Blog
By Molly Alarcon – 01/26/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
As the US Senate convenes a field hearing on new suppressive voting laws in Florida tomorrow, the Brennan Center’s Jonathan Brater writes that it’s time for lawmakers to “come together to improve voter registration to make it more accurate, secure and voter-friendly” (Tampa Bay Times).
Brennan Center attorney Michael Price is quoted in a Technology Review article on the Fourth Amendment implications of new technology that would allow police officers to detect concealed weapons on individuals from as far as 75 feet away.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling in US v. Jones has generally been well-received, there is some concern that the court left too many questions unanswered, potentially leaving the door open for infringements upon Fourth Amendment rights. Read editorials by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Washington Times.
The Lexington Herald-Leader editorial board calls upon Kentucky lawmakers to approve a constitutional amendment restoring voting rights to individuals with criminal convictions. Kentucky is one of only four states that permanently disenfranchise individuals with criminal convictions.
Representative Chris Van Hollen will introduce a bill to require better disclosure and transparency in campaign spending.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By John Travis – 01/25/12
Crossposted at ReformNY.
In a joint op-ed in today’s Times-Union, former New York State Congressmen Sherwood Boehlert and Scott Murphy voiced their support for Governor Cuomo’s plan to enact a system of public financing of elections, an issue he gave prominence in his State of the State address.
Speaking from their experiences as former members of Congress representing both major political parties, Boehlert and Murphy acknowledge the “corrosive role that private money plays in political campaigns and the legislative process,” both in Washington and Albany. The increased cost of running for office in New York means that candidates have to spend more and more time courting special interests to raise money for their campaigns. This has only contributed to Albany’s culture of dependence on big money.
The solution for our state: adopt a system of voluntary public financing of elections with matching funds like we have in New York City. If small donor contributions are matched on a 4-to-1 ratio, politicians would be able to spend less time raising money from lobbyists and special interests, and more time focusing on serving the interests of their constituents.
A recent Siena poll indicates that public financing of elections has broad support among both Republicans and Democrats in New York. Boehlert and Murphy have now added to the growing — and bipartisan — chorus of calls for meaningful campaign finance reform in Albany.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, NY Reform
By Mark Ladov – 01/25/12
In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama announced a potentially important new partnership between the federal prosecutors and state attorneys general who are investigating our nation’s mortgage crisis. Critically, the investigation will be chaired by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has spoken out on the need to hold banks accountable for predatory and risky practices, and who has used his office to help provide struggling homeowners with much-needed foreclosure prevention counseling and legal services. We applaud this move and will be watching closely to see that it succeeds in its promise of helping families and communities around the nation.
As the President explained: “I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”
This announcement offers hope that the long-delayed (and much-criticized) 50-state settlement talks over “robo-signing” by foreclosing lenders will be only a first step. The reported rumors surrounding the talks have suggested that a handful of major lenders (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and Ally Financial) would be required to contribute up to $8 billion for foreclosure prevention and refinancing efforts. This is in addition to setting aside $17 billion for principal reductions for underwater mortgages.
In exchange, the banks would receive waivers of liability for past unlawful practices. The critical question is how broad these liability waivers will be. If the banks are let off the hook, not just for “robo-signing,” but also for abusive and misleading practices in their loan origination and securitization, then there will be little leverage left to ensure future settlements that are better matched to the enormity of the current crisis. Attorney General Schneiderman has been a key critic of any deal that would let lenders off the hook, and his participation in this new effort is a positive sign.
President Obama also illustrated a keen awareness of the roots of this problem. As he said: “Let’s remember how we got here…In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.”
More than three years later, we are only halfway through our nation’s foreclosure crisis — but we have yet to see accountability for this misconduct. Instead, lenders have dragged their feet on helping to get borrowers back on track with their payments — despite the fact that foreclosure prevention will benefit families, communities, and the lenders themselves by helping the housing market to recover.
We need a serious investigation into the origins of this crisis. And we need federal and state authorities to leverage those investigations, and to press lenders to finally embrace the kind of large-scale modifications of failing and at-risk mortgages that must take place to dig us out of our economic malaise. We hope this federal/state initiative will help provide the leadership needed to steer us out of this crisis once and for all.
