PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Two days ago, President Obama sat down for a live “Ask Me Anything” session on the popular social news website Reddit. Of the ten questions President Obama was asked, one pertained to money in the politics:

What are you going to do to end the corrupting influence of money in politics during your second term?

Although not specifically asked about the amendment strategy, President Obama raised the issue in his answer:

Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress - to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change. [Emphasis added]

President Obama already had, through spokespeople, acknowledged his support of constitutional remedies to overturn Citizens United; he had not however done so himself, until now. The very fact that the sitting U.S. President is speaking seriously about the use of constitutional remedies to overturn Citizens United shows how far the movement has come. The movement has clearly made its move to the mainstream.

To date, here is what PFAW and our allies have accomplished:

- 1,951 public officials are now in support of constitutional remedies

- 96 House Representatives; 29 Senators

- 14 amendment resolutions introduced in the 112th Congress

- Over 275 cities and towns have passed resolutions supporting an amendment

- 7 State Legislatures have passed resolutions (HI, NM, VT, MD, RI, CA, and MA)

UPDATE: On Wednesday two federal judges approved a settlement in a case brought by the Black Political Empowerment Projectand ACTION United against Pennsylvania public assistance agencies that failed to provide voter registration opportunities for their clients. Under the provisions of the settlement, they will now offer voter registration applications on their websites and will post signs with registration information at their offices. They will also implement additional training and oversight for their employees. And when assistance recipients update their claims, voting-related forms will be mailed to them automatically. ACTION United president Lucille Prater-Holliday: "Without full and robust compliance with the NVRA the disenfranchisement and disengagement of these citizens is only perpetuated. We are glad that the Commonwealth has bound itself to a meaningful implementation of the statute." Earlier we reported about a settlement in a suit over NVRA violations in Massachusetts.

With voting rights under attack nationwide, we must remember our democracy is only strongest when all citizens have the opportunity to participate – which is exactly why the enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act has grown increasingly paramount ahead of the November election, especially its provision affording public assistance recipients the opportunity to register to vote at public assistance agencies.

A coalition of voting rights advocates is working to hold states accountable. Litigation citing NVRA violations has been brought against nine states – most recently in Nevada against Secretary of State Ross Miller and Department of Health & Human Services Director Michael Willden. Litigation could soon follow in Alabama where Demos has joined the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Project Vote in filing notice against Secretary of State Beth Chapman.

Sarah Brannon, Project Vote:

When done properly, public agency registration is one of the most effective means of ensuring that all citizens are offered the opportunity to participate in their government. It reaches people who are less likely to register to vote through other means, including low-income residents, minorities, the elderly, and the disabled.

Lonnie Feemster, Reno-Sparks NAACP:

To empower those without a voice is our most important work and we will continue to fight to allow those without great wealth to speak truth to power. Full participation in the electoral process empowers the poor and disadvantaged.

For more information, check out The Right to Vote under Attack: The Campaign to Keep Millions of Americans from the Ballot Box, a Right Wing Watch: In Focus report by PFAW Foundation.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court issued two sharply divided opinions, both authored by ideological George W. Bush nominees, that show just how important it is to fill the DC Circuit's three empty judgeships with jurists who will put the law over political ideology.

Last Friday, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court issued a divided 2-1 opinion striking down FDA rules requiring graphic warning images on cigarette packages. The majority opinion was written by one of George W. Bush's most notorious nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, who made headlines this spring when she wrote a widely condemned concurring opinion defending the ideology of the discredited Lochner era. The FDA had ordered cigarette packages to complement their textual health warnings with graphic images showing the actual consequences of using the product as intended. Judge Brown jumped through all sorts of hoops to strike the images down as violating Big Tobacco's First Amendment rights. For instance, she dismisses the federal government's stated interest in communicating factually accurate health information to consumers, saying that isn't really its goal. That lets her ignore the obvious fact that the images clearly accomplish that goal.

Two other Bush nominees – Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith – are responsible for a 2-1 anti-environmental decision earlier in the week. In that case, they granted the wishes of major corporate polluters and struck down the EPA's rules on air pollution that crosses state lines. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette noted:

The court ruling, decided by a 2-1 majority, was as surprising as it was dismaying. In her vigorous, even angry, dissent, Judge Judith W. Rogers showed why the decision came as a shock to some:

"To vacate the Transport Rule, the court disregards limits Congress placed on its jurisdiction, the plain text of the Clean Air Act ... and this court's settled precedent interpreting the same statutory provisions at issue today. Any one of these obstacles should have given the court pause; none did.

