PEOPLE FOR BLOG

LA Times: Roe in the Balance

In case you didn't see, our president, Kathryn Kolbert, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times yesterday:

Some advocates worry that the perennial cries of "Roe is falling" has had the effect of muting such claims.

"What we find scary is that people don't understand what's at stake," said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. "In the next four years, one to as many as three Supreme Court justices may step down, and they all will come from the liberal end of the court."

It is absolutely critical that voters understand that the Supreme Court is on the ballot this Election Day.  The kind of judges the next president will nominate to the Court will determine its direction for decades.

PFAW

The Constitution Has An Answer!

If you've been watching the magic wall on CNN, you might notice how much the hosts who use it like pointing out situations in which the Electoral College produces a tie.  How, pray tell, would we resolve such an impasse?

Luckily, the Constitution has an answer!

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Via Marc Ambinder, Charlie Cook takes a look at how that might play out.

PFAW

"Can I Wear My Obama T-Shirt to Vote on Election Day?"

The Root answers the question, "Can I Wear My Obama T-Shirt to Vote on Election Day?"

Short answer: It depends.

Longer answer:

An ominous e-mail has been causing quite a bit of confusion for voters recently. With an urgent warning to recipients, the e-mail claimsthat election officials have the right to turn away any voters wearing campaign paraphernalia to the polls. So what's up? Can you rock that "Obama Mama" T-shirt to cast your vote on Nov. 4?  

In most states, you're in the clear. Wearing campaign paraphernalia—a button, a sticker and, of course, a T-shirt—in support of any candidate is seen as passive electioneering. Some states are more lenient. In Kentucky, Marylandand Florida, election officials most often make no fuss about voter attire. The only thing banned there is the display of excessive campaign garb (i.e. head-to-toe Obama gear) or outright solicitation. Wearing campaign paraphernalia and lingering in the polling station is also a no-no in those states. 

Other states, such as Pennsylvaniaand New York, maintain laws on passive electioneering while remaining lax in enforcement. In New York, for example, refusing to comply with the request of election officials to remove an item is considered a misdemeanor, but arrests have rarely—if ever—been made.  

Not everyone is as laid-back about the issue. In the District of Columbia, strict rules apply. Prior to entering a polling station in the District, everyone is required to remove or cover up any exposed campaign paraphernalia. No exceptions.

Takeaway: Find out from your state's board of elections (find a link to yours here) what's acceptable and what's not.

It's cool to be excited about your candidate, but you don't want your campaign bling (fabulous as it is) to make it harder for you to actually cast a ballot on Election Day.

PFAW

Biden on Bork

At the Vice Presidential debate last night, Joe Biden referenced his leadership against Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.

That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.

Biden is entirely correct.  The ideology of a judge matters immensely.  Right wing judges who bring a political agenda to the courts have no business being nominated or confirmed.

Of course, Joe Biden wasn’t alone in leading the fight against Bork.  People For the American Way led the campaign in the public arena, including this ad, narrated by Gregory Peck.

PFAW

This Is Why I Ask for a Paper Ballot

PFAW

Video: Palin on the Supreme Court

Here's more video from Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric — in which Couric asks her to name Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with and she lapses into confounded silence after naming only one, Roe v. Wade.

I realize that the larger thing we should be concerned about is McCain and what sorts of justices he'd nominate as president — because the next president could potentially name up to three, going by the current justices' ages and chances of retiring.

But it's worth noting (and being kinda horrified by) the fact that Palin — the person who could be, as the media likes to say, "a heartbeat away" from having the power to shape the direction the high court takes for the next 40 years — can't extemporaneously name more than one Supreme Court case she disagrees with.


COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions [than Roe v. Wade] do you disagree with?

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's — of course — in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are — those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know — going through the history of America, there would be others but —

Video/transcript via Ben Smith of The Politico.

PFAW

AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka on Racism and Obama

The entirely artificial brouhaha around Gwen Ifill’s book on “Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” is just the latest of the unfathomably complicated intersections of the two issues in this campaign.

Without professing any great insight on the subject, I think it’s worth acknowledging Richard Trumka, a (white) union leader who doesn’t dance around the issue, but takes it head on.  Bravo.
 
 
 
PFAW

Liveblogging The Veep Debate

We had such a good time live blogging last week's debate that we're back at it again tonight.

Come hear our thoughts in real time, and, even better, share your own.  No one knows what's going to happen tonight, but I think it's safe to say that there will be plenty to talk about.

(Of course, you may be busy at one of our VP Debate watch parties, which is another pretty good way to spend the evening.)

Dissecting Sarah Palin's Logic: Ledbetter and Fair Pay

A portion of Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin that aired Tuesday focused, among other things, on equal pay.  The transcript:

Couric: Where do you stand on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

Palin: I’m absolutely for equal pay for equal work. The Ledbetter pay act - it was gonna turn into a boon for trial lawyers who, I believe, could have taken advantage of women who were many, many years ago who would allege some kind of discrimination. Thankfully, there are laws on the books, there have been since 1963, that no woman could be discriminated against in the workplace in terms of anything, but especially in terms of pay. So, thankfully we have the laws on the books and they better be enforced.

Couric: The Ledbetter act sort of lengthens the time a woman can sue her company if she's not getting equal pay for equal work. Why should a fear of lawsuits trump a woman's ability to do something about the fact that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. And that's today.

Palin: There should be no fear of a lawsuit prohibiting a woman from making sure that the laws that are on the books today are enforced. I know in a McCain-Palin administration we will not stand for any measure that would result in a woman being paid less than a man for equal work.

