-approved voter legislation will unfairly invalidate some ballots

A sweeping election reform bill the GOP-controlled Ohio legislature recently passed has stirred widespread opposition. Democrats have even called it the Voter Suppression Bill.

In that spirit, opponents have initiated an effort to repeal the law, House Bill 194, through a voter referendum.

U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Warrensville Heights, sent an email to her supporters on Aug. 22 asking for help collecting the 231,147 valid signatures of registered voters required to put the law on the ballot in November 2012. The signatures must be submitted by Sept. 29 or the law will take effect.

In her email, Fudge laid out several changes the bill makes that she opposes.

"HB 194, the Voter Suppression Bill, invalidates a vote where a voter properly marks the ballot in support of a particular candidate, but also writes in the name of that same candidate," Fudge wrote.

Invalidating a vote, especially when the voter’s intent is clear, definitely is an issue worth examining. So PolitiFact Ohio decided to check Fudge’s claim as she pushes for the law’s repeal.

The section of HB 194 dealing with a redundant write-in vote represents only a small portion of the massive bill. It is clear, however, this piece of the law is not as clear-cut as Fudge conveyed in her email.

The bill defines a ballot as "contrary to law" – such ballots are tossed and not counted – "if the voter marks the ballot for a candidate and also writes in the name of the candidate as a write-in vote," according the nonpartisan Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s analysis of the bill.

However, the bill lays out a scenario in which such a ballot would be counted.

Three conditions must be satisfied. First, the ballots must be centrally counted (we’ll explain this shortly). Next, the write-in name on the ballot must be the same as the candidate marked on the ballot. Finally, at least three of four board of elections members must agree that the name on the ballot is "identical" to the name the voter wrote in.

Daniel Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, gave us a quick explanation of the first requirement.

He said the reference to centrally counted ballots is another way of referring to absentee ballots. The law singles out absentee ballots because voting machines at the polls are supposed to notify voters if their ballot has a redundant write-in vote.

But some voting machines allow voters to override the notification and submit the ballot with the extra write-in. Those ballots will not be counted, said Matt McClellan, a spokesman at the Ohio secretary of state’s office.

Now to the stickier part.

The elections board in each of Ohio’s 88 counties has four members – two Democrats and two Republicans. If an absentee ballot contains an extra write-in, the bill says three of the four board members must agree that the write-in is "identical" to the candidate’s name on the ballot. That means the ballot would not be counted if the board deadlocks.

"We can easily imagine this leading to shenanigans," said Tokaji, who has been outspoken in his opposition to HB 194.

Tokaji described a potential situation in which the voter’s intent was clear, but two board members of the same political party refused to agree the write-in vote is identical to the candidate’s name on the ballot.

"Under these circumstances, the ballot would not be counted," Tokaji wrote in an email.

The Ohio Democratic Party, which responded for Fudge because the party sent out the email on her behalf, raised similar concerns about the write-in provision of HB 194.

Seth Bringman, a spokesman for the party, wondered if an elections board would consider a write-in identical to the ballot if the voter wrote "Marsha Fudge" and the ballot listed her name as "Marcia L. Fudge."

"While there are some circumstances in which a vote would count if a voter selected a candidate and also wrote in the name of that same candidate, such a case is the exception under the bill, not the norm," Bringman wrote in an email.

Tokaji reached a similar conclusion.

"The bottom line is that in some, but not all, circumstances, a ballot which has both a mark and the name of the candidate written in should be counted. Which is, of course, not to say that it will in fact be counted," Tokaji wrote in an email.

That some ballots could be counted, though, is a point of clarification for Fudge’s statement.

On the Truth-O-Meter, a statement that is accurate but needs clarification rates Mostly True.

The GOP War on Voting

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year

By Ari Berman

August 30, 2011 7:40 PM ET

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. "What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century," says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C.

Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." But since the 2010 election, thanks to a conservative advocacy group founded by Weyrich, the GOP's effort to disrupt voting rights has been more widespread and effective than ever. In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states introduced legislation this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.

All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.

Taken together, such measures could significantly dampen the Democratic turnout next year – perhaps enough to shift the outcome in favor of the GOP. "One of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time," Bill Clinton told a group of student activists in July. "Why is all of this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate" – a reference to the dominance of the Tea Party last year, compared to the millions of students and minorities who turned out for Obama. "There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today."

To hear Republicans tell it, they are waging a virtuous campaign to crack down on rampant voter fraud – a curious position for a party that managed to seize control of the White House in 2000 despite having lost the popular vote. After taking power, the Bush administration declared war on voter fraud, making it a "top priority" for federal prosecutors. In 2006, the Justice Department fired two U.S. attorneys who refused to pursue trumped-up cases of voter fraud in New Mexico and Washington, and Karl Rove called illegal voting "an enormous and growing problem." In parts of America, he told the Republican National Lawyers Association, "we are beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are colonels in mirrored sunglasses." According to the GOP, community organizers like ACORN were actively recruiting armies of fake voters to misrepresent themselves at the polls and cast illegal ballots for the Democrats.

Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

GOP outcries over the phantom menace of voter fraud escalated after 2008, when Obama's candidacy attracted historic numbers of first-time voters. In the 29 states that record party affiliation, roughly two-thirds of new voters registered as Democrats in 2007 and 2008 – and Obama won nearly 70 percent of their votes. In Florida alone, Democrats added more than 600,000 new voters in the run-up to the 2008 election, and those who went to the polls favored Obama over John McCain by 19 points. "This latest flood of attacks on voting rights is a direct shot at the communities that came out in historic numbers for the first time in 2008 and put Obama over the top," says Tova Wang, an elections-reform expert at Demos, a progressive think tank.

No one has done more to stir up fears about the manufactured threat of voter fraud than Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a top adviser in the Bush Justice Department who has become a rising star in the GOP. "We need a Kris Kobach in every state," declared Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit. This year, Kobach successfully fought for a law requiring every Kansan to show proof of citizenship in order to vote – even though the state prosecuted only one case of voter fraud in the past five years. The new restriction fused anti-immigrant hysteria with voter-fraud paranoia. "In Kansas, the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive," Kobach claimed, offering no substantiating evidence.

Kobach also asserted that dead people were casting ballots, singling out a deceased Kansan named Alfred K. Brewer as one such zombie voter. There was only one problem: Brewer was still very much alive. The Wichita Eagle found him working in his front yard. "I don't think this is heaven," Brewer told the paper. "Not when I'm raking leaves."

A primer on GOP voter suppression: voter caging

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Republican Party has for many years engaged in unlawful voter suppression. The case of DNC v. RNC resulted in a 1982 consent decree in which the RNC agreed not to engage in voter caging and intimidation activities or to target minority voters. Consent Decree (1982).

Despite the consent decree, the RNC began using similar tactics in Louisiana in 1986. Under the guise of fraud prevention, the RNC facilitated voter caging programs and other tactics. The DNC filed a contempt motion to reopen the case and enjoin the RNC from conducting the Louisiana programs. Once again, the RNC voluntarily agreed to a consent decree rather than fight the claims in court. The result was a 1986 decree [PDF] in which the RNC agreed not to do any ballot security programs anywhere in the country without prior court approval. See Consent Decree (1987).

Despite the consent decree, unlawful voter caging accelerated under the Bush-Cheney campaigns in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio), with several of the key RNC voter suppression operatives actually given jobs within the U.S. Department of Justice voting rights section. Voter Suppression (epluribusmedia.org); t r u t h o u t Exclusive | Emails Detail RNC Voter Supression in 5 States. The Brad Blog and Greg Palast, among many others, have documented the unlawful GOP voter caging in great detail.

After the 2008 election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the consent decree. The court agreed only to modify the consent decree. Debevoise Opinion (2009); Debevoise Order (2009). The consent decree remains in effect.

If you want to review additional pleadings, see DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice.

Now we learn this week of a GOP voter suppression effort in the state of Wisconsin, which may have implications for the state of Arizona.

This has been a Republican tactic for many years, and it's running rampant in Wisconsin. Voter Suppression in Wisconsin, Courtesy of the GOP and Americans for Prosperity | Crooks and Liars:

[T]he GOP and Americans for Prosperity are working behind the scenes on a voter suppression scam that is on a far wider scale, but no different than Republicans have used for years.

Here's how it works: A mailer is sent to registered voters. Any mailers returned by the post office are put in a database and those voters are submitted to be purged from voting rolls. Of course, the targets are never Republican voters. They're Democrats, and generally minority voters in particular. Here's a better explanation from the Brennan Center for Justice:

Voter caging is the practice of sending mail to addresses on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters registrations on the grounds that the voters on the list do not legally reside at their registered addresses. Supporters of voter caging defend the practice as a means of preventing votes cast by ineligible voters. Voter caging, however, is notoriously unreliable. If it is treated (unjustifiably) as the sole basis for determining that a voter is ineligible or does not live at the address at which he or she registered, it can lead to the unwarranted purge or challenge of eligible voters. …Moreover, the practice has often been targeted at minority voters, making the effects even more pernicious. [Brennan Center, “A Guide to Voter Caging,” 6/29/07]

The audio file above is a recording obtained by One Wisconsin Now of a meeting of Wisconsin Tea Party leaders. Here's the plot:

According to the statements made on the recordings, Dake lays out the plans, detailing contact between himself and Reince Preibus, the Republican Party of Wisconsin Chair and Mark Block, state director of Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin:

The Republican Party of Wisconsin will use its “Voter Vault” state-wide voter file to compile a list of minority and student voters in targeted Wisconsin communities.
Americans for Prosperity will use this list to send mail to these voters indicating the voter must call and confirm their registration information, and telling them if they do not call the number provided they could be removed from the voter lists.
The Tea Party organizations will recruit and place individuals as official poll workers in selected municipalities in order to be able to make the challenges as official poll workers.
On Election Day, these organizations will then “make use” of any postcards that are returned as undeliverable to challenge voters at the polls, utilizing law enforcement, as well as attorneys trained and provided by the RPW, to support their challenges.

In the case of students, this is particularly insidious, since a student may indeed be a registered voter in Wisconsin but not have the same address, given their tendency to move at the end of a semester. But you can see what's going on here -- it is a concerted effort, funded and pushed by Americans for Prosperity -- to suppress minority and young voters, and in so doing to win an election by strongarm rather than by votes.

One Wisconsin Now has uncovered this plot with evidence, but don't assume this is limited to Wisconsin. I guarantee you it isn't. They are targeting as many states as they can, but particularly swing states. Expect Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona just to name a few to have the exact same operations afoot.

Think Progress has more details after the jump.

Think Progress » Right Wing Foments Voter Fraud Conspiracies, Hatches ‘Voter Caging’ Plot To Suppress Minority Votes In WI:

Documents and audio recordings released yesterday by One Wisconsin Now document an apparent plot by the Wisconsin Republican Party, Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (aka Fight Back Wisconsin), and various other tea party groups to suppress votes from minorities and students in this year’s elections using a well-documented — and illegal— practice known as “voter caging.” The alleged plot offers fresh evidence that long-discredited right-wing conspiracy theories about massive voter fraud supposedly perpetrated by minorities and others remain alive and well in both the official GOP establishment and its tea party base.

* * *

In the alleged conspiracy uncovered in Wisconsin, Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, whose Wisconsin state chair was previously banned from politics in Wisconsin for three years, would finance a test mailing and other costs associated with compiling the caging list and then coordinate with the Wisconsin Republican Party to undertake an elaborate process to remove voters from the rolls ahead of the election, if possible, or at the polls on Election Day. Tea party groups were to provide the volunteer labor and cover for the activity — with all participants signing an extensive non-disclosure agreement under which they agreed to publicly operate in the name of Wisconsin GrandSons for Liberty, who would also provide some funding for the plan. The Wisconsin GOP would also provide additional funds, trainers for the tea party volunteers and would have a team of lawyers “standing by” on Election Day to respond to tea party volunteers and “bring the police” if necessary. As is typically the case in voter caging operations, the plotters appeared intent on targeting minorities, students, and others from heavily-Democratic areas of the state.

Audio recordings of the tea party meeting where the alleged voter suppression plot was discussed include numerous references by presenters to supposed instances of minorities and college students voting illegally.

