Tag Archives: justice

No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

Hillary Clinton addresses the National Action Network’s 25th Annual Convention in New York City. REUTERS/Mike Segar

No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

By on 13 Apr 2016commentsShare

The day before a Democratic presidential debate in New York, Hillary Clinton rolled out an environmental justice plan that calls for eliminating lead as a major public health threat within five years.

She would have her work cut out for her, as Flint, Mich.’s lead-poisoning crisis has shown. As Clinton reminded her audience today in a speech on racial justice at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference: “There are a lot of Flints across our country where children are exposed to polluted air, unhealthy water and chemicals that can increase cancer risk.”

Studies show that some 500,000 U.S. children under the age of 5, who are predominantly black and Latino, have high levels of lead in their bloodstreams. This is primarily because of lead-based paint in old buildings, but also stems from contaminated soil and drinking water. When it comes to water contamination, we don’t even know where most of the problematic pipes are concentrated; best guesses range from 3 to 10 million lead service lines in America. Nor do we have consistent reporting on concentrated areas of lead paint in homes.

Despite the myriad challenges, Clinton insisted Wednesday: “If we put our minds to it, it can be done.”

Her plan calls for:

A Presidential Commission on Childhood Lead Exposure and a task force charged with finding and fixing 50 other Flints around the country.
Directing all federal agencies to develop plans on environmental justice and ensure that the Justice Department prosecutes environmental crimes as heavily as other crimes.
More funding — specifically, up to $5 billion in federal dollars — to replace lead paint in homes and contaminated soils in school yards.
Federal incentives through her Clean Energy Challenge (something Clinton proposed previously) so that states have a reason to exceed federal standards for lead reduction and other types of pollution.
Funds to replenish the Superfund budget to clean up over 450,000 polluted sites around the U.S.
An update the Lead Disclosure Rule and Safe Water Drinking Act to improve lead inspections, and the need for more infrastructure spending to fix water and transportation-related pollution.

A number of these proposals would require Congress to cough up more funding for infrastructure and transportation, as well as for Congress to amend laws. And a few of them overlap with proposals from Bernie Sanders, who has also called for more funds for Superfund sites and would direct agencies to develop clear priorities on environmental justice. Sanders, too, has highlighted the “unequal exposure of people of color to harmful chemicals, pesticides and other toxins in homes, schools, neighborhoods and workplaces” on his campaign website.

Flint has featured heavily in the Democratic primary and was the site of a Clinton-Sanders debate in March. With a week to go before New Yorkers vote, environmental justice is back in the national spotlight. But the intertwined problems of pollution, poverty, and racism won’t be fixed in just a handful of debates.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Taken from: 

No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

Hillary Clinton Wants to Eliminate Lead Within Five Years

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In a speech on environmental justice today, Hillary Clinton made a bold proposal:

Be still my heart! Hillary’s plan has eight parts, and the first one is all about lead poisoning:

Eliminate lead as a major public health threat within five years.…For every dollar invested in preventing childhood exposure to lead, between $17 and $200 is saved in reduced educational, health, and criminal justice expenses and improved health and economic outcomes—but the few federal programs that exist are inadequate to address the scope of the problem and have seen significant budget cuts and volatility in recent years.

….Eliminating lead as a major public health threat to our children is a goal we can and must meet as a nation. Clinton will establish a Presidential Commission on Childhood Lead Exposure and charge it with writing a national plan to eliminate the risk of lead exposure from paint, pipes, and soil within five years; align state, local and philanthropic resources with federal initiatives; implement best prevention practices based on current science; and leverage new financial resources such as lead safe tax credits. Clinton will direct every federal agency to adopt the Commission’s recommendations, make sure our public water systems are following appropriate lead safety guidelines, and leverage federal, state, local, and philanthropic resources, including up to $5 billion in federal dollars, to replace lead paint, windows, and doors in homes, schools, and child care centers and remediate lead-contaminated soil.

I don’t think five years is anywhere near feasible—it’s more like a 10-20 year project—but that’s a nit. I’m especially happy to see Hillary acknowledge the importance of remediating lead in soil, which usually doesn’t get much attention. But that’s where all the lead from automobile emissions settled, and it’s worst in low-income urban neighborhoods that are dense with traffic.

Unfortunately, it’s also the most difficult to address. Replacing lead water pipes is expensive, but we know how to do it. Getting rid of lead paint in old houses is a little less expensive, especially if we concentrate on doors and window sills, but we know how to do that too. That leaves lead in soil, which is tough because there’s so damn much of it. The first step is to map the highest concentrations of lead in soil around the country, and we haven’t even done that yet. Next we have to figure out the best way to get rid of it. There are lots of different methods, and they differ a lot in cost. You can, for example, simply haul away the top few inches of soil. That’s expensive. Alternatively, there’s a lot of buzz around the idea of seeding contaminated soil with phosphates, which combine with lead to produce harmless pyromorphite. This can be done using fish bones, which contain calcium phosphates. And fish bones are cheap.