Tags: Justice, Civil Justice, Civil Legal Aid
By Molly Alarcon – 01/25/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
“Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that New York police used ‘terrible judgment’ in showing officers a film about Muslims that Islamic groups have complained is inflammatory,” the AP reports. The Brennan Center helped to unearth documents revealing that the NYPD showed the anti-Muslim film to nearly 1,500 officers.
A group of citizens is suing to block Missouri’s redistricting plans on the grounds that the districts aren’t equal in size, violating “one-person, one-vote” constitutional requirements.
ProPublica’s “Pac Track” allows users to see where outside money is heading during this 2012 election cycle.
Some East Haven, Connecticut police officers have been accused of racial profiling (NBC).
The San Francisco Police Department is coming under scrutiny for its involvement with an FBI anti-terrorism unit, The San Francisco Examiner reports.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Molly Alarcon – 01/24/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
Documents uncovered by the Brennan Center show that 1,500 NYPD officers saw what The New York Times calls a “dark film on US Muslims.” The NYPD initially said the film was only shown a "couple of times."
Brennan Center Executive Director (and former Clinton speechwriter) Michael Waldman spoke with The Root about President Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight.
Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program is skeptical that a pledge by Sen. Scott Brown and his opponent Elizabeth Warren intended to limit third party spending will work (International Business Times).
The Milford Daily News editorial board encourages Massachusetts lawmakers to pass a package of sentencing reforms to address prison overcrowding and the 30% increase in Department of Corrections spending over the past decade through reductions in harsh mandatory minimum sentences and through greater post-release supervision.
Only 17% of Americans, according to a new poll by the Center for American Progress, agree that corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited money on elections.
Two primaries in Texas? (SCOTUS blog)
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Molly Alarcon – 01/23/12
What We're Reading: a daily round-up of quick hits, clips, and opinion pieces touching on key issues of democracy, justice, liberty and national security.
The Supreme Court ruled today in US v. Jones that GPS tracking constitutes a search, and therefore requires a warrant from law enforcement (Politico).
The Brennan Center’s Mimi Marziani, two years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, says it’s a matter of how, not when, the case will no longer be the law of the land given steadily increasing backlash.
Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos decries voter suppression laws passed in states around the country, citing the Brennan Center’s research on the impact of these voting law changes.
William Yeomans, a former aide to late Senator Ted Kennedy, says South Carolina’s racially discriminatory voter ID law only exacerbates the need for the Voting Rights Act, making plain the case for its continued importance (Politico).
As legal aid programs around the country struggle to meet demand, a group of Massachusetts lawyers, including state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ralph Gants, is calling for increased state funding to civil legal aid programs, the AP reports.
“Recent evidence shows that the collaboration between the NYPD and CIA, which turned the NYPD into one of the most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies, may not have been by the book.” – International Business Times
Meet the super super PAC.
Tags: What We're Reading Today
By Mark Ladov & Neeta Pal – 01/20/12
Governor Cuomo got it exactly right in his State of the State address:
The financial crisis has taken a terrible toll on our state’s homeowners, forcing many out of their homes and putting many others at risk of foreclosure. Banks are unable or unwilling to renegotiate loans, and many of their foreclosure practices were questionable.
However, Governor Cuomo’s budget proposal failed to include a much-needed restoration of the $25 million appropriation for the Foreclosure Prevention Services Program that last year’s budget eliminated. This statewide network of housing counselors and legal aid lawyers has saved New York money by keeping families in their homes, and deserves the Governor’s support.
Foreclosures are devastating families and neighborhoods, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color. The foreclosure crisis is also dragging down our housing market. Financial analysts say that a strong response to help struggling homeowners is needed to lift our state and nation out of the current financial downturn. As Governor Cuomo declared, “We need to resolve this crisis so we can move on.”
Governor Cuomo’s budget proposal recognized that foreclosures are one of the critical issues facing New York State. Notably, he proposed the creation of a Foreclosure Relief Unit in the Department of Financial Services. This unit will focus on educating homeowners on the foreclosure process and its various rules and regulations, and will hopefully play an important role in mobilizing New Yorkers.
In addition, the governor should be applauded for proposing a judiciary budget that includes $25 million for civil legal services, a boost in state funding that will help ensure that general legal services are not further eroded due to sinking IOLTA funds and recent cuts to the federal Legal Services Corporation. Yet this $25 million is separate from what New York has been providing — and what is needed — to support the Foreclosure Prevention Services Program, which does not receive funding from the state’s judiciary budget, and which funds vital housing counseling in addition to legal services.