* * *

Presenters at the meeting also repeatedly blamed ‘quote unquote Republican’ and Democratic district attorneys, the media, and others for consistently failing to pursue purported instances of voter fraud — especially from the 2004 election in Milwaukee. However, a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney did in fact pursue such an investigation — which some deemed politically-motivated — of the 2004 election and eventually admitted that he couldn’t find any evidence of a “massive conspiracy.”

What’s more, an exhaustive five-year investigation concluded in 2007 by the Bush administration’s Department of Justice, which was quite keen to investigate such cases, “turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections.” Indeed, the biggest impact of the Department of Justice investigation seems to have been the subsequent politically-charged removal of several U.S. attorneys the Bush White House deemed to have been insufficiently aggressive in pursuing alleged cases of voter fraud.

The total lack of any clear evidence of voter fraud did not stop the right-wing from hysterically and repeatedly invoking the bogeyman of an ACORN-led plot to ‘steal the election for Obama’ in an effort to justify their numerous attempts to disenfranchise voters in 2008.

* * *

While ACORN is now defunct thanks to a discredited right-wing smear campaign led by a convicted criminal [and FAUX News], that has not stopped the right-wing from continuing to invoke it to stir fears over minority voter fraud.

The non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization Demos has just issued a new report examining game changing election laws in swing states, including Arizona. The report, Voting in 2010: Ten Swing States, examines election policies most likely to affect voters and potentially election outcomes in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio. These 10 states were chosen for this report because they are expected to have particularly close elections in at least eight Senate contests and 17 House races, and have each experienced recent problems with—or reforms to—the election process. A summary chart evaluates each state’s practices, and a set of recommendations is offered for improvement of these voting procedures.

The report reviews problematic areas that include: voter registration, identification issues—which can present burdens to those who don’t hold traditional identification such as a driver’s license, provisional ballots, voter suppression and deception tactics, caging and challenge laws, voting for overseas and military voters, and challenges for new citizens and ethnic minorities.

The Swing State review shows mixed results. Arizona tops the list of greatest concern for voting rights and democracy advocates. The climate of fear and ill-will created by the passage of the anti-immigrant bill has many worried that voters of color may be reluctant to cast a ballot, and that Arizona may experience a surge in vote suppression tactics. Making matters worse, Arizona has an onerous proof of citizenship requirement to vote, as well as a history of inconsistently implementing language assistance requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

The "lame stream" media in Arizona, as Sister Sarah would say, devoted hours and hours of coverage to the bogus ACORN "scandal" last year following the lead of FAUX News. It turned out to be a hoax. Have you seen or heard anything in the "lame stream" media in Arizona about the GOP voter suppression documented above? No? You should contact your local news directors, editors and reporters and demand that they report on actual election fraud -- voter suppression efforts by the GOP. Maybe they will be more inclined following the recent GOP Green Scheme Siphon Scandal in Arizona.

The GOP War on Voting

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have explained several times over the years that the Republican Party has for decades engaged in unlawful voter suppression for which it remains under the supervision of the federal courts under a series of consent decrees. For example, A primer on GOP voter suppression: voter caging:

* * *

If you want to review additional pleadings, see DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice.

This week I told you about the efforts of the Republican Party to disenfranchise millions of Americans of their right to vote through voter I.D. laws. GOP Voter Suppression: Photo I.D. requirements:

Forty-seven states have enacted 285 election-related laws this year, and 60 percent were in states with Republican governors, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

As you might expect, the usual suspects are behind this undemocratic and un-American effort to disenfranchise American citizens of their right to vote: the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the billionaire bastard Koch brothers, among others.

Rolling Stone magazine takes an in-depth look at The GOP War on Voting this month in a must-read report:

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. "What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century," says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C.

Continue reading The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone.

Keep this report in mind when you hear Attorney General Tom Horne say that Arizona no longer should be subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act -- and that he would like to do away with the most significant piece of legislation of the 20th Century, extending the right to vote to all Americans. And beware of tools who write on behalf of right-wing think tanks like the Goldwater Institute (In 2007, the Goldwater Institute urged then secretary of state Jan Brewer to challenge preclearance in court as well), i.e., Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic in this opinion today. Arizona may win historic rule challenge.

September 22, 2010 09:00 AM

Voter Suppression in Wisconsin, Courtesy of the GOP and Americans for Prosperity

If you can't win the vote fairly, suppress voters. This has been a Republican tactic for years, and it's running rampant in Wisconsin. While polls are showing Russ Feingold at a shocking disadvantage to his teabagger opponent Ron Johnson, the GOP and Americans for Prosperity are working behind the scenes on a voter suppression scam that is on a far wider scale, but no different than Republicans have used for years.

Voter caging is the practice of sending mail to addresses on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters registrations on the grounds that the voters on the list do not legally reside at their registered addresses. Supporters of voter caging defend the practice as a means of preventing votes cast by ineligible voters. Voter caging, however, is notoriously unreliable. If it is treated (unjustifiably) as the sole basis for determining that a voter is ineligible or does not live at the address at which he or she registered, it can lead to the unwarranted purge or challenge of eligible voters. …Moreover, the practice has often been targeted at minority voters, making the effects even more pernicious. [Brennan Center, “A Guide to Voter Caging,” 6/29/07]

That audio file at the top is a recording obtained by One Wisconsin Now of a meeting of Wisconsin Tea Party leaders. Here's the plot:

According to the statements made on the recordings, Dake lays out the plans, detailing contact between himself and Reince Preibus, the Republican Party of Wisconsin Chair and Mark Block, state director of Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin:

The Republican Party of Wisconsin will use its “Voter Vault” state-wide voter file to compile a list of minority and student voters in targeted Wisconsin communities.
Americans for Prosperity will use this list to send mail to these voters indicating the voter must call and confirm their registration information, and telling them if they do not call the number provided they could be removed from the voter lists.
The Tea Party organizations will recruit and place individuals as official poll workers in selected municipalities in order to be able to make the challenges as official poll workers.
On Election Day, these organizations will then “make use” of any postcards that are returned as undeliverable to challenge voters at the polls, utilizing law enforcement, as well as attorneys trained and provided by the RPW, to support their challenges.

Voter suppression undermines democracy. It is a bully tactic to disenfranchise minority and young voters. If you're as angry about this as I am, consider visiting Save Wisconsin's Vote and taking action.

Voter ID law challenged

August 26, 2011

From the state Senate Democratic caucus, which officially objected to the Justice Department today over South Carolina’s Voter ID law:

“The new Voter ID law discriminates against many voters in South Carolina, and it violates the Voting Rights Act because it disproportionately targets and affects African-American voters. We respectfully ask the Attorney General to object to this voter suppression law,” said Sen. Gerald Malloy.

The controversial law won’t affect upcoming fall elections. It could come into play next year.

It would require voters to produce a valid photo ID when voting, such as a driver’s license, a state ID or a military ID.

The concern is about the law’s impact on the estimated 178,000 in the state who have no such ID. You could get new voter registration cards that include a photo, but Democrats have argued that’s an additional hurdle, especially for seniors and students.

Rev. Jesse Jackson has called it “a plan of voter suppression.”
UPDATE: The Justice Department objection can be read here.

12:08 PM, August 26, 2011 |

Democratic state lawmakers ask U.S. Justice Department to be aware of Cuyahoga County absentee ballot dispute

August 31, 2011

By Laura Johnston, The Plain Dealer

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Six Democratic state legislators on Wednesday blasted state Republican officials for "statements and demands which we think threaten to confuse and potentially dissuade voter turnout."

In a letter, state Sens. Mike Skindell and Nina Turner and state Reps. Nickie Antonio, Armond Budish, Mike Foley and Sandra Williams called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to be aware of a showdown over absentee ballot applications.

"We think this raises the specter of voter suppression," Foley said in a news conference outside the Cuyahoga County Administration Building. "At some point, if things get worse, we're going to ask them (the U.S. Justice Department) to step in."

The Cuyahoga County Council and county Executive Ed FitzGerald decided Monday to spend $350,000 to mail applications to voters, after Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, banned the elections board from sending the ballots.

The same day, Husted dropped a controversial proposal to block absentee voting by people using ballot applications sent at taxpayer expense in Cuyahoga County, while state Auditor Dave Yost questioned Cuyahoga's authority to circumvent Husted's directives.

On Tuesday, in a blog post titled "The wreck of Edward FitzGerald," Yost reprimanded FitzGerald.

"By his actions, Mr. FitzGerald has declared that he is his own law, that his own judgment is the only standard for his official conduct," Yost wrote. "That way lies the lawlessness that has marked the courthouse there in recent years – and a blemish on the career of a man who began 2011 by cleaning up and trimming down Cuyahoga County government."

FitzGerald arrived late to the news conference Wednesday, where County Councilman Julian Rogers and East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton also spoke.

"We're happy for any support from Columbus," he said. "This is really a statewide issue."

In addition to Husted's directive, a state law that could take effect in six weeks would prohibit county election boards from paying return postage on applications or paying postage for completed ballots.

The organization Fair Elections Ohio hopes to get a referendum on the law, but the group must collect more than 230,000 valid signatures by Sept. 29 to get it on the November 2012 ballot.

Voters to get ID lessons

Educational efforts to focus on ballot law

NASHVILLE — State election officials are planning an intensive effort to educate voters about a new law mandating they have a proper photo identification card to cast ballots in next year's elections.

So is the Tennessee Democratic Party, hoping to counter what state Chairman Chip Forrester says is an effort by the Republican-controlled state Legislature to suppress Democratic turnout in the elections of 2012 and beyond.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, was enacted earlier this year with proponents declaring it is needed to prevent voter fraud. It declares some types of photo IDs valid and some invalid.

But state Election Coordinator Mark Goins says the photo ID requirement also has multiple exemptions, both within the new law and in older laws.

Those exceptions, combined with the voter education campaign, should mitigate the number of people showing up at the polls next year with a voter registration card but without the further identification now required to vote, he said.

"If we do our jobs right, we believe it (the new law) will have limited impact," said Goins in an interview.

Goins' office has already conducted telephone conference calls with county election administrators in all 95 counties for an initial briefing on the new law, providing information the administrators will pass on to all election workers.

Coordinated follow-up efforts will aim more directly at voters, including work with citizen and civic organizations such as AARP and the League of Women Voters, public service announcements, and perhaps even direct mailing to targeted groups. An example of the latter would be Tennesseans who have no photo on their driver's license, as allowed under current law for anyone older than 60.

A driver's license with no photo will not be accepted for voting under the new law. But another new law allows citizens to get a free photo identification card at driver's license stations for voting.

Some other legal provisions that come into play, according to Goins, include:

n Any photo driver's license — even if it has expired or comes from another state — will be considered valid for voting purposes for a registered voter.

n People who are indigent and cannot afford a photo ID can sign an affidavit so stating and be able to vote. Even homeless people can legally vote by following the rules, Goins said.

Critics of the new law have noted that there are indirect costs for obtaining a free identification card, notably transportation to a driver's license station, which in some rural areas may be 30 or 40 miles away.

n While some types of government-issued identification are invalid for voting, including college ID cards and county-issued cards, many others are valid. For example, Goins said the identification issued to all workers for private contractors at Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge will be considered valid.

n People can still vote by absentee ballot without a government-issued ID. Absentee voting is allowed for all people older than 65 and some others as well, specifically including residents of nursing homes and assisted-living facilities.

Shelley Courington of the AARP said the organization, which has 648,000 members in Tennessee, plans to partner with state election officials later this fall to provide information on the topic, including a teleconference following alerts by mail and Internet to all members.

Goins said the March presidential preference primary will provide an effective test run for the new requirements, allowing further education before the primary and general elections in August and November.

"I think it's wonderful that they are planning to educate the public to all the exceptions, exemptions and nuances," said House Democratic Leader Craig Fitzhugh, who opposed the law in the Legislature. "(But) I still believe it's going to be a detriment to people voting."

Forrester said Democrats are already working on their own voter education materials to be distributed by county organizations and "affiliate Democratic groups" that will "explain in simple, straightforward language what steps you can take to get to vote."

The first pamphlet has already been produced, he said, and was distributed at a Democratic rally last weekend in Northeast Tennessee.

Tennessee is one of six states with Republican-controlled legislatures to pass a photo ID law this year, bringing to 23 the number of states with such a requirement in place.