But does this really work? It looks like a promising approach, but it still needs more research. Either way, though, it’s nice to see a presidential candidate take lead seriously. We’ve been making progress on lead contamination for decades, but we’ve never truly made it a consistent priority. It’s time to do that.

Read More:  

Hillary Clinton Wants to Eliminate Lead Within Five Years

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Wants to Eliminate Lead Within Five Years

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Joe Barton (R-Tex), who sought to subpoena after a climate scientists published a study supporting the concept of climate change. Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

By on 11 Apr 2016commentsShare

It’s become a go-to strategy for climate change deniers to demand subpoenas and documents from scientists whenever they get a whiff of a potential controversy. But they like it less when the same tactic is used on them.

Attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands Claude Walker served the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with a subpoena last Thursday, demanding several decades’ worth of communications, emails, and other documents pertaining to CEI’s work on climate change policy and donor information. By subpoenaing CEI, Walker is broadening “a multifaceted legal inquiry into whether fossil fuel companies broke any laws as they sought for decades to undermine the scientific consensus and head off forceful action to address the climate crisis,” reports InsideClimateNews.

Libertarian and conservative writers at at The Blaze, American ThinkerThe Washington Times, Bloomberg View, and Cato Institute have criticized the subpoena, calling it the product of “hysterics,” part of an “absurd climate inquisition,” and a chapter in “Al Gore’s climate witch hunt.” CEI itself called the move “an affront” to its First Amendment rights, adding that if Walker succeeds, “the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another.”

Where was this outrage when right-wing politicians were doing the same, but to scientists? Republicans in Congress have given CEI and its allies plenty of opportunities to call out their own antics. For example:

1. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) issued subpoenas to administrators and scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in late 2015. Smith wanted their communications after the journal Science published a NOAA’s report debunking the deniers’ favorite excuse that global warming is on “pause.”

2. Smith has been on a tear lately. Last fall, he delivered a notice to Jagdish Shukla, a climate scientist at George Mason University in Virginia, which requested that Shukla “preserve all e-mail, electronic documents, and data (‘electronic records’) created since January 1, 2009,” pending an investigation. Shukla had signed a letter urging federal investigation of whether fossil fuel companies knowingly deceived the public on climate.

3. Joe Barton (R-Tex), a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 2004 to 2007, sought the personal emails of climate scientist Michael E. Mann in 2005, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, after Mann’s study showed a rapid increase in global temperatures.

4. In perhaps the most famous incident of its kind, a hacker got a hold of more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents from climate scientists who were authoring a United Nations report on climate change consensus — deniers likened it to a major scandal, calling it “climategate.” They tried to find a smoking gun in climate science that didn’t exist. Ex-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli demanded Michael Mann’s files from his former university as a result.

CEI is caught in the crossfire aimed at ExxonMobil of late, given CEI’s long history promoting inaccurate science and policies to discredit climate change action. Nineteen state attorneys general are already investigating ExxonMobil to determine whether the company broke the law in reportedly misleading its investors and the public about climate change. And it just so happens that Exxon happens to have contributed at least $1.6 million to CEI since 1985.

No matter what comes of CEI’s subpoena, it won’t stop the think tank’s allies from doing the same to target climate scientists.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site – 

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Sheldon Adelson’s Casino Agrees to Pay $9 Million in Foreign Corruption Case

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The casino run by major GOP financier Sheldon Adelson agreed today to settle a long-running Securities and Exchange Commission bribery investigation that has been swirling around Adelson’s Chinese operations. Las Vegas Sands will pay $9 million but won’t have to admit any guilt, and the SEC will close its investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In 2011, the Department of Justice and the SEC launched an investigation into Adelson’s company after a former executive accused the company of paying an intermediary to hide the company’s role in a variety of transactions, including transferring money to Chinese public officials. In the SEC press release on today’s settlement, the agency said Las Vegas Sands had failed to keep accurate records for more than $62 million in payments to an intermediary. According to the SEC, the money was given to the intermediary to buy a basketball team and arrange the purchase of a building from a Chinese state-run entity, for a “business center” that was never built.