"The result is an unsettling of the consistent precedent of this court strictly enforcing jurisdictional limits, a redesign of Congress's vision of cooperative federalism between the States and the federal government in implementing the [Clean Air Act] based on the court's own notions of absurdity and logic that are unsupported by a factual record, and a trampling on this court's precedent on which the [EPA] was entitled to rely in developing the Transport Rule ... ."

The Virginian-Pilot was equally disgusted:

To provide some idea of how poorly reasoned the resulting decision was, the judges on the D.C. panel also bought the argument that the EPA should have given states an opportunity to come up with their own plans for downstream pollution.

That's a laughable misunderstanding both of the nature of pollution and of interstate negotiations. Until the EPA stepped in forcefully and under a court's order, efforts to manage water pollution that flows into the Chesapeake Bay floundered for nearly three decades, the result of obstruction and reluctance by a handful of states. The EPA air pollution rules covered more than half the country.

Of the 11 judgeships on the DC Circuit, three are currently empty. Last year, Senate Republicans – eager for more judges like Brown, Kavanaugh, and Griffith – filibustered President Obama's nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the seat once held by now-Chief Justice John Roberts. He renominated her this year, but Republicans have not shown any lessening of their obstruction. President Obama has also nominated Sri Srinivasan to one of the other DC Circuit vacancies.

Decisions like those we saw last week show how important it is to have highly qualified, non-ideological judges on the DC Circuit.

UPDATE: The California legislature has passedAB 1436 and sent the bill to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature. Governor Brown has not publicly stated his position, but he has been supportive of voting rights in the past. Kathay Feng, California Common Cause: "Politicians in other states have been pushing new restrictive laws and campaigns to manipulate election results for their political gain. Governor Brown can take a stand for free and fair elections by signing Election Day Voter Registration into law." Assuming it becomes law, it will not take effect until 2015 when the state’s new voter registration database is expected to be certified.

With the right to vote under attack, it is refreshing to see positive electoral reform making its way from the east coast to the west.

In California, the Assembly-passed AB 1436 provides for Election Day Registration. Where current law requires voters to submit an affidavit at least 15 days prior to an election, the new proposal would allow voters the ability to register as late as Election Day. Ballots would be cast provisionally and counted upon verification of registration. It would take effect in 2016.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-42), the bill’s sponsor:

This bill helps assure all eligible Californians will have the chance to determine who speaks for them in Washington, Sacramento and their home towns. I’m pleased that the Assembly has recognized the importance of increasing voter turnout in our state.

While waiting for the Senate to take action, be sure to visit our friends over at Demos for more information.

It’s that time again – we’re unveiling three more new endorsees of People For the American Way’s Young Elected Progressives program. We’re excited to introduce you to the next generation of America’s leadership, candidates 35 years of age or younger who have been strong advocates for progressive values in their communities.

Brittany Pettersen (CO) Brittany Pettersen is running for the Colorado House of Representatives. She has served as the Denver Organizing Director for New Era, a non-profit dedicated to engaging youth in government and politics. She is a strong supporter of LGBT rights and a woman’s right to choose. Pettersen also believes that we should fight back against voter suppression and protect every citizen’s right to have their voice heard at the ballot box. Be sure to learn more about Brittany Pettersen on her website.

J. Craig Gordon (GA) J. Craig Gordon is running for reelection to the Georgia House of Representatives. He has represented the 162nd district since 2007 and during this past legislative session[] served on the Economic Development and Tourism, Health and Human Services, Retirement, and Special Rules committees. He strongly believes in re-evaluating the education system and revitalizing public education in Georgia and has a proven record fighting for the rights of every Georgian. Check out J. Craig’s website.

Nate Murphy (ID) Nate Murphy is running to represent the 29th district in Idaho’s state House. Murphy, who was elected to the District 25 School Board in Pocatello at the age of 21, is committed to improving the public education system in Idaho. For more information on Nate, click here.