"The first and overarching concern we have is why was it necessary to create this confused mess of a situation to begin with when they (Republicans) know full well that voter fraud is of almost no magnitude at all in Tennessee?" Forrester said.

The reason, he said, is to suppress turnout among groups prone to support Democrats — the elderly and those "not as well off financially" being examples — as "part of a national agenda that Republicans are attempting to implement all across the country."

The Tennessee legislation was sponsored by the chairs of the House and Senate Republican Caucuses, Rep. Debra Maggart of Hendersonville and Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, who have repeatedly denied that suppression of voter turnout was a motive. The only objective, they said, was to ensure that people appearing at the polls are who they purport to be and entitled to vote.

Fitzhugh said that, if a photo ID is desirable, pictures should be made when a voter registers after furnishing all the appropriate identification necessary for registration. Such a system could be phased in with relatively little expense or inconvenience, he said.

Good news: ACLU sues Rick Scott to stop 'voter suppression' in Florida

Rick Scott is sued for the fifth time in almost six months, this time for signing a law that civil libertarians say violates the Voting Rights Act.

By Marc Caputo

Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE -- A pair of liberal-leaning groups sued Gov. Rick Scott on Friday to block an elections law that they say amounts to “voter suppression.”

The ACLU of Florida and Project Vote filed the suit in the hopes that it would stop Miami-Dade County from shortening the number of early-voting days before its June 28 mayoral elections.

The new law shortens the early voting days – but not necessarily the number of total hours – from 14 to eight days. It also requires an out-of-county voter who tries to change his voting precinct on Election Day to cast a provisional ballot, which can be more easily challenged. Also, the law cracks down on third-party registration groups.

One of the plaintiffs, Tampa Sen. Arthenia Joyner, said the bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature is an example of a “rank partisan agenda” that disproportionately hurts minorities.

“It is un-American to make it a burden to vote. Too many people fought and died for this right,” Joyner, a Democrat said. “This is an abomination. And it’s unconscionable.”

But the sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Dennis Baxley, a Republican from Ocala, said the state needs to ensure there’s no fraud.

The lawsuit is the fifth one to name Scott as a defendant in his role as governor. The other suits relate to drug-testing state workers, high-speed rail, constitutional amendments over redistricting and an executive order that froze state rules.

The suit names Scott’s secretary of state, Kurt Browning, who has defended the need for the law – despite praising Florida’s election system in 2008 and 2010.

The suit doesn’t specifically target the substance of the law, but instead revolves around a technicality in the state’s elections map.

Five counties have a special designation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires Department of Justice approval for voting changes. As a result, the supervisors in those counties –Monroe, Hillsborough, Collier, Glades and Hendry – told the state they couldn’t and wouldn’t implement the law until they received DOJ sign-off, known as “preclearance.” The supervisors and other elections experts say they never remember the state rushing ahead to implement a law without DOJ sign-off.

Browning told the five counties last week that they didn’t have to follow requirements of the new law.

But Howard Simon, executive director of Florida’s ACLU, said the state can’t enforce the law in some places and not others. So the ACLU sued. He said he believed the law more broadly violates the Voting Rights Act but that’s a “battle we will get into down the road.”

Simon said Miami-Dade’s upcoming elections was more of a pressing concern at the moment.

“Under which rules will this election take place? Will people who relocate have to cast a provisional ballot?” he asked. “The election should not take place under rules that have not been sanctioned.”

Department of Justice says ‘ hold up’ to new South Carolina Voter Suppression Law

1 Sep 2011 Author: rikyrah
From ThinkProgress:

Justice Department Puts Hold On South Carolina Voter ID Law
By Travis Waldron on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:25 am
After months of protest from minority groups, voting rights advocates, and Democratic U.S. senators, the Justice Department declined to pre-clear South Carolina’s new voter identification law Monday, putting it on hold until South Carolina can provide further information on the law, the Greenville News reported Tuesday:
South Carolina’s new voter ID law will be on hold until the state can provide more information to the federal Department of Justice, which says it needs more specifics to ensure that the new law doesn’t disenfranchise voters. [...]
In a letter to the attorney general, the voting rights chief asked questions including how many registered voters don’t have a state driver’s license or ID and how they will be notified of the new law’s requirements, what types of evidence will be accepted to prove a voter’s identity and how those who can’t reasonably secure an ID will still be allowed to vote.
Under Section Five of Voting Rights Act (VRA), southern states like South Carolina must have election laws pre-cleared, meaning the laws cannot take effect until the Justice Department approves them on grounds that they will not discriminate against minority voters. By putting it on hold, Justice is asking South Carolina for further proof that its law will not disenfranchise the 178,000 voters in the state who do not have valid IDs — a disproportionate share of whom are racial minorities.
South Carolina’s Attorney General’s Office insists they have the answers to those questions, but as Ian Millhiser has noted, it’s unlikely that any of the voter ID laws taking effect in Republican-controlled states could survive the scrutiny of the VRA, which forbids both laws that specifically target minority voters and those that have a greater impact on minority voters than others.

I wrote a few weeks ago about this law, and how it was furthering punishing our elders who lived under Jim Crow.

And where is the CBC on this?

WHY aren’t they on tv shows ABOUT THIS?

Melissa Harris-Perry did a good segment on this. http://on.msnbc.com/pubGqY via @msnbc

GOP Official Tries to Suppress Student Voters—Despite No Evidence of Fraud

Posted Thursday, September 1, 2011 in Reporting by Brian Stewart

Maine college students are under attack by the chairman of the state’s Republican Party who recently “brandished a list of more than 200 college students he said likely engaged in voter fraud.”

The problem?

There’s no evidence that any of the 206 young people who voted in recent elections did anything wrong.

Republican Party chair Charlie Webster is attempting to challenge students’ right to register and vote where they attend school, indicating some had registered in their home state and then re-registered on campus, according to a report this week from the Bangor Daily News.

Earlier this week, Webster offered flawed reasoning for the move:

I get tired of talking about this because the law is clear. If I want to vote, I need to establish residency. I need to register my car and pay taxes in that community. You can’t just become a student and vote wherever you want.

But there’s a clear problem with Webster’s arguments—that’s not the law.

In fact, under Maine law, students are entitled to register to vote where they attend school, permitted they can establish citizenship, age, and residency—the latter of which can be with something as simple as a piece of mail or an oath.

And several precedents indicate Webster’s allegations are unfounded. A 1979 Supreme Court ruling said students can list their dormitory as a residence and, in 2008, former Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe said a proposed bill to bar on-campus students from registering there was unconstitutional.

Some—including Ben Grant, chair of the Democratic Party—say Webster’s list is an attempt to suppress young voters, who often vote Democratic. Grant says:

He doesn’t want students to vote in Maine. Everything else he’s said has been a smokescreen. The key issue is people voting in more than one place and that hasn’t happened.

Voter Suppression: Campus Progress Coverage

Webster’s main issue, though, is students registering in more than one place—something that isn’t illegal and that an official told the Bangor Daily News is “actually fairly common and not just with college students.”

Some of the students Webster alleged committed fraud registered in two states, but have never cast more than one vote in an election.

Christopher Knoblock registered in his Massachusetts hometown when he turned 18 and voted there in February 2008 primary. As a student, he cast his general election vote on campus and again the following year on a same-sex marriage referendum.

Two years later in 2010, he was back home in Belmont, Mass., and voted there. He told the newspaper:

I’m surprised to be on this list and I’m surprised that it’s an issue that I voted in Maine at all. We were encouraged to vote when we were on campus, and we were told that voting on campus was legal. I think this unfairly targets out-of-state students, as it’s much harder for those of us who are out of state to vote via absentee.

Voters have no legal obligation to unregister in one place when they move and re-register in another.

And then there are students like Justin Lynch—also on Webster’s list—who never registered in more than one place. Lynch has only cast votes in Maine and never in his home state of New York. The third-year student called Webster’s tactic “a shocking example of government intimidating young people.”

The Bangor Daily Times asked Webster why he included young people like Lynch, who couldn’t have voted in more than one place if they’d only ever registered in one. He laughed and replied:

“I have no idea whether they obeyed the law,” Webster said. “So I can’t accuse them.”

Only he did accuse them. He explicitly said his cursory research was evidence of “deliberate voter fraud.”

And regarding Webster’s claim that students should "pay taxes in that community” if they want to vote?

Perhaps he is forgetting that many students do pay income taxes—for jobs on campus or in the community—and virtually every student pays sales tax on discretionary spending. At the University of Maine, where many of the students on Webster’s list are enrolled, students and campus visitors contribute upwards of $170 million annually to the local economy. [PDF]

Unfortunately, Webster’s list is one of several unjust efforts to disenfranchise or frighten young college students and other Americans from exercising their right to vote.

Brian Stewart is a journalism network associate at Campus Progress.

Voter suppression bills MIRACULOUSLY appear in 34 states, tea party DEMOCRACY?

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Voter suppression laws SPONTANEOUSLY (?!!!) appear in 34 states now.(This article has some examples but frankly, no one is covering this horrendous story.):
http://prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-s...
Tell us this is a coincidence... tell us this IS NOT coordinated... tell us how these voter suppression laws are MIRACULOUSLY appearing allllllllllllllllllllllllllll over ma nation.
Oh look... IT IS COORDINATED by some secretive group known as ALEC who is paying for all this training, organizing and coordination. Who is funding this group that claims to only care about limited government, free markets and Federalism and how does voter suppression protect their idea of "limited government"? So only the rich have the control and all the other chattel are limited, I guess.
What is ALEC? American Legislative Exchange Council. Are they evil and controlled by the same people who have been funding the tea party movement?
Explain why this organization is supporting new voter suppression laws all across the country?
ALEC watch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Here is a voter suppression draft legislation created by ALEC:
http://images2.americanprogress.org/campus/we...
Ohio state "Chairman" of ALEC is John Adams:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/22/...

In New England, Attempt to Suppress the Youth Vote Backfires

Voter suppression is a nasty virus that is sweeping the nation. Those who are aggressively pushing this agenda want desperately to stop students from voting. The rumblings are beginning to be heard in Maine. From Talking Points Memo:

The Chairman of Maine’s Republican party has doubled down on his crusade against the apparently widespread problem of voter fraud-committing college students, declaring this week that if students want to vote they should be paying taxes.

“I get tired of talking about this because the law is clear,” Charles Webster said. “If I want to vote, I need to establish residency. I need to register my car and pay taxes in that community. You can’t just become a student and vote wherever you want.”

Back in July, Webster made a list of 200 college students whom he claimed are committing voter fraud because they pay out-of-state tuition rates but are registered to vote in the state.

A list? Where would he even get that kind of information? TPM wrote about it in July:

At a press conference at the Maine State House, Webster gave the media a list of over 200 students — their names redacted — who paid out-of-state tuition rates but were registered to vote in the state.

But

One problem. The University of Maine only allows individuals who previously lived in Maine — those who aren’t just living into the state to attend school — to pay a discounted in-state tuition rate.

And Webster provided absolutely zero evidence that the students — the vast majority of whom were born in the late 80s and early 90s, based on Webster’s list — voted both in their home state and in Maine.

So, the Maine GOP Chairman has made a list, with apparently actual proof, of students who are allegedly voting in both their home state and in Maine.

So far the only case of this happening seems to be this one. From the New Hampshire Union Leader:

The son of House Speaker William O’Brien voted in Maine elections and ran for state office in Maine while a student at Bates College in Lewiston, according to a report in a Maine newspaper.

Yes, that’s the son of Speaker of the NH House, William O’Brien. The same O’Brien who had this to say:

‘Foolish’ college kids ‘just vote their feelings,’ New Hampshire speaker says, “Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their feelings.”

Back to the Union Leader story:

According to election results on maine.gov, Brendan O’Brien was nominated by the Republican Party in June 2010 to run for a state representative seat in a district that represents Lewiston, where he was attending Bates College. He withdrew his nomination in July 2010.

Then, in November 2010, he returned to New Hampshire to vote in his hometown, Mont Vernon, the Sun Journal reported. He ended up with dual registration when New Hampshire elections officials didn’t notify Maine officials that he’d voted in another state, the report said.