According to the former Sandsexecutive, Steve Jacobs, who is now embroiled in a lengthy court fight with Adelson over his firing several years ago, the intermediary was a man named Yang Saixin, who was helping to organize the Adelson Center for US-China Enterprise in Beijing. Yang has denied any wrongdoing, but an internal Sands memo described him as influential and said his parents “knew President Xi Jinping’s parents, implying a strong connection to Zhongnanhai (the White House of China).” Adelson himself has denied any knowledge of plans for the center.

While the SEC settlement does not make it clear what the true purpose of the spending was, it does show that Adelson’s Chinese operations handed an enormous amount of money over to the intermediary. That intermediary was referred to in Sands internal documents as a “beard,” the SEC announcement said. The payments cited by the SEC today included:

$6 million for the purchase of a Chinese basketball team. The “beard” was used for the purchase because gaming companies aren’t allowed to own basketball teams in China. An additional $8 million was paid to Yang for team operating costs, but no documentation for those costs exists, the SEC found.
$43 million in payments to Yang for the purchase and management of a building, once owned by a Chinese state entity, in order to build the business center. Las Vegas Sands employees were concerned that the payments were “solely for political purposes,” the SEC release said, but there was no documentation or research on the costs associated with the payments whatsoever. Included in the payments were $900,000 for property management costs, when no property management work was ever done, and $1.2 million for “arts and crafts.”

In addition to paying the $9 million fine, Adelson’s company agreed to hire an independent consultant to monitor its internal finances for two years.

In its own statement, Las Vegas Sands downplayed Jacobs’ role in launching the investigation, and quoted Adelson as saying he was “pleased to have the matter resolved…We will build on this experience, which has reemphasized to our 50,000 team members worldwide the same values I have made the foundation of my seven decades in business—integrity and reputation matter.”

Taken from: 

Sheldon Adelson’s Casino Agrees to Pay $9 Million in Foreign Corruption Case

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sheldon Adelson’s Casino Agrees to Pay $9 Million in Foreign Corruption Case

Chuck Grassley Is Making Sense

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who heads up the Judiciary Committee, took to the floor yesterday to criticize Chief Justice John Roberts, who says that politicized confirmation hearings have caused the public to believe the court itself is politicized. Now, Roberts made those comments two months ago, so I’m not quite sure what prompted Grassley to suddenly get worked up about them. Nonetheless, Grassley is taking a lot of heat for his crazy talk. Let’s listen in:

The Chief Justice has it exactly backwards. The confirmation process doesn’t make the Justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court has drifted from the constitutional text, and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences….In fact, many of my constituents believe, with all due respect, that the Chief Justice is part of this problem.

….As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called the ‘hot button issues.’ We all know what kinds of cases he had in mind. Freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, the death penalty, and others.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that? The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases. For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others….The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

That sounds…surprisingly reasonable. It was anger at Supreme Court rulings that turned confirmation hearings political, not the other way around. And Grassley is right that for truly impartial justices, the law shouldn’t be any harder to interpret in hot button cases than in more obscure cases. And yet, hot button cases are very often split along partisan lines.

Now, it’s worth noting a couple of things. First, Grassley’s beef with Roberts is precisely that he didn’t vote on partisan lines when he upheld Obamacare. So he’s not exactly on the moral high ground here. Second, the court has always been political. But for most of its history it was politically conservative and mostly confirmed Republican positions. That changed after World War II, and what conservatives are really upset about is that the Supreme Court now hands down both liberal and conservative rulings. They want it to go back to being an arm of the Republican Party.

So Grassley is hardly presenting a balanced picture here. But he’s a Republican partisan, so why would he? More generally, though, I’d say his view of the Supreme Court is pretty defensible, and certainly more accurate than Roberts’ view. I see no particular crazy talk here.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that?

The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases.

For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others.

In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law. But in others, where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, they are 5-4.

The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

– See more at: http://www.publicnow.com/view/F2FDFB07EA2C3F7479ECA11B451EC03E32E4545E?2016-04-06-02:30:30+01:00-xxx6292#sthash.7tuZH0HM.dpuf

As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called the ‘hot button issues.’ We all know what kinds of cases he had in mind. Freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, the death penalty, and others.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that?

The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases.

For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others.

In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law. But in others, where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, they are 5-4.

The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

– See more at: http://www.publicnow.com/view/F2FDFB07EA2C3F7479ECA11B451EC03E32E4545E?2016-04-06-02:30:30+01:00-xxx6292#sthash.7tuZH0HM.dpuf

As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called the ‘hot button issues.’ We all know what kinds of cases he had in mind. Freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, the death penalty, and others.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that?

The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases.

For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others.

In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law. But in others, where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, they are 5-4.