UPDATE: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is now asking the state Supreme Court to reinstate Act 23 (aka AB 7) in time for it to apply in November. Along with the state Department of Justice, he will file a "Petition to Bypass Court of Appeals" and a "Motion for Consolidation" in both cases. League of Women Voters lawyer Lester Pines called the move a "kind of a hail Mary pass by the Attorney General," and seemed confident that the Supreme Court would reject the requests. He pointed out that this is the same court that refused to immediately take up the cases earlier this year. Still, the voting rights supporters who originally brought cases are concerned and will fight the Attorney General’s requests. Meanwhile, two federal challenges to the law are currently pending, with hearings scheduled in October.

7/19/2012: Judge David Flanagan made permanent his earlier injunction in the case brought by the Milwaukee NAACP and Voces de la Frontera, joining a permanent injunction issued by Judge Richard Niess in the League of Women Voters case. Now both courts would have to lift their blocking orders in order for Act 23 (aka AB 7) to be reinstated. With appeals pending, and no further rulings expected until after November, it is virtually guaranteed that the ID requirement will not apply in the general election.

You heard the good news from Connecticut and Louisiana. Now it’s Wisconsin’s turn.

Voter ID is likely off the table for the recall election!

Last May, Wisconsin Governor and ALEC Alum Scott Walker signed Act 23 (aka AB 7), a voter ID law that also counts ALEC affiliated legislators among its sponsors. It has been challenged in two cases: one brought before Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess by the League of Women Voters, and the other brought before Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan by the Milwaukee NAACP and Voces de la Frontera.

Back on April 16, the state Supreme Court refused to immediately take up the pair of cases, sending them back to regular order in the lower appeals courts.

NAACP and Voces got their ruling on April 25, where a temporary injunction will stand at least until late June and the conclusion of post-trial briefing before Judge Flanagan. The LWV ruling came on April 26, where Judge Niess’s permanent injunction remains in force pending appeal.

Though the battle is far from over, since no further rulings are likely prior to June 5, voter ID mostly likely won’t be required when voters go to the polls for the general recall election.

These are the cases furthest along, but other challenges are being mounted, including from the Advancement Project and ACLU. On April 23, the ACLU plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and an expert report.

UPDATE: New York is continuing to take positive steps toward voter registration reform, as Governor Andrew Cuomo just announced an initiative that will allow voter registration applications, as well as party and address changes, to be completed online through the state DMV website. Every DMV office will be equipped with computerized data entry devices where voters will be able to register themselves. Driver License applications—which include voter registration applications—will be made available in more languages. While DMV reforms are just one among many types needed, they promise to make voter registration easier, cheaper, and more efficient across the state. Click here for more information and here for the reactions of election officials and voting rights supporters.

The Right to Vote under Attack: The Campaign to Keep Millions of Americans from the Ballot Box, a Right Wing Watch: In Focus report by PFAW Foundation, details the worst of the worst of the Right’s fight to suppress the vote. Many states have indeed taken up this fight with voter ID, proof of citizenship, and other suppressive legislation.

It was refreshing to see New York buck that trend. On June 7, State Senator Mike Gianaris and Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh introduced the Voter Empowerment Act.

Senator Gianaris:

As election season approaches, government bureaucracy continues to impede too many people from voting. […] Our proposal would remove these obstacles and maximize voter turnout while saving the state and its counties hundreds of thousands of dollars per election, thus preventing disenfranchisement and enabling better record keeping.

Assemblymember Kavanagh:

When voters try to register, or change their address, or change their party, they often find that the rules prevent them from making the change in a timely way or, worse, that the change doesn’t take and they are excluded from voting. […] By modernizing the way we collect, process, and store voter information, we can make registration virtually universal among New Yorkers who are eligible to vote.

Wendy Weiser, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center:

We applaud Senator Gianaris and Assemblymember Kavanagh for taking this much needed step to bring New York’s outdated and error-prone voter registration system into 21st century. Through this effort, New York will lead the country in having a voter registration system that is accurate, complete, and works for all voters.

The bill would make the voter registration process more efficient and accessible in several ways. Consenting citizens would be automatically registered at designated government agencies. Pre-registry would be introduced for 16 and 17-year-olds. Residents who move within the state would have their registration automatically updated. Registration information would be put online and the process would be computerized. Registration and party identification changes would be allowed to continue later in the election cycle.

All of these provisions have been included with the intent of correcting New York’s recent underperformance in voter registration. In 2010, the state’s registration rate ranked third worst in the nation.