Another little piece of this puzzle can be found here, in the Mont Vernon town website, listing the names of the Supervisors of the Checklist. Brendan O’Brien’s mother is a supervisor of the checklist in Mont Vernon. The supervisors of the checklist are responsible for updating and maintaining the voter lists.

What we know so far is that Charles Webster, Chairman of Maine’s Republican Party is accusing Maine students of voter fraud, in the hopes that he can prevent college students from voting. He made a list, that appears no actual proof behind it. The only case of a student voting in two states that can be proven is that of Brendan O’Brien, the son of the New Hampshire Speaker of the House, who also wanted to keep college students from voting.

Irony sticks her head in the oven once again.

Maine GOP Chair: Students Should Pay Taxes If They Want To Vote

The Chairman of Maine's Republican party has doubled down on his crusade against the apparently widespread problem of voter fraud-committing college students, declaring this week that if students want to vote they should be paying taxes.

"I get tired of talking about this because the law is clear," Charles Webster said. "If I want to vote, I need to establish residency. I need to register my car and pay taxes in that community. You can't just become a student and vote wherever you want."

Back in July, Webster made a list of 200 college students whom he claimed are committing voter fraud because they pay out-of-state tuition rates but are registered to vote in the state.

According to Eric Russell of the Bangor Daily News, in order in vote in Maine someone has to be a U.S. citizen, be 17 years old to register and 18 to vote, and establish and maintain a residency in the municipality where they would register. In order to establish residency, according to the Daily News:

Students have the right to register in the municipality where they attend school as long as they have established residency. They are then subject to the same residency requirements but cannot be asked to meet additional requirements.
Determining established residency is left to municipal clerks and they can consider the following factors in determining established residency: a direct statement or oath, a motor vehicle registration, an income tax return, a piece of mail listing a current address or any other objective facts.

None of these is required, however.

As TPM wrote in July, the University of Maine only allowed students who had previously lived in the state to get the discounted tuition rate -- and Webster didn't have any evidence that the named students voted in more than one state or didn't establish residency. When asked about the specifics, Webster said at the time: "I only dealt with what was the easiest thing to find."

Maine's Secretary of State said he would investigate the allegations.

"We'll let this play out," Webster said. "I'm willing to take the criticism I'm getting. What I find bizarre is that anyone would think I would bring up something that wasn't a problem."

"He doesn't want students to vote in Maine. Everything else he's said has been a smoke screen," Ben Grant, chair of the Maine Democratic Party, told the Daily News. "The key issue is people voting in more than one place and that hasn't happened."

Maine GOP Chair: Students Who Vote And Pay Out-Of-State Tuition Are Committing Voter Fraud

Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster is claiming that college students who pay out-of-state tuition rates and vote in state are committing voter fraud.

At a press conference at the Maine State House, Webster gave the media a list of over 200 students -- their names redacted -- who paid out-of-state tuition rates but were registered to vote in the state.

Webster said he came up with the list because of opposition from voter rights groups to a law passed by the Republican-led legislature in June which banned voter registration on Election Day. A coalition of groups have launched a petition drive to overturn the law.

One problem. The University of Maine only allows individuals who previously lived in Maine -- those who aren't just living into the state to attend school -- to pay a discounted in-state tuition rate.

And Webster provided absolutely zero evidence that the students -- the vast majority of whom were born in the late 80s and early 90s, based on Webster's list -- voted both in their home state and in Maine.

As the Sun Journal reported:

According to Maine state law, students are eligible to register to vote in the municipality in which they attend school, as long as they have established residency there. There is not a period of time required for a person to establish residency. The University of Maine System has different guidelines to establish student residency. A student may only be granted in-state tuition if he or she has proven that she has established residency for reasons other than academic, regardless of the length of time that he or she has lived in Maine.

The Bangor Daily News reported that Carney failed "to provide any further details such as: How many of the 206 students named actually voted twice? How many of them registered in Maine on Election Day? How many officially declared primary residency in Maine?"

Asked for those specifics, Webster said that he did not have the resources to get that data.
"I only dealt with what was the easiest thing to find," the GOP chairman said.

Webster, the newspaper reported, said he had personally witnessed "poll flooding" by special interest groups like MoveOn.org, ACORN and "the Democrat party."

He also wasn't clear on exactly how stopping people from registering on Election Day would specifically stop "voter fraud" rather than simply making it more difficult for everyone to vote.

The documents that Webster provided are available here and here.

Columnist: Registering Poor To Vote 'Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals'

Updated: September 2, 2011, 5:05 PM

Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum is just going to come right out and say it: registering the poor to vote is un-American and "like handing out burglary tools to criminals."

"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote," Vadum, the author of a book published by World Net Daily that attacks the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, writes in a column for the American Thinker.

"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor," Vadum writes. "It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money. It's about raw so-called social justice. It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers."

Most conservative criticism of voter registration drives aimed at poor and minority communities has been under the guise of worries about voter fraud. Vadum's column is notable because he isn't just pretending to be worried about the nearly non-existent threat of in-person voter fraud -- he just doesn't think poor people should be voting.

Late Update: Responding to what he says are misrepresentations of his view, Vadum writes that of course he thinks poor people have the right to vote, he just doesn't want anybody to help them since their votes "could lead to the destruction of the republic."

Vadum clarifies that it is "destructive to register welfare recipients to vote so that they can vote themselves more government benefits. It is even worse that our tax dollars are used to register welfare recipients at welfare offices. It is a policy that would cause the Founding Fathers to roll over in their graves."

But, he adds: "Of course those who are legally qualified to vote should be allowed to vote but our tax dollars shouldn't be used to underwrite the destruction of the republic."

Achievements of Liberalism in the U.S.

2010-11-08T10:01:00.000-08:00

Achievements of Liberalism in the U.S.

By Shoq, on September 25, 2009, at 4:28 am

All or most were strenuously resisted by conservatives and many Republicans.

Interstate Highway System
It wasn't Ike's idea. It was a liberal initiative begun in the '30s. Ike was a liberal.
Almost all of our Labor Laws (and All Child Labor laws)
The Marshall Plan
Environmental Laws
Freedom of Information Act
Workplace safety laws
Social Security
The Space Program
Securities Act of 1933 & Most banking Regulations
The Peace Corps
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)
The Civil rights movement
Fight against Nazis, Fascism and Totalitarianism
Wilson, FDR ,Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy. All liberals
The Development and Deployment for the Internet (DARPA/HPCA)
The Tennessee Valley project
Women's right to vote
Universal Public Education
National Weather Service
National Science Foundation/Basic Scientific Research
Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws
Public Health Service and CDC
Morrill Land Grant Act (land for State public Universities)
Rural Electrification
Public Universities
Bank Deposit Insurance
Earned Income Tax Credit
Family and Medical Leave Act
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Public Broadcasting
Hoover Dam
Pell Grants
Americans With Disabilities Act
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 – New (March 25th, 2010)

So before you knock liberalism, remember it's given you MOST of what Americans take for granted–and so many have died for.

Please take a moment to Retweet this list below. It's far past time that America once again learned to respect, admire, and celebrate it's liberal nature, traditions and achievements.

Obama's Accomplishements

2010-06-24T16:22:00.000-07:00

9/1
Michigan pilot program will go national | detnews.com | The Detroit News http://bit.ly/9fDVTl
8/13
Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans http://bit.ly/cdoCf5 Great chart!

Keith,

Got this email. Apparently it is being circulated on twitter and facebook. I know it's not true and I think it needs to be stopped.

Linda Dapper

@lmdapper

Linda Romaine Dapper (Faceook)

650-996-7053

Very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .

VERY INTERESTING! The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt........ 38%
Taft..................... 40%
Wilson ................. 52%
Harding.................49%
Coolidge.............. 48%
Hoover................. 42%
F. Roosevelt......... 50%
Truman................. 50%
Eisenhower........... 57%
Kennedy............... 30%
Johnson................ 47%
Nixon.................... 53%
Ford..................... 42%
Carter................... 32%
Reagan................. 56%
GH Bush.............. 51%
Clinton ................. 39%
GW Bush............. 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is..............Obama.................8% !!!

Yep! That's right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history... stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one?? And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers..! They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs....or as "community organizers" ..when they should have been in an employment line.

MAY GOD HELP US!

Thanks,

Gary Mills
Mills Construction Services
Phone: 336-782-5312
Fax: 336-998-4489
email: jgmillsco@gmail.com

I wrote to Linda Wakins

Linda,

Where did you get this information? There is no such organization U .N. International Health Organization. Many people have tried to verify this information and can't find it. Please try and check your facts before passing things along. In this case just put U .N. International Health Organization into Google or Yahoo etc and see what you get.

There are people out there trying to scare people. This is unacceptable. Information is one thing lies are another.

Linda

8/9/10

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/oecd_historical_toprate.pdf

Tax rates from around the world.

http://owiki.shoq.us/the-achievements-list NEED THIS

On Friday 6th August 2010, @lmdapper said:

All this was done accomplished yesterday (8-4-10)

Senate passes child nutrition bill http://bit.ly/9BMBv7--Senate passes bill to save teacher, police jobs http://bit.ly/d55pwH -- Elena Kagan confirmed to Supreme Court http://bit.ly/bRr25K -- Senate approves Clapper nomination as intel chief http://bit.ly/cn15hZ -- Senate Passed $600 Million Border Security Bill http://bit.ly/9J6L8l

The Senate the way it should look

8/4

Obama’s Legislative Accomplishments Fail to Bolster Popularity http://bit.ly/augw1W people remember how cloudy the process was (not good)

Accomplishments, setbacks and stalemates: Obama’s first year in review http://bit.ly/cZsFkG || old, but worth rereading so we don't forge

@karoli how about honesty? Refreshing if not accomplishment. (AP) Obama says he deserves a grade of 'incomplete' http://bit.ly/dc9EOX

@karoli Can we use this as an accomplishment? Great real people- Dr. Daisy Brooks, Winner of the Presidential Medal http://exm.nr/aWiFkp

Big win for Reid on teacher money | Senator Harry Reid, Nevada - HarryReid.com http://bit.ly/alEXKr || keep going lots of work to do!

7/28

Protection for US writers abroad goes to Obama http://bit.ly/d4IzQU

7/26

POTUS signs legislation to help stop paying dead people Medicare, other federal benefits http://bit.ly/9WLy8K || accomplishment?

Obama's First 100 Days: 10 Achievements You Didn't Know About

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

President Obama’s accomplishments

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/03/president-obamas-accomplishments/

Obama has made quite a few accomplishments,

http://bit.ly/daS68P Rachel Maddow lists exceptional number significant accomplishments of the Obama Administration, even though half a term.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/04/29/4426425-obamas-day-100-at-mo-town-hall Obama's Day 100 at MO town hall From NBC's Athena Jones

equal pay for women
hate crimes against gays
stabilizing the economy
withdrawing troops from Iraq
settling on the “best possible plan” in Afghanistan
improving America’s image around the world
finding international consensus on disabling nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea.
Appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
tapped at least 48 other Hispanics to positions senior enough to require Senate confirmation

There are more I know. Let me know you favorites and I'll add them.

Rachael Maddow 6/25/10 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#37937282

MADDOW: He signed a bill that gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He grew the size of the federal government and the budget, added a whole new cabinet level agency and added tens of thousands of government workers to the federal payroll.

He tripled the deficit. He bailed out and expanded social security with a big fat tax increase. He raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. He raised taxes on gasoline.
He, in fact, signed into law the largest tax increase in history. He supported federal handgun controls. He called for a world without nuclear weapons. He was Ronald Reagan.

As a conservative saint, as the right-wing rock star, as king of the Republican prom in perpetuity, as a transformative figure for people who call themselves conservative, the facts of Ronald Reagan‘s legislative record are awkward.

Ronald Reagan‘s record has in it a lot of things that would get him kicked out of today‘s Republican Party, which is not to say that President Reagan was a secret liberal. He was not. What he was, was complex, but accomplished in his own way.

With the passage of financial regulation in Washington today, President Obama took to the very un-momentous setting of “Twitters,” as he called it yesterday, to say this, quote, “Last night‘s House Senate agreement on Wall Street reform represents the toughest financial reform since the Great Depression.”

It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations. On the occasion of the Wall Street reform announcement today, Taegan Goddard at “CQ Politics” wrote, “Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform this country.”