The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

– See more at: http://www.publicnow.com/view/F2FDFB07EA2C3F7479ECA11B451EC03E32E4545E?2016-04-06-02:30:30+01:00-xxx6292#sthash.7tuZH0HM.dpuf

Read article here: 

Chuck Grassley Is Making Sense

Posted in alo, alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chuck Grassley Is Making Sense

Check out this brilliant anti-coal campaign

Check out this brilliant anti-coal campaign

By on 1 Apr 2016commentsShare

From beneath gas masks, Vietnamese celebrities are sending a message: They are troubled by the prospect of a world ruined by coal.

A new photo campaign called “I Can’t,” sponsored by 350.org and the Center of Hands-on Actions and Networking for Growth and Environment (CHANGE), portrays Vietnamese musicians, dancers, and actors in a coal-laden dystopia. The series draws attention to the ugly — and often deadly — impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants. A news release from the campaign points out that pollution from coal plants causes 4,300 premature deaths in Vietnam each year.

But things are looking up for Vietnam — and down for its coal industry. The country’s prime minister announced in January that the government was halting plans to develop new coal plants in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Singer Trong Hieu

CHANGE VM

Although you may not be familiar with the celebs portrayed in these photos — like actress Diem My, contemporary dancer Do Hai Anh, or Vietnam Idol winner Trong Hieu — they’re pretty much the Carrie Underwoods and Beyoncés of Vietnam. The photographs depict each artist with a symbol of being unable to pursue their passion: a singer trapped behind a gas mask, an actress holding a broken opera mask, or a dancer pictured with an injured swan.

Actress Diem My

CHANGE VM

Dancer Do Hai Anh

CHANGE VM

View the rest of the series here.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original post:

Check out this brilliant anti-coal campaign

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Check out this brilliant anti-coal campaign

Justice Department Takes Steps to Protect Transgender Prisoners

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Amid several proposals in Republican-controlled statehouses to limit protections for transgender residents came a glimmer of hope from the federal government on Thursday. The Department of Justice issued new regulations clarifying guidelines it set in 2012 for the treatment of transgender inmates in prisons. The 2012 guidelines required prison and jail staff to consider inmates’ gender identity when deciding where to place transgender inmates, but many prisons continue to follow state rules that assign inmates housing according to their genitalia, the Guardian US reports. The new DOJ guidelines state that any “written policy or actual practice that assigns transgender or intersex inmates to gender-specific facilities, housing units, or programs based solely on their external genital anatomy” is in violation of the federal standard, which mandates that prisons consider both inmates’ gender identity and personal concerns about their safety when assigning them to a housing facility.

A survey conducted by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2011 and 2012 estimated that 4 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 3 percent of jail inmates reported being sexually assaulted by other inmates or staff in the previous year. But more than a third of transgender inmates in prisons and a third in jails said they had been sexually assaulted during the same time period. Transgender women housed in men’s prisons are at even greater risk for sexual assault. A California study found that nearly 60 percent of transgender women inmates housed in men’s prisons reported being sexually assaulted, compared to just 4 percent of non-transgender inmates in men’s prison. The BJS estimates that there are 3,200 transgender inmates in US prisons and jails.

The new guidelines are largely symbolic—they are not legally binding—but they make plain the federal government’s stance on the housing of transgender inmates, the National Center for Transgender Equality and Just Detention International said in a joint statement. “The new guidance, posted online today by the National PREA Resource Center, sends the clearest message yet that current housing practices in prisons and jails are in violation of PREA and put transgender people at risk for sexual abuse,” they said, according to Guardian US.

Last year, the Department of Justice wrote to a Georgia court in support of Ashley Diamond, a transgender woman who sought a transfer to a women’s prison. Diamond claimed she had been sexually assaulted multiple times at several men’s prisons during her three-year incarceration. She also requested a court order forcing the Georgia Department of Corrections to give her access to the hormones and medications she had been taking for years to treat her gender dysphoria prior to incarceration. (Diamond has since been released.) But most states have been slow to catch up.

There’s one state that’s ahead of the pack. Last year, California became the first state to adopt a policy of providing gender-affirmation surgery to transgender inmates for whom a doctor had determined the surgery was medically necessary. Months before adopting the policy, the state had agreed to pay for gender-affirmation surgery—at an estimated cost of between $15,000 and $25,000—for transgender inmate Michelle Norsworthy, after a judge ruled the state was constitutionally obligated to provide it to her under the Eighth Amendment. Norsworthy was released on parole before receiving the treatment.