Couric: Why shouldn’t the Ledbetter act be in place? You think it would result in lawsuits brought by women years and years ago. Is that your main problem with it?

Palin: It would have turned into a boon for trial lawyers. Again, thankfully with the existing laws we have on the books, they better be enforced. We won't stand for anything but that. We won't stand for any discrimination in the workplace - that there isn't any discrimination in America.

At first blush, it looks like Palin is just rehashing McCain’s argument against Ledbetter: “I don’t believe that this would do anything to help women except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession.”  She does manage to eke out the lawyer-bashing McCain line, while asserting that McCain-Palin “won’t stand” for discrimination, but after that she appears to get a little lost.  She seems to think that the “fear of lawsuits” Couric refers to in the second question are people suing women to prevent them from enforcing “the laws on the books.”

But a closer look reveals an even more fundamental misunderstanding.  She says that “thankfully, we have the laws on the books."  Well, yes, but thanks to Samuel Alito, that law means a lot less than it used to.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Supreme Court decision that led to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, involved a woman, Lilly Ledbetter, who worked at a Goodyear Tire plant for almost twenty years, for a salary much less than her male co-workers.  The “laws on the books,” as read by Justice Alito and the rest of his voting bloc, said that Ledbetter’s discrimination claim needed to be filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck.  The only problem: Ledbetter first found out about the unequal pay through an anonymous tip, sixteen years after that first paycheck.

Of course, it’s not surprising that Palin doesn’t know the substance of the Ledbetter case—apparently, when asked to name Supreme Court cases, the only one she could produce was Roe v. Wade.

PFAW

The Top Five Things Voters Can Do Now

November 4 might be five weeks off, but there are a few things you can do today to help make sure you and your families' voices will be heard this Election Day.  We've rounded up our top 5 things voters should do right now in a helpful PDF document — download it here — as part of People For Foundation's Election Protection work.

Pass it on to your friends and family — and make sure they're registered to vote!

If you need specific information for your state, visit our voting rights information page or visit Vote411.org for more information.

PFAW

Video: Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak For Me

Against gay rights, in favor of banning books -- Sarah Palin's values aren't mainstream Americans' values. Here's a short video of People For the American Way activists (including hockey moms!) making it clear that Sarah Palin doesn't speak for them.


"Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak For Me" from People For the American Way on Vimeo.
PFAW

Don’t Worry, Sarah. We’ll tell you about the Court!

In an interview with Katie Couric, it appears as if Sarah Palin was unable to name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

I like to think that if prompted, she could tell us what Brown v. Board of Education accomplished, but I’ve learned not to take anything for granted.

Anyway, Sarah, allow us to tell you about one or two cases that your own running mate has had a hand in bringing about.  Thanks to the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, you can use any of these cases to talk about how the Court affects ordinary Americans.

  • Ledbetter v. Goodyear – Makes it harder for women to sue when they’ve been discriminated against.
  • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 – Makes it harder to desegregate schools.
  • Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation – Makes it harder for to preserve the wall between church and state.
  • Garcetti v. Ceballos – Makes it harder for students to exercise free speech.
  • Gonzales v. Carhart – Makes it harder for women to get abortion procedures they need.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg!  Thanks to your running mate, there are all sorts of terrible, terrible Supreme Court decisions that limit our rights and freedoms.  Better get studyin’.

PFAW

In Honor of Sarah Palin, Read A Banned Book This Week

In honor of Gov. Sarah Palin and her book-banning bona fides — she reportedly "asked the library how she could go about banning books" while mayor of Wasilla, AK — participate in Banned Book Week this week!

The yearly event — organized by the American Library Association — is a great opportunity to read such salacious titles as: 

(Yes, all four of those titles were seriously among the books most frequently challenged in 2007. For the full list, click here.)

Also, make sure to check out the ALA's tips on what you can do to fight censorship in your hometown library.

PFAW

A Victory for Voting Rights in Ohio

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a week-long window during which new voters can register and vote via absentee ballot on the same day. (

Another federal court decision was expected later in the day over the early voting window, which begins Tuesday and has become a partisan battle in a swing state where President Bush narrowly clinched re-election in 2004.

In a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court said Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was correct in ruling that voters don't need to be registered for at least 30 days before receiving an absentee ballot.

Republicans, who claimed that Brunner was misinterpreting the law to benefit her party, had backed lawsuits filed against the measure.

The decision is a real victory for voting rights and another acknowledgement that government should encourage people to vote, not make it more difficult for them to do so.  And, of course, it will likely help increase turnout in Ohio, one of the crucial states this November.

PFAW

Big Business and Prop 8

Google made a welcome splash recently by coming out against Proposition 8 in California (the anti-marriage amendment) but Google always likes to be hip and different, right?

Actually, they were catching up to some decidedly old-school companies.  Firedoglake points out that Levi Strauss and Co. also announced its opposition, and joined Pacific Gas and Electric Company as Co-Chair of the “No On Prop 8 Equality Business Council.”  No offense, but it’s hard to get stodgier than a utility company, and a business that made blue jeans for gold miners isn’t exactly cutting edge.  Yet they’re both taking unapologetically pro-marriage stances.  Good for them.

No matter how hard the Right tries to pretend otherwise, marriage equality is mainstream, and marriage discrimination is rapidly becoming a fringe right-wing position.  And that’s very good news indeed.

PFAW