Even before today‘s historic Wall Street reform agreement, President Obama, of course, did what politicians have been trying to do for more than 60 years. He passed health reform, which, for the first time, establishes government responsibility for the health care of American citizens.
Consider also the stimulus bill. It didn‘t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system.

It was the largest investment in infrastructure since Ike. For solving our country‘s energy problems, something Obama has compared to man walking on the moon, it contained about $60 billion in spending and tax incentives for renewable and clean energy, also a historic investment.
It also included an unheralded but giant investment in science and tech, amping up the budgets at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and an experimental energy research agency that was created under President George W. Bush, but never funded until now.

President Obama also expanded state kids‘ health insurance to cover another four million kids. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amending the 1964 civil rights act for equal pay for equal work. He signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries‘ arsenals by a third. He created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.

He set forth an international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weapons. Then there are the legislative and policy achievements that don‘t just build on previously-set precedents, but set new ones.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act. It had languished in Congress for years. The Food and Drug Administration permitted for the first time to regulate tobacco.

Better late than never, he dismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service, broke it into three parts so that the folks who collect money from oil leases aren‘t the same ones regulating the industry. And now, it will actually investigate the industry that it was busy schtupping and doing drugs with during the last administration.

Obama fired two wartime commanding generals in little over a year. He overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system in which banks were being subsidized to give loans that were guaranteed by the government anyway, a license to print money.

That was ended in the savings put toward actual aid to students. He canceled a weapons program that was bloated, unnecessary and totally irrelevant to either of our current wars, the F-22. Why even mention the cancellation of a single weapons system? Because that never happens. Weapons systems never get canceled. The F-22 did, which is itself a miracle.

In each of these achievements and in the list of things he has yet to do - “Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell,” closing Guantanamo - in each of these things, there is room for liberal disappointment. I sing a bittersweet lullaby to the lost public option when I go to sleep at night.

But presidential legacies are complex. Not even the Reagan administration‘s legacy is pure as the conservative-driven snow. But Taegan Goddard at “CQ Politics” was right today about nothing this big happening since FDR.

The list of legislative accomplishments of this president in half a term even before energy reform which he‘s probably going to get to is, to quote the vice president, “a big freaking deal.” Love this administration or hate it, this president is getting a lot done.

The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers to that. Good night.
END

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/C045295CED7DCF6885257758005B74BB

EPA Proposal Cuts Pollution from Power Plants in 31 States and D.C. / Rule would reduce smog- and soot-forming emissions contributing to unhealthy air

Release date: 07/06/2010

Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, milbourn.cathy@epa.gov, 202-564-7849, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing regulations to cut air pollution that impairs air quality and harms the health of people living downwind. The regulation will target power plant pollution that drifts across the borders of 31 eastern states and the District of Columbia. Air pollution is linked to thousands of asthma cases and heart attacks, and almost 2 million lost school or work days. Along with local and state air pollution controls, the new proposal, called the transport rule, is designed to help areas in the eastern United States meet existing national air quality health standards.

“This rule is designed to cut pollution that spreads hundreds of miles and has enormous negative impacts on millions of Americans,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We’re working to limit pollution at its source, rather than waiting for it to move across the country. The reductions we’re proposing will save billions in health costs, help increase American educational and economic productivity, and -- most importantly -- save lives.”

The transport rule would reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) to meet state-by-state emission reductions. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions would reduce SO₂ emissions by 71 percent over 2005 levels. NO_x emissions would drop by 52 percent.

EPA is using the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act to reduce interstate transport, which is the upwind state emissions that contribute to air quality problems in downwind states. The proposed rule sets in place a new approach that can and will be applied again as further pollution reductions are needed to help areas meet air quality health standards.

SO₂ and NO_xreact in the atmosphere to form fine particle pollution and ground-level ozone (smog), which are linked to widespread illnesses and premature deaths. These pollutants are carried on the wind to other states, contributing to health problems for their residents and interfering with states’ ability to meet air quality standards.

Today’s action would yield more than $120 billion in annual health benefits in 2014, including avoiding an estimated 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.9 million days when people miss school or work due to ozone- and particle pollution-related symptoms. These benefits would far outweigh the annual cost of compliance with the proposed rule, which EPA estimates at $2.8 billion in 2014.

EPA expects that the emission reductions will be accomplished by proven and readily available pollution control technologies already in place at many power plants across the country.

The transport rule also would help improve visibility in state and national parks and would increase protection for ecosystems that are sensitive to pollution, including streams in the Appalachians, lakes in the Adirondacks, estuaries and coastal waters, and red maple forests.

The proposal would replace and improve upon the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered EPA to revise in 2008. The court allowed CAIR to remain in place temporarily while EPA works to finalize the replacement rule proposed today.

EPA will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register. The agency also will hold public hearings. Dates and locations for the hearings will be announced shortly.

7/06/10

I am in the camp of hunting down all possible candidates and adding
them to the list.

BTW the revised titles to date are mine and therefore the blame for
poor formatting... Is it a problem that each time I enter a bullet sub-
list the number structure of the list gets broken?

R. Paine (ArrghPaine)

On Jul 6, 7:13 am, jemi...@aol.com wrote:
Never hurts to mine for new information.

E. Joyce Moore
Moorham Enterprises
From the Stoop Productions
AAAA (Alliance of African American Artists)
Writer,Producer, Poet, Author of Ramblings Through the Attic of Thought,
Gettin' to the Good Wood, I Like Brown, Princess Jahzzara
Visit me on Facebook, Twitter
Book and Blog Website
Baltimore Examiner column

General oWiki Project Update

Roy has been busy cleaning up formats of achievements, etc. Thanks!
Aviva has been adding "Alternative texts" for some items. As an exampleof how to rewrite an achievement, search for her rewrite that begins thus:

"Began the process of restructuring the military"

It was exactly the right idea.

This is just what we should be doing. Replacing long and awkward titleswith shorter, cohesive statements. It's not vital to tell the entire story in each bullet. Just to make it distinct enough from.

Aviva, note that I pressed TAB to indent your bullet. This makes iteasier to see. After they have been there a few days, if no one has comments, we can swap it with the old heading and normalize the text.

NOTE. Creating a sub bullet is the best way to comment on any item. Make your text red. Example

This is the achievement...
Press enter on the end of line, and presstab to indent. Then make comment RED
This is a rewrite of the achievement...
This is the comment on the rewrite

2) Poll -- Do we review a new source collection?

Pash discovered this monster, ad-hoc list, which looks like it was cobbled together from the Watson list, and others around the web.

http://democraticchangeupdate.p2blogs.com/

Would you all take a cursory look at it, and tell us if you think we should formally parse this document for achievements?

If so, I will make a new source collection document for it. I personally feel we should. We have a LOT of people now, and if everyone just did a few, we'd be done fast. But it may be mostly junk or stuff we have already, and not worth the effort. Let's decide by committee.

I HAVE PRODUCED A POLL to help us decide. Please VOTE hereafter you study the collection.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDJ5RmY1aDBQSllvT21TW...

http://www.irontontribune.com/news/2010/jul/08/health-care-fix-help-seniors/

Health care fix to help seniors

By Tribune Editorial Board | The Tribune

Published Thursday, July 8, 2010

Don't be fooled by political rhetoric and those with agendas. The agencies on the frontlines helping senior citizens say the health care reform will benefit millions on Medicare.

A variety of organizations -- including the Area Agency on Aging, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and AARP -- are working to dispel myths and educate senior citizens about the immediate and longterm changes brought on by the Affordable Care Act that was adopted by Congress earlier this year.

The health care reform bill was far from perfect, containing a number of changes that will have dramatic impact on the industry as a whole.

But, for many senior citizens, this reform bill will significantly improve coverage and preventative care opportunities.

At the top of the list, it will remove the infamous "donut hole" gap in prescription drug coverage, a flaw that was almost universally pointed to as a major detriment to care for seniors.

Secondly, the reform will greatly increase access to tests and screenings, allowing senior citizens to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to their health.

Some of the free preventative screenings that will be available for free are for bone density, cholesterol, prostate cancer, diabetes, breast cancer and colon cancer.

Seniors need to arm themselves with perhaps the most vital medicine in the fight for good health: information.

Don't take anyone at his word. Ask a lot of questions and make sure those who are providing answers really have your health at heart.

Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises - The Obama Watchers Wiki http://bit.ly/nNfa0C

Some thoughts on NOT getting involved.

2010-06-24T09:44:00.000-07:00

Are we really ready to have the Republicans run this great country of ours again? We are on our way to that. According to a June 2010 NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll only 29% of the people polled think this country is going in the right direction. Did you know that our President is at an all time low in approval ratings? Only 45 percent approve of the job Obama is doing in the White House, compared with 48 percent who disapprove. Sixty-two percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track.

What are you going to do to help turn theses numbers around?

Democrats are sitting back listening to the fabrications, misrepresentations, exaggerations and down right lies being spread by elected officials and the right wing talking heads.

What are you going to doing, sitting back or getting involved?

Democrats complain that that the Gulf of Mexico is filling up with oil & that the beaches in Fl are covered with tar balls & that BP is taking us for a ride. We talk about the need for legislation crafted in response the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. We know we need aggressive regulations for oil and natural gas companies operating in federal waters, but there is none.

What are going to do to encourage your legislators make it happen?

Then there is the legislation that has failed to pass. The American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010, has been voted down four times. We can't ignore the Americans that are out of work and without Health Care Insurance

Have you sent an email, made a phone call or even sent a tweet on this issue?

There are nomination of political appointees needed to run the government that have not been confirmed. This includes appellate judicial nominations ( 25 to 50 per Congress) and the 200 or so Senate-confirmed senior positions in cabinet departments and executive agencies who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Have you spoken up out about the lack of action in the Senate?

Then there is important legislation languishing in the Senate that hasn't been taken up because of lack of support by even one Republican due to the negative impact of the use of Filibusters and Holds.

Have you told them that this is unacceptable?

Some Senators believe that it is impossible to pass comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation this year, and won't try for fear that it might hurt their chance to be reelected. So they settle for a lesser bill just to say they have done "something." Another item to add to the dustbin of missed opportunities.

Did you remind your Representatives that they were elected to do the business of the people as well as run for reelection?

It is our job as concerned Citizens, Voters and Democrats to get involved on every level in this election year. We can not, no must not allow the Republicans to take one more seat. With everything they have done in the last year to protect Wall Street and big business there should be no question who should win the seats. We can't depend on the media. Between the major amount of misinformation and out right lies being spread from every corner of the right wing media and the lack of credible information due to a lack of left wing media, voters are not hearing the truth. We must help the candidates get their message out.

Stand up and scream about what is going on. And while your screaming, join a campaign committee, put a sign on your lawn. Volunteer your time, make calls stuff envelopes and go door to door. And, if you can donate to YOUR candidates the DCNC, DCCC or DSCC. Even $5 can make a difference. Don't wait until tomorrow due it TODAY.

