On July 31st, Senator Dick Durbin and Representatives
Jan Schakowsky and Steven LaTourette and introduced the Student Voter Act
in both chambers of Congress, moving America one step closer to a system that
welcomes eligible young voters into our democratic process.
Young people in general, and students in particular, have
traditionally registered and voted at far lower rates than other citizens. The good news, as CIRCLE and Rock the Vote
report, is that youth voter turnout has steadily increased over the last four election cycles and was more than 100% higher in the 2008 primaries than in previous primary
elections. The bad news, as an upcoming
report by the Brennan
Center notes, is that
there are still significant barriers to student voting, including misleading information about requirements for voter
registration and residency laws that do not accurately reflect the mobility of
young adults in modern society.
For an Administration that has spilled gallons of ink in efforts to justify its extreme pro-Executive views, the Bush White House sure has fared poorly in court.
In the last five years, the Supreme Court alone has rejected as contrary to law the Executive's position on the scope of jurisdiction of the federal courts (it does, in fact, reach to Guantanamo Bay); the rights possessed by citizen and non-citizen detainees (they are both, in fact, entitled to habeas corpus); and the President's authority to unilaterally try and punish so-called "enemy combatants" (military commissions must, in fact, be sanctioned by an act of Congress). And if the Executive had not so aggressively used the state secrets privilege to keep courts from ruling on its warrantless surveillance program, "enhanced interrogation" tactics, and extraordinary rendition, who knows how many more defeats it would have suffered at the hands of Lady Justice.
The Administration must heed the lesson that courts have been trying to impart: The time has come for cooler heads to prevail, for conciliation to take precedence over litigation, and for the Executive to work with the Congress to remedy the harms done—to our country and to our constitutional structure. Thursday's decision from a federal court in the District of Columbia may provide just such an opportunity.
You'd think it would be a matter of common sense that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is supposed to "help veterans get the services they have earned," would do everything it could to help veterans vote. Especially since the VA's Patients' Rights rule specifically protects the right of every veteran in the VA's care to register and vote.
But the VA apparently doesn't agree: on May 5th, the VA issued a directive that banned voter registration drives from all VA facilities. The VA's explanation was that federal law prohibits partisan political activities by federal employees, but the ban goes far beyond anything that federal law requires. The ban prevents state and local election officials from conducting registration drives in VA facilities, and it also stops non-partisan, non-profit groups like the League of Women Voters from helping vets sign up to vote.
We don't need more reasons to worry about foreclosure rates.
Digby, nonetheless, citing this AP/CBSnews.com
story, provides one: the high rate of foreclosures in Ohio and the affect election officials
believe it could have on their voting rolls.
(Digby cited the voting issue in the context of a 7/26 longer posting on Hans von
Spakovsky, "legal disenfranchisement" and "voter fraud.") There's concern that a
wave of voters, still registered to their former—foreclosed—address, will
show up to the polls on election day. This could lead to a number of
pre-election challenges or a whole lot of voters casting provisional ballots in
Ohio.
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system
of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will
of the Executive," or so they (Justice Scalia) say.
On Tuesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued two
rulings on the case of Al-Marri
v Pucciarelli. One of these stated
that an enemy combatant held in U.S.
soil may petition a civilian court to be given access to evidence against him
and may present counter-evidence as well.
It has been hailed by the lead counsel on the case, Jonathan Hafetz, as
a rebuke of "the Administration's view of untrammeled executive power,
unchecked by any Court."
But, the ruling was very vague as to how this court
proceeding would be carried out and to what level of access to evidence a
detainee would be granted.
The small gains issued in this ruling were further tempered by
a second ruling stating that the Executive has the power to indefinitely detain
anyone deemed as a wartime combatant, even American citizens, without trial.
The close and highly contested rulings, both decided in
split courts, were surprising considering the typically conservative nature the
Fourth District Court.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court (Mr. Hafetz has confirmed that they will be seeking Supreme Court review of this case) will take heed of Justice Scalia's sentiments concerning
Executive Detention when they consider Mr. al-Marri's case.
This is getting to be a maddeningly familiar story:
Plaintiffs file a lawsuit; the federal government intervenes, asserting the
state secrets privilege; a judge promptly rolls over, granting a motion to
dismiss without looking at the evidence. This case of the five "extraordinary
rendition" victims seeking redress against a Boeing subsidiary for flight
services provided to the CIA (Mohamed v.
Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.) is only the latest. Before the defendant filed an answer, before discovery began or
anyone presented evidence, a federal district judge ruled that "proceeding with
this case would jeopardize national security and foreign relations." Even
though the CIA's rendition program was hardly a black box, the judge thought "the
issues involved are non-justiciable because the very subject matter of the case
is a state secret."
This time, at least, effective objections are being raised
against such an abject abdication of judicial responsibility. The ACLU (lead counsel
for the plaintiffs) has filed a comprehensive appeal to the 9th
Circuit, and the Brennan
Center on July 10 weighed
in with a compelling amicus brief. Much is at stake in their arguments. The executive branch's overbroad claim of
privilege, coupled with the judiciary's reflexive deference, endanger not only
the plaintiffs' rights, but also the critical balance of powers envisioned by
this country's founders.
The National Coalition for a Civil
Right to Counsel has launched its new website, providing advocates and the
public with a much-needed information source and a way to coordinate
efforts to expand recognition of a right to counsel in civil cases. The
Coalition is comprised of over 150 advocates from national and state-based
groups and the website is a great place to find the latest news
developments, relevant case law, research and policy studies, and updates on current "civil Gideon"
efforts in both legislatures and the courts, as well as information on ways to promote a civil right to counsel in your
state.
Both Firedoglake and CBoldt appear to be on top of covering today's vote. CQ Politics has an opinion piece on the bill. The Washington Post also appears to be particularly active, explaining their position after receiving letters from the ACLU as well as Sen. Feingold (D-WI). This after the following full-page ad to the right from Firedoglake graced their pages.
0 comments | Permalink