We have to tackle our state’s foreclosure problem on multiple fronts — by educating homeowners, but also by providing them with ongoing counseling and legal support. Since 2009, the Foreclosure Prevention Services Program has assisted more than 80,000 homeowners. The state’s $50 million investment in this program has saved New Yorkers billions of dollars by preventing families from slipping into homelessness, shoring up property values in struggling communities, and preserving our state's property tax base. This is money well spent.
Restoring the program’s funding is absolutely necessary to ensure homeowners have a voice in the foreclosure process — a judicial proceeding that is full of legal complexities. We urge Governor Cuomo and the state legislature to heed advocates’ call to restore the $25 million dedicated to housing counseling and legal services for New Yorkers at risk of foreclosure. As the Brennan Center has stated, this is a much-needed investment that will pay off for all of us.
Tags: Justice, Civil Justice, Civil Legal Aid
By Nic Riley & Molly Alarcon – 01/20/12
This Monday, as the Republican presidential field convened for a debate before the South Carolina primary, the candidates sparred over a variety of familiar debate topics, each one touting his past political achievements, electability, and virtuous campaign tactics. But, amid these familiar talking points, the candidates also broached a topic that had yet to surface in previous debates: namely, the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
On the day named in Dr. King’s honor, the GOP candidates struggled to reconcile some of their controversial stances on voting rights policy with Dr. King’s celebrated struggle to expand the franchise. Former Sen. Rick Santorum invoked Dr. King’s memory by challenging the veracity of an attack ad run by a pro-Romney Super PAC, which falsely painted Santorum as supporting voting rights for incarcerated prisoners. Santorum used the opportunity to clarify that while he did support legislation, named in honor of Dr. King, to restore voting rights to people who completed their sentences, he never advocated letting current prisoners vote. Former Gov. Mitt Romney responded by taking a harder line, arguing that a person who has committed a violent crime should never be allowed to vote, regardless of how long ago the crime was committed and irrespective of whether criminal justice officials in the state have deemed the individual fit to re-enter society. This position — permanent disenfranchisement — is so extreme that only a handful of states have actually adopted the policy.
Santorum also highlighted another problem with Romney’s position: “This is Martin Luther King Day. This is a huge deal in the African-American community, because we have very high rates of incarceration — disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes — in the African-American community.”
Santorum is right to highlight the link between the mass incarceration of African Americans and the racial disparities in voting that criminal disenfranchisement laws cause. But disenfranchising people with criminal convictions is more than just a “huge deal” for the African-American community — it is an issue of fairness for all our communities. More than 4 million Americans who currently live, work, and pay taxes in our communities are disenfranchised by state laws that bar individuals with criminal convictions from voting even after they’ve been released from prison. Dr. King’s struggle for equal access to the ballot box cannot be reconciled with state policies like these that disenfranchise free citizens — something Coretta Scott King noted shortly before her death.
Dr. King’s legacy surfaced again in Monday’s debate when Texas Gov. Rick Perry, responded harshly to a question about the enduring legacy of the Voting Rights Act. Moderator Juan Williams asked Mr. Perry, “Are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the voting laws of states where minorities were once denied the right to vote?”
Rather than acknowledging the evidence of continuing racial discrimination in voting — evidence that led to the bipartisan, nearly unanimous reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 — Perry instead replied that Texas was “under assault by the federal government” and that “South Carolina is at war with this federal government,” referring to the Justice Department’s recent objections to voting changes in those states under the Voting Rights Act. Perry’s response to Williams’ question represents a very different view of the VRA than that of two of our recent presidents from Texas and of Dr. King himself. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the original VRA in Dr. King’s presence and, in 2006, President George W. Bush reauthorized the law, which was re-named in honor of Dr. King’s wife. It’s ironic that Texas’s latest presidential candidate would describe this seminal piece of civil rights legislation in such militaristic terms on the same day that the nation remembers a man who famously helped bring the law into being through nonviolent activism.
Shortly after the Civil War, with the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, our country made a pledge that no state would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race when it comes to voting. A century later, our national government reaffirmed that pledge by enacting the Voting Rights Act. There should be little doubt that Dr. King would expect the federal government, as he did during his time, to ensure that states cannot backslide on the promises this country has made to prohibit racial discrimination in voting, or to provide equal opportunity for all its citizens, including those who have paid their debts to society.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter ID
Page 3 of 101 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Permalink