Write to the Senators on Twitter TODAY

2010-02-05T07:57:00.000-08:00

Senator Barbara Boxer (@barbara_boxer
Senator Sam Brownback(@sensambrownback)
Senator Mark Begich (@MarkBegich)
Senator Eric Cantor (@EricCantor)
Senator Tom Coburn (@tomcoburn)
Senator Susan Collins (@senatorcollins)
Senator Bob Corker (@senbobcorker)
Senator John Cornyn (@johncornyn)
Senator Jim DeMint (@jimdement)
Senator Chris Dodd (@SenChrisDodd)
Senator Dick Durbin(@dickdurbin)
Senator John Ensign (@johnensign)
Senator Russ Feingold (@russfeingold)
SenatorChuck Grassley (@chuckgrassley)
Senator Orrin Hatch (@orrinhatch)
Senator Jim Inhofe (@jminhofe)
Senator John Kerry(@johnkerry)
Senator Blanche Lincoln (@blanche4senate)
Senator Richard Lugar (@senatorlugar)
Senator John McCain (@senjohnmccain)
Senator Claire McCaskill (@clairemc)
Senator Bob Menendez(@senatormenendez)
Senator Jeff Merkley (@senjeffmerkley)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski)
Senator Ben Nelson (@senbennelson)
Senator Bill Nelson (@senbillnelson)
Senator Bernie Sanders (@senatorsanders)
Senator Jeff Sessions (@SenatorSessions)
Senator Richard Shelby (@RichardShelby)
Senator Arlen Specter(@senarlenspecter)
Senator John Thune (@johnthune)
Senator Harry Reid (@senatorreid)
Senator Mark Udall(@markudall)
Senator Tom Udall (@tomudall)
Senator David Vitter (@davidvitter)
Senator Mark Warner (@markwarner)
Senator Roger Wicker(@rogerwicker)

Senator Mark Warner Value and Innovation Amendment Package

2010-01-14T11:48:00.000-08:00

Value and Innovation Amendment Package
Improving Quality and Value through Delivery System Reform
 Sec. 3601. Quality Reporting for Psychiatric Hospitals. The section would create a pay-for-reporting program for Medicare inpatient psychiatric hospitals beginning 2014. A percentage of payment for these facilities would be tied to successful reporting of quality data, which would be available to the public after opportunity for a hospital or unit to review their performance.
 Sec. 3602. Pilot Testing Pay-for-Performance Program for Certain Medicare Providers. This section would direct the Secretary to begin pilot testing of value-based purchasing (pay-for-performance) programs for certain types of Medicare providers no later than January 1, 2016. These provider types include: inpatient psychiatric hospitals, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehab facilities, acute prospective payment system-exempt cancer hospitals, and hospices. The Secretary would have authority, after 2018, to expand these pilots if the CMS Chief Actuary determines it would reduce Medicare program spending while maintaining or improving the quality of care.
 Sec. 3603. Plans for a Value-Based Purchasing Program for Ambulatory Surgical Centers. This section would direct the Secretary to develop a plan to create a value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers. The plan would be submitted to Congress no later than January 1, 2011.
 Sec. 3604. Revisions to National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling. This section would modify the new CMS pilot on Medicare bundled payments created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It would expand the number of health conditions tested under the pilot and give the Secretary authority to expand the duration or scope of the pilot after January 1, 2016 if the CMS Chief Actuary determines it would reduce Medicare program spending while maintaining or improving the quality of care.
 Sec. 3605. Improvements to the Medicare Shared Savings Program. This section would give the Secretary greater flexibility in administering the Medicare Shared Savings Program. This program is created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to reward Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) that successfully coordinate care to lower costs and improve the quality of care.
 Sec. 3606. Incentives to Implement Activities to Reduce Disparities. This section would ensure that qualified health plans offered through new American Health Benefit
Exchanges include programs to reduce health disparities as part of required quality improvement activities.
 Sec. 3607. National Diabetes Prevention Program. This section would direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish a national diabetes prevention program that targets individuals at high risk of developing diabetes. It authorizes federal grants to entities developing community-based diabetes prevention models and other training and outreach activities.
 Sec. 3608. Selection of Efficiency Measures. This section would ensure that measures of efficiency are included under new quality measure development activities supported by this Act.
 Sec. 3609. Regional Testing of Payment and Service Delivery Models Under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. This section would gives the new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI) established under this Act explicit authority to target the testing of new payment and delivery models to more regions.
 Sec. 3610. Additional Improvements Under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. This section gives CMI additional flexibility in selecting models to be tested and permits the Secretary to give preference to models that would align Medicare and Medicaid spending with other public sector or private sector payer quality improvement efforts.
 Sec. 3611. Improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting System. This section would modify the current Medicare Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) to permit physicians who report quality data through a qualifying Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program to be eligible for an incentive payment for years 2011-2014. The Secretary also is permitted, starting in 2014, to include MOC participation as a component of the PQRI composite measure.
 Sec. 3612. Improvement in Part D Medication Therapy Management (MTM Programs).This section would require Medicare Part D prescription drug plans (PDPs) to offer a minimum set of medication therapy management services to certain targeted beneficiaries. It also would require PDPs to routinely assess at-risk individuals who are not enrolled in MTM services and automatically enroll them (permitting beneficiaries to opt-out if they choose).
 Sec. 3613. Evaluation of Telehealth Under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. This section would permit CMI to evaluate, analyze and make recommendations about the effectiveness of telehealth behavioral health issues (such as post-traumatic stress disorder) and telestroke services in medically underserved areas and Indian Health Service facilities.
 Sec. 3614. Revisions to the Extension for the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program. This section would extend the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program for an additional five years, instead of one year as originally proposed by this Act. It would expand the number of hospitals eligible for the project from 15 to 30 and make 20 rural states eligible to participate, instead of the current 10. Another provision allows already participating hospitals to rebase Medicare reimbursements according to current health delivery costs.
Promoting Transparency and Competition
 Sec. 3621. Developing Methodology to Assess Health Plan Value. This section would require the Secretary to consult with relevant stakeholders to develop a methodology for measuring health plan value, which would include the cost, quality of care, efficiency, actuarial value of plans. The Secretary would submit a report to Congress concerning the proposed methodology within 18 months of enactment of this Act.
 Sec. 3622. Data Collection; Public Reporting. This section would modify the new data collection and reporting efforts created by this Act by requiring the Secretary to establish and implement an overall strategic framework for the public reporting of provider performance on reported quality measures.
 Sec. 3623. Modernizing Computer and Data Systems of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to Support Improvements in Care Delivery. This section would require the Secretary to develop a plan, within 9 months of enactment of this Act, to modernize the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) computer and data systems.
 Sec. 3624. Expansion of the Scope of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. This section would require the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) created under this Act to produce an annual report starting in 2014 that includes national and regional information on the cost, utilization, quality, and other features of health care paid for by private payers and Medicare. IMAB also would be required to take the findings of these annual reports into account when preparing proposals to improve Medicare. IMAB also would, starting in 2015 and at least every two years after, submit recommendations to Congress and others on how to slow the growth in national health expenditures.
 Sec. 3625. Additional Priority for the National Health Care Workforce Commission. This section would require the National Health Care Workforce Commission created under this Act to also make recommendations to remove the barriers that health providers encounter to beginning or maintaining professional practice in primary care.
Promoting Accountability and Responsibility
 Sec. 3631. Health Care Fraud Enforcement. This section increases federal sentencing guidelines for all federal health care offenses that involve a loss greater than $1,000,000. This section amends the definition of “health care fraud offense” to include health care crimes that are codified outside of Title 18. This section clarifies the definition of “willfully” to prevent defendants from escaping punishment for violation of a federal health care fraud offense by arguing that they were not aware of the specific criminal provision that they are accused of violating. This section also provides that obstruction of criminal investigations involving administrative subpoenas under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 is treated in the same manner as obstruction of criminal investigations involving grand jury subpoenas. Finally, this section permits the Department of Justice to issue subpoenas in investigations pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.
 Sec. 3632. Development of Standards for Health Care Financial and Administrative Transactions. This section would require the Secretary, beginning no later than January 1, 2012, and every three years thereafter, to convene stakeholders to identify opportunities to create uniform standards for financial and administrative health care transactions, not already named under HIPAA, that would improve the operation of the health system and decrease administrative costs. Initially, this would include areas such as health claim edits, provider enrollment, and audits. Once the panel identifies new health care transactions that should be made uniform, the Secretary can develop standards for them. Health plans will need to comply with these new standards and associated business rules or face a financial penalty. In addition, this section convenes health information technology stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition takes place for providers as they move from one coding software to the next.

Harry Reid on Health Care

2010-01-07T19:07:00.000-08:00

Dear Linda,

This evening at the UNLV campus, I addressed hundreds of Nevadans about our progress passing historic health insurance reform that will benefit Nevada's patients, seniors and small businesses.

I wanted to share my remarks with you.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

Remarks at the Judy Bayley Theatre, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Thursday, 5pm, January 7, 2010

After decades of waiting and years of suffering, in just a matter of weeks this health insurance reform bill will become law. We are closer than ever to making this dream a reality.

We've come this far and stand this close because of you. Don't let the political rhetoric and Washington photo-ops fool you - it's you who've made this possible.

Every day the people of Nevada have spoken to me in person, visited my office, written me letters, and called me on the phone - all to share their stories and help explain to America why doing nothing is not an option.

I've listened carefully to your stories - I've even shared many of them on the floor of the United States Senate - and I've thought about each and every one of them as we wrote this good bill.

Too many hardworking Nevadans don't need statistics to tell them that our state suffers more than almost any other from a broken health insurance system. And I'm here to tell you that when President Obama signs this bill into law, Nevada will benefit more than almost any other.

Nevada has the second highest rate of uninsured citizens in the nation. That often leads to bankruptcy and foreclosure, and as you know Nevada has the highest rate of foreclosures in the country. And in far too many cases, lack of health insurance leads to more sickness and even death - in fact, America is the only developed country in the world where dying for lack of health care is even possible.

That's what I mean when I say that doing nothing is not an option. And that's why I am proud of what this bill will do.

It will make health care affordable for half a million Nevadans who today have none, and lower premiums by as much as $1,600 for those who do.

It will stop greedy insurance companies from denying health care to the sick. That happens to thousands every day in Nevada and across the nation - but when this bill becomes law, that number will drop to zero.

It will ensure consumers like you have more choices, and ensure insurance companies face more competition.

For seniors, it will mean free annual check-ups. And it will close that loophole known as the "doughnut hole" so seniors can finally afford all of their prescription drugs - instead of having to decide which pills to split and which to skip.

This bill will also add years to the life of Medicare, which will add years to the life of our seniors. Let me be clear, if you're on Medicare, you won't see a single cut to the benefits you receive. In fact, our bill gives you more. I would never push a bill that would do anything less than strengthening this vital program.

It will make more Nevadans eligible for Medicaid, and I made sure it will do that in a way that protects our state's economy. It will give 24,000 small businesses in Nevada a tax credit to help them cover their employees and their families. And because more people will be able to go to the doctor, this bill will help bring more doctors to our state, and will support community health centers. As we do all this, we will slash our children's deficit in dramatic measure.

We may not completely cure this crisis today or tomorrow, but we must get started toward that end. That's what this bill does - it starts to trade a system that demands you pay more and get less for one in which you will pay less and get more.

You've no doubt heard a lot of myths and rumors about this bill. Some people say that we should solve the health care crisis by eliminating mandates and allowing insurance companies to get away with providing less care than they already are. Let me tell you, they are dead wrong.

I think it's too bad that some care more about politics or partisanship or polling than they do about the health of their neighbors. Because affording to live a healthy life isn't about politics, or partisanship, or polling.

It is about people.

It's about making sure no Nevadan has to choose between taking their mother to the doctor or sending their daughter to college.

It's about making sure no Nevadan has to hear a health insurance company tell them they are too risky to help.

It's about helping all Nevadans and all Americans - those fortunate enough to have health care, and those who do not.

It's about making the ability to afford a healthy life in America a right and not merely a privilege for the wealthy.

When health insurance reform becomes a reality - and we're closer than ever to that day: the uninsured will benefit - and so will the insured; seniors will benefit - and so will children; small business owners will benefit - and so will their employees; the healthy will benefit - and so will the sick.

And more than almost every other state in America, Nevada will benefit.

We're doing this because it is not a question of politics - it is a question of morality. It isn't about left and right - it's about right and wrong.

Health insurance reform is about saving lives, saving you money and saving Medicare. It's about human suffering. And given the chance to relieve this suffering, we must take it.

Stupak Update from Barbara Boxer

2009-12-23T21:12:00.000-08:00

12/23

Dear Linda,

Thank you so much for signing our petition, urging the Senate to defeat the Stupak Amendment and defend women's health.

Thanks to your support and the support of hundreds of thousands of other people across the country, we were able to defeat the Stupak Amendment in the Senate. As you know, this dangerous amendment would have prohibited women from using their own private funds to purchase health care policies covering abortion through the new insurance exchanges.

Fortunately, the Senate rejected the Stupak Amendment, and in order to move health care reform forward, agreed instead to an accounting procedure detailing how federal funds would be separated from private funds for plans that cover abortion. A firewall separating federal and private funds was already established in the underlying bill. This accounting procedure would be in place for everyone in the plan.

To craft a solid health care bill that could pass the Senate, it was crucial to resolve this vexing issue, and with your support, so far we have done it.

