JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Healthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic CandidatesHealthcare proposals by the 2020 Democratic Candidates
Brief #64—Health
By Taylor J Smith
With US Presidential Race 13 Months Away – Email in the News
Brief #7—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Hong Kong and U.S. Relations Examined
Brief #72—Foreign Policy
By Erin Mayer
U.S. Attorney General William Barr Proposes “Back – Door” Access To Allow Government To Read Your Digital Messages
Brief #103—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Seniors and the Economy
Brief #55—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Breaking Down The White Houses’ Stated Reason for Refusing to Cooperate with Impeachment Inquiry
Blog Post # 6: The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Trump to Begin DNA Testing Migrants
Brief #82—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The Inequities of our Current Tax System
Brief #52—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Court Upholds Harvard’s Use Of Race As A Factor in Admissions Case
Brief #102—Economics
By Rod Maggay
Federal Oversight of Local Police Stifled by New DOJ Policy; Federal Agency Action
Brief #70—Civil Rights
Summary
On November 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the memorandum “Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State and Local Government Entities” to the Department of Justice (DOJ). He issued the memorandum moments before he resigned as Attorney General. Consent decrees are often used by the department in order to force state and local entities to comply with constitutional and federal laws. The decrees are notable for being used mostly to counter police department misconduct and abuse at the state and local level. The memorandum issued by Mr. Sessions contains numerous policy goals but also imposed three requirements for the continued use of consent decrees. The decrees must now [1] be approved by higher level DOJ political appointees rather than the lawyer managing the case, [2] require additional evidence of misconduct beyond claims of unconstitutional behavior and [3] must have a defined expiration date. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The memorandum issued by Mr. Sessions moments before he resigned is consistent with his approach towards federal oversight of state and local entities such as local police departments. Mr. Sessions has been a firm believer that state and local institutions should have more autonomy and not be hamstrung by demands and obligations made by a federal bureaucracy thousands of miles away. Mr. Sessions even remarked that the use of consent decrees to manage state and local law enforcement departments infringes on a state’s “sovereignty.” What is also notable is his prodding to have consent decrees include an expiration date which would mean a consent decree could end on a specified date without regard to if improvements are making progress or not.
But Mr. Sessions emphasis on upholding a state’s sovereignty misses the point. In this article examining the use of consent decrees in a number of cities from PoliceOne, a pro – law enforcement website, many of the cities that have entered into consent decrees with DOJ to improve their police departments have reported meaningful progress and improved police community relations. What is happening in cities like Ferguson, Seattle, Chicago, Cleveland and others are improvements that would not have been implemented had the federal government and DOJ not gotten involved. These agreements have helped to put into place trainings into how to properly approach the use of deadly force and how to handle motor vehicle stops in a less confrontational way. These cities have also been some of the first to use dashboard and body cams on officers to try and increase accountability for an officer’s actions. And in this report from the Washington Post, jurisdictions that have entered into consent decrees have seen a decline in civil rights lawsuits filed against local police departments. While not all consent decrees entered into can be viewed as successful, it is clear that having them does provide some benefits to communities and to the police departments themselves. Mr. Sessions own personal ideology and his desire in preserving a state’s “sovereignty” and the ability to make decisions on their own shouldn’t be the rationale to dispose of a tool that has brought improvement to communities that needed it and did not get from appealing only to their individual states. If states working together with the federal government help to bring about change then the use of consent decrees should continue under the new Attorney General. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit’s group blog post on Mr. Sessions’s consent decree memorandum.
- Campaign Zero – non – profit group seeking to end police violence in America.
- National Police Accountability Misconduct – non – profit group dedicated to ending law enforcement and detention officer misconduct.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Matt Popovich
DACA: an update on our Dreamers
Brief #57—Immigration
Policy
In September 2018, the Trump Administration made known they would like to put an end to the DACA program. DACA (Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals) was an executive action under the Obama Administration that allowed undocumented immigrants who came to the US under the age of 16 to apply for protection from deportation. After background checks, they were issued renewable 2-year permits to work and study in the US; revocable if recipients commit crimes or fail to prove they are working/studying in the US. Earlier this month, Trump claimed that nearly 800,000 of these “dreamers” have taken advantage of DACA and if Congress does not take action, he will end the program in 6 months. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 690,000 immigrants are enrolled in DACA and could face deportation if and when their work permits expire. Almost as high as Trump’s claims, a cool 787,580 people had been granted DACA status between August 2012 to March 2017, but 39,514 of those “nearly 800,000” had become legal permanent residents and 1,056 became US citizens. Only 2,139 individuals have had their DACA status revoked, which has led many to still believe in the program.