Read this article – 

Justice Department Takes Steps to Protect Transgender Prisoners

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Justice Department Takes Steps to Protect Transgender Prisoners

How caucuses disenfranchise voters

How caucuses disenfranchise voters

By on 25 Mar 2016commentsShare

If you live in a caucus state, like I do, you’ve heard party officials talk about how the caucus system is more democratic, more small-government, more conducive to building party unity than holding a big primary. Here’s Washington Democratic Party spokesman Jamal Raad, touting the system to me over the phone: “We’re not trying to be representative of the Washington State electorate. We’re trying to be representative of Washington State Democrats. And we actually make it very easy. You just have to show up and affirm that you’re a Democrat to participate. … It’s like a block party.”

But it’s a block party that not everyone can attend. And that’s a problem, especially for the environment, because the people left out tend to be those who care more about it.

The caucus system was once more common in our national elections, but Washington, where Democrats vote on Saturday, is one of only 12 states and a handful of territories that hold onto it. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both appeared here in recent weeks, seeking votes. But many potential Democratic voters will find it tough to cast ballots for either candidate. Instead of simply walking to your local polling place and then going on with your day, caucusing is an event. And if you don’t have the time or ability to participate, you’re just plain out of luck.

Advertisement – Article continues below

Scholars like the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Thomas Patterson suggest that the caucus system  disproportionately disenfranchises minorities, low-income earners, and young people, who are much less likely to show up than older, whiter, wealthier voters. And those who don’t show up — young voters, voters of color — tend to be more progressive on issues like climate change, the environment, and infrastructure spending. For example, voters under 30 tend to be slightly more concerned about climate change, at 54 percent vs. 51 percent for all age groups per a 2015 New York Times/CBS poll. And both black and Latino voters are more likely than white ones to say climate change is manmade, according to Pew.

Here’s how the caucus works in Washington: It starts at 10 a.m. on Saturday, generally taking place at community centers, libraries, town halls, school gyms, or — in my precinct — a dance studio. Once all the participants are gathered together, precinct captains will be selected, votes will be cast, tallied, and the results announced. Like the Iowa Democratic caucus, caucus-goers can attempt to sway undecided voters if there is no clear majority, and then a second tally is taken. The second tally is what determines how many delegates each candidate receives at the national convention in July.

This is not a quick process. It’s projected to take two hours, minimum. So to have your say, you must make time for at least two hours on a Saturday, right around the time you’d normally be taking the kids to soccer, setting out for brunch with your gals, or sleeping through your hangover. And we wonder why voter participation is low. Even people who want to take part in the caucus often can’t — me, for instance. I’ll be 3,000 miles away, stepping off a plane right around the time the first tally is taken.

Clinton herself called this a problem when she was running against Barack Obama in 2008: “You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard. That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised. People who can’t be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present.”

In Washington, you can participate if you’re in the Air Force, or any other branch of the military. The party provides exceptions for people who are unable to attend due to military service, work, religious obligation, disability, or illness. Those who qualify can submit a surrogate affidavit form to the state party rather than attend the caucus on Saturday — although they’ve got to do it a week in advance.

Theoretically, this should take care of some concerns about disenfranchisement. But of course, that presumes that you’ve actually heard of the surrogate affidavit form, which most people haven’t. And regardless, this workaround doesn’t cover voters who don’t have the excuse of military, work, religion, disability, or illness. It leaves out caretakers, for instance, who may be unable to bring along the elderly person or young children in their care. And it leaves out people like me, who don’t have a valid excuse at all. Simply not going to be in town this Saturday? Sorry, no voting for you.

When I asked Raad, the Democratic spokesman, about these concerns, he said the party is aware of them. That’s  why party officials added “work” to the list of acceptable reasons to use a surrogate affidavit form for the first time this year. He also said they are reaching out to Asian-American and Spanish-language newspapers to spread the word about the caucus, although he wasn’t aware of any efforts being made to specifically reach other communities.

In 2008, according to Harvard’s Patterson, the national average voter turnout in caucus states was just 6.8 percent, four times less than participation in primary states. In Washington state, it was even lower: Only 0.9 percent of eligible voters actually caucused. And the tiny percentage that shows up tends to have different views than the general public. “Even after accounting for many other factors, caucus attenders were more ideologically extreme than primary voters,” wrote Brigham Young University political scientists Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope in a 2014 Washington Post editorial. “In terms of their willingness to take consistently conservative or liberal positions on the issues, caucus attendees look a lot more like members of Congress than they do average Republicans or Democrats.” The Washington Democratic Party is hopeful that with a heavily contested race, this year’s caucus turnout will be record-setting. But that will still mean just a tiny percentage of the state’s voters helped choose the nominee for president.