Over the coming days and weeks, I will continue to vigorously defend women's health and choice in the final health care reform bill that is sent to President Obama's desk. I hope you'll continue to speak out and stand with us in this fight.

With deepest thanks for your concern,

Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator

Senate Canendar 12/23/09-12/24/09

2009-12-23T13:45:00.001-08:00

12/24/09

Convenes: 6:45am The Senate will convene at 6:45am and will resume consideration of H.R.3590, Health Care Reform, with the time until 7am equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees.

At 7am, the Senate will proceed to a series of 2 roll call votes in relation to the following items:

- Passage of H.R.3590, Health Care Reform; and
- Passage of H.R.4314, an act to permit continued financing of government operations (60-vote threshold).

12/23/09

Convenes: 9:45am

At 9:45am, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R.3590, Health Care Reform, with the time until 10:00am equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. At 10:00am the Senate will proceed to alternating blocks of time until 2:00pm, with the Majority controlling the first hour. The time from 2:00pm and until 2:13pm will be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders, with the Majority Leader controlling the final half.

At 2:13pm, the Senate will proceed to a series of up to 5 roll call votes in relation to the Health Care Reform bill, including votes in relation to points of order, adoption of the Reid Substitute amendment, and cloture on the underlying bill, HR3590. Under an agreement reached on Tuesday, if cloture is invoked, all post-cloture debate will expire at 8:00am Thursday, December 24.

Votes:
389: Ensign Constitutional Point of Order (violation of enumerated powers in Article I and the 5th Amendment) (majority vote);
Not Well Taken: 39-60

390: Baucus Motion to Waive Budget Act (Corker point of order with respect to unfunded mandates) (majority vote);
Waived: 55-44

391: Baucus Motion to Table Cornyn Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair with respect to Rule 44 ((disclosure of congressionally directed spending)) on the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin substitute amendment ((majority vote);
Tabled: 57-42

392: Hutchison Constitutional Point of Order that Reid amendment #2786: (Tenth Amendment);
Not Well Taken: 39-60

393: Baucus Motion to Table DeMint Motion to suspend the Rules for the purpose of proposing and considering DeMint amendment #3297: (create point order);
Tabled: 53-46

394: Adoption of the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin substitute amendment (Majority vote);
Agreed To: 60-39

395: Cloture on HR3590, as amended (60 vote threshold);
Invoked: 60-39

There will be no further roll call votes.

Unanimous Consent:
Passed H.R.730, Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act.

Passed H.R.3819, an act to extend the commercial space transportation liability regime.

Discharged EPW from further consideration of Timothy McGee to be an Assistance Secretary of Commerce, and referred to Commerce Committee.

Senate Calendar 12/22/09 -12/24/09

2009-12-22T13:27:00.000-08:00

12/24
Votes:
8am Roll Call Votes:- Passage of HR3590, as amended
- Passage of HR4314, government operations (60 vote threshold)

12/23
Convenes: 9:45am At 9:45am, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R.3590, Health Care Reform, with the time until 10:00am equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. At 10:00am the Senate will proceed to alternating blocks of time until 2:00pm, with the Majority controlling the first hour. The time from 2:00pm and until 2:13pm will be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders, with the Majority Leader controlling the final half. At 2:13pm, the Senate will proceed to a series of up to 5 roll call votes in relation to the Health Care Reform bill, including votes in relation to points of order, adoption of the Reid Substitute amendment, and cloture on the underlying bill, HR3590. Under an agreement reached on Tuesday, if cloture is invoked, all post-cloture debate will expire at 8:00am Thursday, December 24.

12/22
Convenes: 7:00am

At 7:00am, the Senate will resume consideration of HR3590, Health Care Reform, with the time until 7:18am equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees.

At approximately 7:20am, the Senate will proceed to a series of roll call votes with respect to H.R.3590, Health Care Reform. The votes would be in relation to the following items:

- Reid Motion to table Reid amendment #3278
- Adoption of Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment #3276
- Motion to Invoke Cloture on Reid Substitute amendment #2786

If cloture is invoked, the Majority Leader will be recognized to offer amendments. Senators may need to remain on the floor in order to obtain a sufficient second when Senator Reid offers amendments to the bill.

The time until 9:30am will then be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. The time from 9:30am and until 5:30pm will be controlled in 1 hour blocks of time with the Republicans controlling the first hour.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:30pm.

All time during any recess period or adjournment will count post-cloture until 5:30pm.

The Senate has entered into the following agreement:

If cloture is invoked on HR3590 tomorrow, all post-cloture debate time will be considered expired at 8:00am Thursday, December 24 and the Senate will proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Please note, that this agreement is in addition to the votes with respect to points of order, adoption of the Reid Substitute amendment, and cloture on the underlying bill. Those votes are expected to begin at approximately 3:20pm tomorrow, Wednesday, December 23.

Upon disposition of HR3590, the Senate will proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R.4314, an act to permit continued financing of government operations, with no amendments in order. The Senate will then proceed to vote on passage of the bill. Passage of HR4314 will require 60-affirmative votes.

Therefore, there will be 2 votes at 8am Thursday, December 24:
- Passage of HR3590, as amended
- Passage of HR4314, government operations (60 vote threshold)

On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader, following consultation with the Republican Leader, the Finance Committee will be discharged of H.J.Res. 45, Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt, and the Senate will proceed to the measure. Senator Reid or his designee will be recognized to offer a substitute amendment. The following are the only amendments in order to the joint resolution:

- Thune-TARP
- Murkowski-Endangerment EPA regs
- Coburn-Rescission package
- Sessions-spending caps
- McConnell-relevent to any on list
- Reid-relevant to any on list
- Reid-paygo
- Baucus-3 relevant to any on list
- Conrad-Gregg-fiscal task force

Each of the listed amendments will be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold. Upon disposition of all amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, will be agreed to; the joint resolution, as amended, will be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage, with passage subject to a 60-vote threshold.

Further, on Wednesday, January 21, 2010, after a period of morning business, the Senate will proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination of Beverly Martin to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit. There will be 60 minutes of debate with respect to the nomination with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees. Upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate will proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination.

Votes:
386: Reid Motion to Table Reid amendment #3278: ;
Tabled: 60-39

387: Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment #3276: ;
Agreed To: 60-39

388: Motion to Invoke Cloture on Reid Substitute amendment #2786: ;
Invoked: 60-39

What Happen on Monday 12/21

2009-12-20T23:47:00.000-08:00

Convenes: 12:01am

Resume consideration of H.R.3590, Health Care Reform.

H.R.3590, HEALTH CARE REFORM

ALEXANDER- some may be wondering why on earth the Senate is convening at midnight in the middle of a snow storm. The Majority Leader sets the schedule. He plopped down a 400 page amendment yesterday and now he wants us to vote on it. This is the mother of all unfunded mandates. The Majority Leader insists that we vote on it in the middle of the night. It was written in secret. When they are asked to explain what’s in it, they are afraid that they will lose support. Eight Democratic senators asked that any legislation be made available for 72 hours before we vote on it. This bill was given to us yesterday. It is 400 pages. We shouldn’t even think to vote on it until at least Tuesday. We should have an opportunity to amend it. What’s the rush? I think the rush is that they don’t want to explain the bill. Democrats don’t want the American people to know about the $500 billion in taxes that will go into effect next year. All those new taxes on medical devices will be passed on to the consumers. This bill will increase the cost of health care. David Brooks said that according to chief actuary of Medicare this bill will cause national health care costs to increase faster. Then it’s going to be hard to explain to the 9 million people who will lose their insurance under this bill. This bill is like giving you a ticket for the bus when the bus only runs half the time. They don’t want to explain why they changed the abortion agreement. They don’t want to explain the CLASS Act. This is a Ponzi scheme worthy of Bernie Madoff. It’s obvious why the majority cooked up this amendment, brought it forward in the middle of a snow storm. They don’t want people to know what’s in it.

MCCAIN-this all began in the presidential campaign. Health care was a big issue. Obama said concerning health care reform “I’m going to have negotiations televised on CSPAN so that people know who are making arguments on behalf of drug companies. There have never been true bipartisan negotiations. AMA signed up because they were promised the doctor’s fix. We should have set up a tent and put up Persian rugs; that’s how this has gone here. It’s the Louisiana Purchase, Florida Flim-Flam. Reid today said that a number of states are treated differently. That’s the nature of compromise. Really? I see Durbin here. I said what’s in the bill? He said, I don’t know. I’m in the dark too. This does not represent 60% of the American people. We will not give up after this vote, believe me. For the first time is history there will be major reform on a party line basis. Today I thought about when I joined the Naval Academy. They taught us about a battle with an American ship and a British ship. The ship was surrounded. John Paul Jones said I have not begun to fight. We’re going to carry this message that we will not commit generational theft. We won’t give them unfair policy where deals are made in back rooms. We have just begun to fight.

HARKIN- all we’ve heard is attack, attack, attack, no, no, no. McCain said this is not a bipartisan bill. As I see it, the Republicans have no bill of their own. Our bill has 60 people. They do have the Coburn-Burr bill. It has 7 supporters. They have no comprehensive bill like we have. Who do we deal with? Just McCain? Alexander? Coburn? I’m sorry the Republicans are all split up. So, they’ve come together to say no. We extended a hand. If we wanted to follow republicans, we would have rammed it through like the Republican tax cut through reconciliation. HELP has a mark up that lasted 13 days. We accepted 151 Republican amendments. Baucus didn’t just go the extra mile, he went the extra 10 miles. Republicans have nothing they can agree on—60, a super majority. Comprehensive reform has eluded us for decades. They focus on fear. The American people don’t want fear; they want hope. They want to have the peace of mind that if they lose their job they will have insurance. That they are just one illness away from bankruptcy. We are the only country in the world that allows people to go bankrupt because of medical bills. This bill ends all that. The American people want us to move forward. We’re going to do 3 big things: 1) cover 94% with insurance, 2) crack down on abuses of insurance companies, talks about insurance reforms, and 3) this bill will lower your premiums and you will be able to keep your insurance if you like it. Ted Kennedy fought all his life for health care. He said it ought to be a right, not a privilege. He said that almost 50 years ago. He thought it as a moral imperative. We are called upon to right a great injustice. We are closer than we’ve ever been to making Ted’s dream a reality. The other side says fear; we say hope. They say no, we say yes.

CORNYN- parliamentary inquiry. Earlier today, Grassley made a Rule 44 parliamentary inquiry. The question had to do whether the statement under Rule 44 related to the manager’s amendment had been submitted?

CHAIR-the Chair is not aware if it has been submitted.

DODD- This is the vote to make health care a right. If you believe it is a privilege, you don’t have to vote for this. We believe health care is a fundamental right. This effort has gone on for decades. John Chaffee worked tirelessly on reform. Good people have tried to come up with this issue. It is with sadness that this will be a partisan vote. Tonight, this is our answer. The 60 of us will vote to move forward. No one was a bigger champion that Ted Kennedy. He knew it was going to take an incremental approach. If he could have written it alone he would have written it differently. I think history will judge us well for taking on this challenge again.

MCCONNELL-the bill we are voting on tonight will impact everyone in America. Make no mistake, if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, we wouldn’t be voting in the dead of night. $1 million for unnamed health care facility in the US. No one will claim it. 1 state in 50 will not have to pay for Medicaid expansion, but the rest of the states will have to pick up the tab. No one imagined this is how this would end—a couple of cheap deals and a vote in the dead of the night. How did this happen? The final product is a mess and so is the process that brought us to vote on a bill that the majority of the American people oppose. Any challenge of this size and scope has been done on a bipartisan basis. Social Security Act was approved by all but 6 members. ADA was approved with only 8 senators voting no. Americans believe that on an issue this important, one party should not be able to impose their will. This bill is not about reform, it’s about “making history”. In the end, it’s not about differences between 2 parties, it’s about a $2.3 trillion 2,000 page bill that doesn’t reform health care. Obama said that his plan would bring down the costs of premiums, will not increase the deficit now or in future, and no family making under $250,000 wouldn’t see their taxes increased. We will have an open and honest debate, bringing all parties together negotiating on CSPAN. That was then. This is now. The Reid plan raises health care costs. It raises premiums. It raises taxes on 10s of millions of families. It cuts Medicare by $.5 trillion. For the first time in history, the bill uses taxpayer dollars for abortion. Everything the President set out to do changed. 12 months and $2.3 trillion later, lawmakers are poised to vote on a bill that doesn’t bend the cost curve. The impact of this vote will long outlast this one frantic, snowy weekend. This legislation will reshape this nation. Americans don’t want it. They don’t like lawmakers messing with their health care. They won’t even give us 72 hours to examine the details. When we woke up yesterday morning we hadn’t seen the details of the bill we’re being asked to vote on tonight. Can all these Americans be wrong? Americans are asking democrats to put party loyalty first. It’s not too late. All it takes is one, just one. One can stop it or everyone will own it.