There is a chance that Trump could be found guilty of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by his abrupt attempt to rescind the program, based on its unequal yet substantial impact on Latinos. In the meantime, the Federal Courts have ruled that the administration must resume receiving DACA renewal applications, but only from those who have previously received DACA protections; no new ones. All existing permits are to be honored of their individual 2 year expiration dates, despite the March 5 end date recently established by the Trump Administration.
Analysis
Like many of Trump’s anti-immigration arguments, opposers of DACA believe that such a program only encourages illegal immigration. Migrants who come to the US seeking better economic opportunities, a stronger education, etc., rather than wealthy individuals coming to work in the US or even fleeing a threatening regime are labeled as burdens of society and are met at the border with hostility. Which makes for a very transactional view on immigration; those who appear to contribute greatly to society (economically, mostly) are more valued and welcomed.
With this mindset, the American Dream, is easily swept under the rug and our Dreamers are valued based on their potential future contributions. Many of whom came to the US so young they do not have memories of a different home, and just like those born here, they dream too.
Resistance Resources
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.
Photo by rob walsh
Trump Wants to Call the Shots on Asylum Seekers
Brief #58—Immigration
Policy Summary
In addition to the Trump Administration’s announcement of rolling back DACA (see Brief #57), they have recently announced new rules that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses illegally. Trump specifically intends to deny asylum to the 7,000-10,000 migrants from Central America as they begin arriving in clusters from the Migrant Caravan (see Brief #56). If migrants do not enter through a designated port of entry, they will be “apprehended, detained and deported” unless they can prove they will be tortured if they are sent home. To some of the American public who have been following Trump’s far-fetched plans for reform, this might sound like similar rhetoric used to support the travel ban early in Trump’s presidency.
Though Trump wants to firmly establish a norm that individuals who cross the border illegally will be stripped of their eligibility to receive asylum in the US, many oppose and are challenging the Administrations most recent order. The ACLU has sued to block the new restrictions, calling the case “the asylum ban.” Other NGOs have resorted to referring to international law and the early origins of America as a nation that lends a hand to refugees and asylum seekers. Trump’s new order would violate international law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a founding principle of federal asylum in which any individual can apply for asylum regardless of where or how they entered the country and that each case is judged individually.
Analysis
The Trump Administration’s new order to revoke the rights of migrants the opportunity to seek asylum is yet another action taken with the goal of eliminating and strengthening the existing ‘weak’ immigration laws, as he has constantly reiterated throughout his campaign and presidency. This new order only further proves his commitment to propelling an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee daily agenda. Throughout the recent midterm elections, Trump has focused on the migrant caravan and posing them as a threat to the American public, continuously calling them an “invasion” and “dangerous.” By focusing on something as trivial as port of entry – in the larger picture of seeking refuge – he poses migrants as the law breakers, and those who do not follow the rules and turn themselves in at the border – a designated point of entry – and that they deserve to be stripped of their right to seek asylum. Referring to Trump’s track record of his treatment of migrants at the border, the point of entry does not seem to be the real issue but rather the concept of migration as a whole.
Resistance Resources
-
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
Photo by rawpixel
Pipelines
Brief #47—Environment
Summary
The oil and gas industry is starting to face some blowback at the legal level. A Federal Circuit Judge in Montana recently rejected the Trump administration’s demand to build a Keystone XL pipeline, marking a new wave of environmentally charged legal decision-making. And in Pennsylvania, locals are resisting the construction of an approved pipeline, believed to cost tax-payers a fortune for virtually no benefit. These actions, however, come amidst other chaos throughout the country. In New Mexico, unaddressed oil and gas violations on public lands have become widespread, as the Bureau of Land Management has been encouraging fossil fuel production at a rapid rate. And fracking on public lands is ramping up under the Trump Administration. More still, unmanaged gas leaks have taken the lives of hundreds in recent years, prompting uproar from people but silence from local governments and industry.