This “block party,” it seems, isn’t about the people: It’s about the Party.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View post:  

How caucuses disenfranchise voters

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, oven, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How caucuses disenfranchise voters

Justice Alito Is Clueless About How Health Insurance Works. That’s a Big Problem for Women.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has earned a reputation, fairly or not, that he doesn’t understand the reality of women’s lives. He’s been observed shaking his head and rolling his eyes at his female colleagues, particularly the venerable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when she read a dissent from the bench opposing his opinions in a pair of gender discrimination cases. The oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell Wednesday probably did nothing much to improve that perception.

Alito is the author of the controversial 2014 decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, in which the court held that a for-profit corporation could deny employees insurance coverage for contraception because of its religious beliefs. As part of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, Congress required employers who provided their workers with health insurance to offer coverage for contraception at no cost. Hobby Lobby had objected to that requirement on the grounds that providing access to some contraceptives, such as IUDs—which the company’s owners insisted (wrongly) were abortifacients—violated their strongly held religious beliefs.

In his opinion in that case exempting Hobby Lobby from the contraceptive mandate, Alito promised the court’s ruling would have “precisely zero” impact on women and their ability to access free contraception because the Obama administration had provided a workaround for religious organizations, and that could be applied to Hobby Lobby, too. An organization merely had to alert the government of its religious objector status, and the government would work with its insurance companies to provide the mandated contraception coverage without the employer having to pay or otherwise get involved. That way, Alito suggested, women would still get their birth control, their employers would not compromise their souls, and everyone would win.

That workaround was at the center of the case the court heard Wednesday, after it was challenged by dozens of religious nonprofits, including the religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and various Catholic universities. They allege that even the simple act of notifying the government of their religious objections to the contraceptive coverage would still enable that coverage to be provided, and would therefore make them complicit in sinful activities.

The case puts Alito in a bind, given that he specifically relied on the accommodation the nuns are challenging to justify his opinion in Hobby Lobby. If he were consistent, he’d end up voting with the liberals in this case and ruling that sending some paperwork to the government to ask for a religious exemption is not a particularly onerous burden on their religious freedom—a conclusion eight out of nine lower courts have reached.

But it was clear during Wednesday’s oral arguments that Alito’s loyalties to the Catholic Church and strong commitment to religious freedom were clearly dominating his reasoning. He appeared to be grasping for an alternative in which the religious groups could distance themselves even further from insurance coverage that might compromise their beliefs. He raised an idea proposed by the petitioners: Instead of having the religious organizations’ insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, the government ought to offer contraception-only insurance plans, maybe on the federal health insurance exchanges.

“Suppose that it were possible for a woman who does not get contraceptive coverage under…a plan offered by a religious nonprofit to obtain a contraceptive-only policy free of charge on one of the Exchanges. Why would that not be a less restrictive alternative to the notification requirement?” he asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was arguing for the government. “Is it because these Exchanges are so unworkable, even with the help of a navigator?” he asked, oozing with irony.

Alito’s pointed question about the Affordable Care Act, which is responsible for creating the exchanges and which Alito voted twice to overturn, elicited laughs. With a bit of a rueful chuckle, Verrilli shot back that one obvious reason why such a plan wouldn’t work is that it would be illegal. No such insurance can be sold on the exchanges under federal law. But aside from that, creating separate contraceptive coverage as Alito suggested would defeat the very goal Congress outlined when it mandated the contraceptive coverage in the first place. Verrilli explained that overwhelming evidence shows that even small cost barriers to contraception keep women from using it, which in turn results in more unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Congress wanted women to be able to get contraception seamlessly, from their regular doctors and through their regular health insurance plans.

Having to go out and purchase a separate contraceptive plan—which he doubted any insurance company would offer anyway—would create huge headaches and additional barriers to women. “Consider this, please, from the perspective of the woman employee,” Verrilli told Alito. “She has a health plan from her employer. She goes to her doctor, her regular doctor. She may have a medical condition that makes pregnancy a danger for her. She may be one of the women…who needs contraception to treat a medical condition, or maybe she just wants the contraception that’s appropriate for her.” If the government adopted what Alito was proposing, he continued, “her regular doctor has to say to her, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you.'” The doctor would not only be prohibited from writing the prescription; she’d be unable to counsel her patient about her options because of the prohibitions on her employer-based insurance.

Alito was not persuaded. “Why do you assume that the doctor to whom the women would go for other services under the plan would be unwilling to provide those services under a separate plan that covers contraceptives?” he asked, suggesting that having another insurance plan was no more complicated than getting an additional card, as often occurs with dental or vision coverage.