REID- all over this country, people are dying too soon. The medical records will show that they died of complications, but the truth is that they died because they lacked the necessary insurance. Every 10 minutes another American dies due to lack of health insurance. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in America. This bill protects patients and consumers and greatly reduces our debt. This makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to children because of a preexisting condition. This bill closes the donut hole. Contrary to what McConnell said, premiums are reduced. This bill will lower the deficit. What McConnell is saying is without basis or fact. It cuts the deficit more sharply than any other legislation. McConnell said this will reshape our nation. That’s why we’re doing this. With this vote we will reject the idea that good health depends on wealth. It confirms that health care is a fundamental right. This is not about partisanship or procedure. We all know that we are here at this hour because of the Republicans. for weeks we’ve heard opponents criticize the length of this bill. I see the people behind the bill. Tells story about Lisa—we want to be able to go to a doctor. This bill will make it illegal to use preexisting conditions as an excuse to take our money and deny coverage. I will vote for this bill because I believe Caleb deserves a new pair of legs. Mike Tracy’s son is diabetic. He can’t afford to treat his diabetes. Now it’s turned into Addison’s disease, which they also can’t afford.

TODAY’S ROLL CALL VOTES

385: Cloture vote on Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment #3276;
Inovked: 60-40

SCHEDULE FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2009

The Senate stands in recess until 12:00 o’clock Monday, December 21. At 12:00 noon, the Senate will resume consideration of HR3590, Health Care Reform, and will resume post-cloture debate on the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment #3276, with the time until 12:30pm equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. Beginning at 12:30pm and until 6:30pm there will be one hour alternating blocks of time, with the Democrats controlling the first block. All post cloture time will continue to run during any recess, adjournment or period of morning business until 6:30pm Monday.

If all post-cloture time is used, the vote on adoption of the amendment would occur at approximately 7:20am Tuesday, December 22. Immediately upon adoption of the amendment, the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Substitute amendment #2786.

Votes:
385: Cloture vote on Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment #3276: ;
Inovked: 60-40

This was posted on http://democrats.senate.gov/calendar/2009-12.html

Letter from Barbara Boxer

2009-12-20T13:17:00.001-08:00

Dear Linda,

It's a cold, snowy Sunday morning here in Washington D.C., and I wanted to write you about this weekend's breakthrough on health care reform.

On Friday, I joined a 7-hour marathon negotiating session to hammer out the final details of the reform bill. By the end of the night, we had finally reached a solid compromise to insure more Americans, lower costs, and hold insurance companies accountable to deliver for the premiums we pay -- all while protecting women's health and right to choose.

We still have several more days of hard work ahead to get it passed through the Senate -- but if we can fix America's broken health care system by working around the clock through the holidays, that's a step that I'm more than willing to take.

With the rest of the year consumed by the health care debate, that's going to leave me very little time for campaigning -- so I'm asking for your support to fill the gap and help us reach our fundraising goals before the December 31 deadline.

Can I count on you?

Please contribute today -- and help us reach our ambitious $250,000 grassroots fundraising goal before the year-end December 31 deadline!

I'm committed to staying as long as it takes and doing everything I can to get health care reform passed through the Senate this year, because hard-working American families deserve it.

Unfortunately, right-wing senators are doing everything in their power to derail reform and bring the Senate to a grinding halt. Their obstructionist tactics mean that we'll be working day and night right up through Christmas Eve.

There are so many good things in this bill, even though I surely wanted it to be better. But, at the end of the day, this is still a very good bill -- and the most significant reform of America's broken health care system since Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Among other things, the bill would:

Extend health insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans, including 14 million lower-income, working people through Medicaid
Prohibit insurance company discrimination based on gender or pre-existing condition -- and make sure you can't lose your insurance when you get sick
End the upward, unsustainable increases in insurance premiums
Increase funding for community health centers in 10,000 communities across the country, enhancing primary care for more than 25 million people who have traditionally been uninsured or underinsured
Close the prescription drug "doughnut hole" for seniors
Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, not executive pay or profits
Cut the federal deficit by $132 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office

We can't let this opportunity pass us by. That's why I'm going to keep fighting for the very best health care reform bill we can get -- while defending women's reproductive health -- and then work as hard as I can to get it passed and signed into law.

Now, while I'm back in Washington DC, I hope you'll help our campaign keep up the momentum before December 31 -- so we can show the press, pundits, and our right-wing opponents the strength of our grassroots support at this important year-end deadline.

Please contribute today -- and help us reach our ambitious $250,000 grassroots fundraising goal before the year-end December 31 deadline!

We're so close to passing significant health care reform.

As we approach this crucial vote, I think about all of the Congresses and all of the presidents who tried to ensure that no more American families would ever have to know the heartbreak of bankruptcy due to a devastating illness. Now we can finally do the right thing.

Thanks so much for your help and support, every step of the way.

In Friendship,

Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator

P.S. The December 31 fundraising deadline is just 11 days away -- and we still need your help to reach our ambitious $250,000 grassroots fundraising goal. Please help us get there: Contribute now!

Obamas' Accomplishments

2009-12-03T16:14:00.000-08:00

Obamas' Accomplishments

Obama has made quite a few accomplishments, though not enough for an A. If the healthcare bill is passed, Obama said his grade should tip over into an A-minus.

equal pay for women
hate crimes against gays
stabilizing the economy
withdrawing troops from Iraq
settling on the “best possible plan” in Afghanistan
improving America’s image around the world
finding international consensus on disabling nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea.

B+ because Healthcare refom has not been accomplished yet.

I added:

Appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
tapped at least 48 other Hispanics to positions senior enough to require Senate confirmation

Featured Legislation

Signed on October 30, 2009

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

Signed on October 28, 2009

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

Signed on October 22, 2009

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Signed on August 06, 2009

Cash For Clunkers Extension

Signed on June 22, 2009

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

Signed on May 22, 2009

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009

Signed on May 22, 2009

Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act

Signed on May 20, 2009

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act

Signed on May 20, 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Signed on March 30, 2009

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Signed on March 20, 2009

Small Business Act Temporary Extension

Signed on February 17, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Signed on February 11, 2009

DTV Delay Act

Signed on February 04, 2009

Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act

Signed on January 29, 2009

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Pictures painted by my sister

2009-12-03T16:11:00.001-08:00

Artist: Connie Ketchum

2009-12-01T11:54:00.000-08:00

Having back surgery is so much fun but 4 in 5 years along with 4 hip surgeries has basically turned me into a hermit.

In 1985 when we moved to CA I never thought I would spend so little time here but, after my divorce in 1990 I went on the road traveling almost fulltime for my job. I have lived in so many places I can't remember them all. More motels, hotels and Residence Inns than anyone should ever endure. Short stays, a day or two or long stays nine week or more. My time in CA consisted of two weeks in the summer (if we didn't go to IRELAND) and two weeks at Christmas, hardly enough time to make friends or even an acquaintance or two.

My longest assignment was the most interesting and challenging. Moving every nine weeks was great, if you liked where you were you had some time to do some sightseeing, if not you would soon be gone. I found that every place I stayed had something worth seeing.

Then one day in CO I had a bad fall. Ruptured a disk in my back but didn't know it right away. Worked on until the pain as so bad that test were done and diagnosis made. One surgery, back to work and after the second one too. Number three didn't go well and work, either traveling or at home was now out of the question.

In the meantime, I had a hip replaced. Several months later while tying my shoes my old hip replacement dislocated and this stared a chain reaction of surgeries. First correction failed in the first few days. Found out on follow up visit. Second surgery was scheduled with same outcome. Waited a few months and had third surgery, newly designed part and two months in bed to make sure the bone had healed and it seems to be OK.

So I opened my mouth on New Years' eve and said, "no surgeries in 2009." Should have kept it shut. After two months of bed rest hours of therapy for my hip my back pain returned and got to the point that I couldn't function. So, back to the doctor and then another. Tried more therapy, a brace and more pills. So off to surgery I went. Now two months later things are coming along. Slow. I had in home therapy and now that it is completed I do my own exercises. I can walk a bit, sit for 20 minutes at a time and stand for five to ten minutes. The rest of the day is spent on my back. Yesterday I actually browned the meat and started the spaghetti sauce.

I am staying with my younger daughter and her family. She is a real Christmas fan and has decorated her house with her snowman collection. She has three trees. One for the family and one for each of her boys, twelve and twenty-one who each have a collection of ornaments given to them since they were born. She decoratedthe family tree last night (I directed) and it looks beautiful. The boys will do their own soon.

Soon I will be going home. My daughter, her husband and their 2 yr old son have had the house to themselves. for quite awhile. It will be fun reading, singing and watching Sean play again. I have missed them all very much. It will be nice to try and help with the cooking again which use to be a passion of mine.

I will also be good to see my neighbors. I do have a few that stop by. We have only lived in our house for four years. I also need to get out and get involved in something to make some new friends. There is a senior center close by and plan to try there first.

In the meantime I spend a lot of time on twitter, helping with the fight to get Health Reform passed. I have found a place that allows me to speak my mind and communicate with people who feel the same way I do about this any several other major issues facing us today.

Time is what I have

A History Lesson

Voting Rights HistoryTwo Centuries of Struggle

Preface

Introduction

Voting Rights Milestones

Voter Suppression

John Nichols: Voter ID rule is a poll tax

Voter suppression: September 2011

Ryan J. Reilly | September 8, 2011

Ryan J. Reilly | September 8, 2011

Eric Kleefeld | September 7, 2011

Americans For Prosperity Accused Of Voter Suppression In Wisconsin Recall Elections

Author Claims People Who “Burden Society” Should Not Get To Vote

"H.B. 194, the Voter Suppression Bill, invalidates a vote where a voter properly marks the ballot in support of a particular candidate, but also writes in the name of that same candidate."

Rep. Marcia Fudge says state-approved voter legislation will unfairly invalidate some ballots

The GOP War on Voting

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year

A primer on GOP voter suppression: voter caging

The GOP War on Voting

Voter ID law challenged

12:08 PM, August 26, 2011 |

Democratic state lawmakers ask U.S. Justice Department to be aware of Cuyahoga County absentee ballot dispute

August 31, 2011

Voters to get ID lessons

Educational efforts to focus on ballot law

Rick Scott is sued for the fifth time in almost six months, this time for signing a law that civil libertarians say violates the Voting Rights Act.

By Marc Caputo

Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

GOP Official Tries to Suppress Student Voters—Despite No Evidence of Fraud

Voter suppression bills MIRACULOUSLY appear in 34 states, tea party DEMOCRACY?

Maine GOP Chair: Students Should Pay Taxes If They Want To Vote

Maine GOP Chair: Students Who Vote And Pay Out-Of-State Tuition Are Committing Voter Fraud

Columnist: Registering Poor To Vote 'Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals'

Achievements of Liberalism in the U.S.

Achievements of Liberalism in the U.S.

Obama's Accomplishements

EPA Proposal Cuts Pollution from Power Plants in 31 States and D.C. / Rule would reduce smog- and soot-forming emissions contributing to unhealthy air

Health care fix to help seniors

Some thoughts on NOT getting involved.

Write to the Senators on Twitter TODAY

Senator Mark Warner Value and Innovation Amendment Package

Harry Reid on Health Care

Stupak Update from Barbara Boxer

Senate Canendar 12/23/09-12/24/09

Senate Calendar 12/22/09 -12/24/09

What Happen on Monday 12/21

Letter from Barbara Boxer

Obamas' Accomplishments

Featured Legislation

Signed on April 21, 2009

Pictures painted by my sister

Voting Rights History
Two Centuries of Struggle