Analysis
Demands for greater opposition to environmental hazard are starting to come on The Hill. New Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, joined in with 200 youth climate protestors in an effort to encourage a Green New Deal, which would encourage renewable industry. Elsewhere, the EPA has decided to consider new rules that would limit emissions on heavy-duty trucks, a progressive measure out of the Obama era. Meanwhile, renewable energy is making huge leaps globally, but significant policy change is necessary in order for the industry’s potential to materialize, giving rise to the Green New Deal. The fight however, might be just what is needed, as a new field of psychology has emerged to help those dealing with the embittered struggle against climate change—it’s called ecopsychology.
Resistance Resources
- Green New Deal Information: detailed policy-proposal on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
THE DEMOCRATIC CIVILITY OFFENSIVE
Ron Wolf:
The victorious Democrats flooded the zone on the Sunday morning political talk shows. Likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ranking members of key house committees who are in line to become the chairmen hit the airwaves to explain their priorities. The guests included Rep. Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee and Elijah Cummings of the Government Oversight Committee.
Apart from any specific actions they said they would pursue, the overall message they presented was a dramatic change in the tone of our politics. Throughout the midterm campaign, Democratic candidates and the party leadership showed great discipline in avoiding name-calling, insults, demonization, accusations and calamitous predictions invoked by their opponents. They generally refused to play the game by Trumpian rules.
The incoming Democratic House leadership displayed that same discipline Sunday morning. They were calm, assured and firm. There was no post-election gloating — no spiking of the ball or dancing in the end zone.
The overall impression is that the strategy for the Democrats now will be a civility and decency offensive. They appear eager to present a sharp contrast to their GOP counterparts by avoiding all the fake macho posturing and bluster and wild accusations we’ve seen from the GOP throughout the campaign.
Ron Wolf is a retired daily newspaper journalist based in California who continues to write about politics and the media. He can be reached at ronwolf@outlook.com
Photo by History in HD
As Gun Violence Peaks, the 116th Congress Must Act Fast
Brief #14—Gun Control
Policy Summary
A Saturday turned from a morning of worship and celebration to one of tragedy and grief as a gunman opened fire with an assault rifle and at least three hand guns in the Pittsburg synagogue Tree of Life. Police say this act of terror is classified as a hate crime that resulted in 11 deaths. Two more tragedies – at a local bar in Thousand Oaks, California and at a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida – claimed the lives of innocent victims, one of whom was a survivor of the Las Vegas Shooting. These gun violence incidents are beginning to mount, and may have been avoided if proper, basic gun legislation would have been in place.
Analysis
In the Tree of Life Shooting, the perpetrator, 46 year old Robert Bowers, opened fire at the synagogue on Saturday morning, October 27, fatally shooting 11. When apprehended, he allegedly told police that his intentions were to kill Jews and had been targeting Jews on social media. This is the largest attack on the Jewish community in the United States’ history.
President Trump visited Pittsburg, with his first stop being at the Tree of Life synagogue where he and the families lit candles. In a statement, President Trump blamed the media’s divisiveness and called for armed security at the synagogue in the future rather than calling for tighter gun legislation. As is repeated after every deadly act of gun violence, the continued ability of the government to do nothing is baffling.
Since the synagogue shooting in Pittsburg, a gunman opened fired on a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida that resulted in 2 dead and 5 injured before he turned the gun on himself. Aside from this, on Wednesday in Thousand Oaks, California a man killed 12 at the Borderline Bar and Grill. Among those who were killed was Telemachus Orfanos, who had previously survived the Las Vegas shooting in 2017.
Imagine living in a country where you can survive a tragedy caused by gun violence and die in another one year later. Imagine living in a country where you can’t feel relieved by surviving an act of terror, because another may take your life at any moment. Imagine living in a country where the people who have the power to stop these tragedies from happening extend thoughts and prayers, but no action.