It was the sort of question you might expect from someone who has had little experience with the world of private-sector health insurance. Except for a very brief stint at a private firm after law school, Alito has never worked in the private sector. He went from the US Attorney’s Office in New Jersey to the Reagan Justice Department to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court—a seamless stretch of federal employment, where he has had access to some of the best private health insurance of any group of Americans. Plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program include a large, national network of doctors, protection against being charged extra for preexisting conditions, and unusual continuity of care. His questions during the arguments suggested that Alito has probably never worried about whether a doctor he wanted to see would take his insurance, much less encountered a physician who took no insurance at all because the paperwork simply had become too onerous.

A contraceptive-only insurance plan seems unwieldy on its face. Aside from the practical difficulties of Alito’s proposal, at least one amicus brief in the case indicates that his alternative would also be a huge violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of the way it singles out women for disparate treatment in health care. Politically it’s also utterly unfeasible, as was his suggestion that such plans could be created if Congress offered to subsidize them at 115 percent of the cost. At a time when Congress and Republican state governments are trying to defund Planned Parenthood and shut down clinics that offer cheap contraception, it’s hard to imagine any Congress in the near future creating special subsidies to give women birth control plans, even if some elderly nuns and a few other religious groups don’t want to fill out a form.

Such practicalities didn’t seem to carry much weight with Alito. But he is consistent; Justice Ginsburg has repeatedly scolded him for being out of touch with the realities of women’s lives in previous discrimination and reproductive rights cases. Even so, women’s groups seemed fairly convinced that Alito would, for once, take their side in this case because of his opinion in Hobby Lobby. Before the oral arguments, Gretchen Borchelt, vice president of reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, which filed a brief in the Zubik case, said in a press call, “It would be unacceptable for the Supreme Court to invalidate a provision it proposed just two years ago in Hobby Lobby.” Predicting that Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed a likely vote for the government, she declared, “We’re confident in a 5-3 decision here.”

Alito seemed intent on dashing those hopes. At the very least, he appeared ready to force the government to burden women with a more complicated, less effective means for accessing contraceptive coverage to prevent a very minor compromise of religious freedom. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. seemed inclined to agree with him, at least in voting against the government’s position. And Kennedy expressed frustration with both sides of the case, leaving his critical swing vote completely unpredictable.

Fortunately for women, perhaps, the court is short a member right now, and even if Alito backpedals on his promises in Hobby Lobby and votes along with the other conservatives to defang the contraceptive mandate, the court is likely to deadlock 4-4 in the decision, which means the lower court rulings will stand. So women who work for religious organizations, including universities, in the eight federal appellate court circuits where the courts have ruled for the government in these cases, should be able to get free contraceptive coverage. But the women in 8th Circuit states—Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—which voted in favor of the religious groups, may have to wait until after the presidential election, when a new president may finally be able to appoint a ninth justice to the court, and the conflict gets resolved once and for all.

Source: 

Justice Alito Is Clueless About How Health Insurance Works. That’s a Big Problem for Women.

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Justice Alito Is Clueless About How Health Insurance Works. That’s a Big Problem for Women.

The Election in Arizona Was a Mess

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Faith Decker, a 19-year-old sophomore at Arizona State University, got off work a little early Tuesday night so she could vote in her first-ever primary. She arrived at a church in southeast Phoenix just before 7 p.m. to find “the line wrapped completely around the corner, 300 to 400 people.” After waiting in that line for more than three hours, she finally reached the check-in desk. She was told that she couldn’t vote—not because the polls had closed three hours before, but because she was registered in a different county.

Decker says that while waiting in line, she saw several people get frustrated and leave before they cast their ballots, and that the election workers seemed confused, taking a long time to process voters once they got to the table.

“It’s just kind of all a giant disappointment to everyone who usually comes out and votes in person,” she said. And as a first-time voter she was shocked “to see that it was so unorganized, or disorderly.”

Decker’s long wait and disappointing outcome was shared by many voters in Maricopa County, Arizona, the state’s biggest county, with 2 million registered voters, who live in Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, and other larger communities. Images of people waiting hours under the hot sun and into the night filled Twitter timelines and cable TV broadcasts. The last person to cast a ballot didn’t do so until after midnight, according to the Arizona Republic, nearly five hours after the Democratic race had already been called for Hillary Clinton, and a few hours after Donald Trump was declared as the Republican winner.

Election officials said that the long lines were due, in part, to a large number of unaffiliated or independent voters trying to vote. Only those registered with one of the recognized parties were allowed to cast ballots. The state’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, issued a statement Wednesday morning calling the situation “unacceptable” and called for allowing independents to be able to vote in presidential primaries.

But Arizona has a long history of problems at the ballot box. Until 2013, the Grand Canyon State was one of 16 states required to clear all changes to voting law and procedures with the US Department of Justice, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because of its history of discriminatory and racist election practices. The two-part formula used to determine which jurisdictions would fall under the Department of Justice’s review process was created nearly fifty years before in 1965 and attempted to insure that the voting age population actually was able to vote. The first criteria was if a jurisdiction had a “test or device” that restricted the opportunity to register to vote on Nov. 1, 1964. The state would also be scrutinized if less than half of voting-age people in a jurisdiction were registered to vote, or if less than half of the voting-age population actually did vote in the presidential election of November 1964.

The formula was ruled unconstitutional in the 2013 US Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, in which an Alabama County argued that jurisdictions covered by Section 5 “must either go hat in hand to Justice Department officialdom to seek approval, or embark on expensive litigation in a remote judicial venue.” With the court’s ruling, Arizona (and the other states and jurisdictions previously covered by so-called “pre-clearance”) could make changes to voting laws and procedures without federal oversight. But in a state that took six years to adopt a Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, is the home of the controversial Maricopa County Sheriff, and Donald Trump supporter, Joe Arpaio, and where SB 1070 required police to determine a person’s immigration status when there was “reasonable suspicion” that they were in the country illegally, the difficulties in voting raised some concerns about darker motivations.

Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, the woman in charge of administering the county’s elections, said in an interview with a local news reporter Tuesday night that “the voters, for getting in line” were at least partly to blame for the long lines:

On Wednesday she told the county board of supervisors that she would “do it differently” if she could do it again, and that she “takes the blame” for what went wrong. She also blamed independent and unaffiliated voters who tried to vote for slowing down the process. Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo said, “I just don’t buy that,” according to the Arizona Republic.

Purcell couldn’t be reached for comment.

One reason for the long lines is the fact that the county went from 200 polling locations in 2012 to just 60 in 2016. As Republic reporter Caitlin McGlade noted Tuesday night, Maricopa County’s 60 polling locations worked out to about one for every 20,833 eligible voters, compared to one polling station serving 2,500 voters in other Arizona counties.

State Sen. Martín Quezada, (D-Phoenix), offered his own explanation for the lack of polling locations in his area on Wednesday:

Tammy Patrick, the county’s former federal elections compliance officer, is now a senior advisor of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington DC, where she consults with jurisdictions around the country about voting administration best practices. She said that the comparison between 200 polling stations in 2012 and 60 in 2016 is misleading because the 200 polling stations in 2012 were “precinct-specific”, while the 60 this year were so-called “voting centers,” where voters could cast ballots anywhere in the county. Jurisdictions in 33 states are moving to or already use a vote-center model, she says, which are attempts by local election officials to help voters who appear at incorrect precinct voting locations.

“This alleviates all of that,” she says. “People could go anywhere, but it also meant they had to have much larger facilities. So they had fewer number of options on where they could get a facility large enough to be a vote center that would allow them in.”

Patrick’s job from late 2004 through the end of the Voting Rights Act coverage in 2013 was to make sure Maricopa County voting decisions complied with federal laws. She said her former county election colleagues “were all very disappointed when the Voting Rights Act enforcement went away because it kind of protected them from the crazy legislature down the street.”

The question remains why county level officials limited the number of vote-centers to just 60, but Patrick suggests it might have to do with finding locations around the county that could accommodate large groups of people and would likely have occurred under the old Voting Rights Act requirements, despite suggestions to the contrary. She admitted, though, that there’s a context for concerns about discrimination.

“It’s a heightened environment, without a doubt,” she says. “Anything that doesn’t go absolutely perfectly is going to be viewed as some sort of a tactic. Now when it comes to things like legislation, that’s quite possible that there are legislative acts that are done down the street that maybe have that sort of intent, but that’s certainly not the case at the local level.”

The Arizona Republic called the entire situation an “outrage” in an editorial Wednesday, and added that the decision to switch to a vote-center model was a “cost-cutting measure” that was “badly bungled” by county election officials who “did not account for such things as high turnout or parking.”

Whoever’s to blame, the net result was the same: thousands of people stood in line for hours, some of whom gave up and ended up not voting. Erika Andiola, the national press secretary for Latino outreach for the Sanders campaign, said she heard from her volunteers about people leaving lines and waiting hours and hours to vote.

“I’m pretty sure that other campaigns were concerned,” Andiola says. “It’s not just about Bernie Sanders, but it’s really about Arizona. How can you have such a big number of people who are trying to participate in our elections that are treated this way? We want to encourage voting, we don’t want to discourage voting. That’s definitely not something we should be doing in any state.”

See the article here: 

The Election in Arizona Was a Mess

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Scotts, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Election in Arizona Was a Mess