Continued inaction by both President Trump and Congress has done nothing to alleviate the devastation from gun violence. The solutions proposed by pro-gun legislators has proven time and time again to have no impact. As one of the only developed countries in the world that has continued gun violence, the answer cannot continue to be inaction. While 27 NRA backed candidates lost their races in the midterm elections, there is still more that needs to be done to ensure safety of the citizens in America. According to Mother Jones, gun control advocates are now the majority in Congress. On Wednesday, a five point plan for the next Congress was unveiled, including universal background checks proposed by Everytown. The aforementioned tragedies and newfound hope in Congress will hopefully be enough to reverse the devastatingly rapid growth in gun violence.
Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
Contact
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by: Heather Mount
Midterm Takeaways
By Julian Mitchell-Israel
- In seizing the House, we took a step out of the mire of hateful politics that has been steadily consuming our country. This was a hard-fought victory, and anyone who voted, who worked on a campaign, who believed in the great people of our country, should be proud. Patriotism is not only for the right, and this is one of those moments when I am struck with a total reverence for the notions our nation is built on.
- We did not win. Do not fool yourself into thinking that last night was a great, or perhaps even good, night because we took back the House. We failed to live up to our civic promise in many races, including in the two Senate seats we lost. Don’t believe me? Look at the down-ballot races in many states: Ohio, for instance, got absolutely demolished. All but three Democratic candidates that were on my ballot lost.
- We, once again, overestimated the blue wave and overestimated ourselves. Our candidates were not as strong as we thought they were, we did not fight as hard or as smart as we thought we thought we fought, and we did not reach the American people. This is sorely disappointing. It means we have a long way to go before the left reaches the point we so desperately thought we had reached.
- It may seem as though these losses are a reproach of the liberal American spirit, and are a message that America isn’t a place ready for progressivism. It may seem that, with all our ducks lined up in a row, it was still impossible to surmount the will of hate. We did not get the rebuke of Trump’s cowardice that a sweeping victory would have been. Despite this, we must remember: “When we have faced down impossible odds, when we’ve been told we’re not ready or that we shouldn’t try or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.” If we let ourselves be sated by this small victory, if we let ourselves feel run down by these defeats, we leave behind this creed. There is still much to do, perhaps even more than before, so we MUST stand back up and keep moving. We have a direction, we have a clear fight to fight, and there is more potential than ever for improvement. We can make a change, we can make the right choices, and we can once again find those hopeful pillars of America.
Julian Mitchell-Israel is a leftist activist, community organizer, and second year student at Oberlin College. He has organized for campaigns in Brooklyn, Ohio, and Missouri, and serves as the chair of the Oberlin Student Progressive Front.
Photo by roya ann miller
Zinke Questioned…Again
Brief #46—Environment
Policy Summary
Scandals are swirling again for DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke, who just days ago compared Civil Rights Leader, Martin Luther King Jr. to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Now, however, the Department of Justice is considering the potential prosecution of Ryan Zinke over his questionable behavior in his Department of the Interior role. The Agency currently has three open investigations into the secretary including questionable business deals with the chairman of oil firm, Halliburton and another regarding a mixture of lobbying and casino construction. The number of ethics violations Zinke is facing, is bearing a closer resemblance to those which former-EPA head, Scott Pruitt, was subjected to, as well. Though the probe is still in its beginning stage. Zinke, however is not giving much rise to the probe, and is calling it, “politically motivated.”
Analysis
The Zinke probe comes amidst a flurry of other political moments for the environment. In a televised interview, President Trump disavowed both the science and the government that has legitimized information about climate change, but said that he believed climate change existed, though it fluctuated. And the EPA has planned to “accelerate” ozone pollution limits. But with elections coming up, many American environmental activists are trying to encourage some states to swing green. More still, in a surprising move, The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case brought before them by 21 youth, who are suing the government about climate change.
Engagement Resources
- National Resource Defense Council (NRDC): Fight against any assault made on the environment through a network of activists, scientists, lawyers and policy advocates.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Photo by Cole Keister
Recent Stock Market Declines Likely Spurred by Trump’s Economic Policies
Brief #28—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
The patterns of the stock market since President Trump took office can only be described as turbulent. As his election shocked the nation, investors prepared for the unpredictable, only to have the market surge.
Throughout 2017, while the market consistently rose, Trump was quick to tout it as evidence of the effectiveness of his economic policies. The first trading day after his inauguration saw the market surge and the trend of growth continued throughout the year. While the Dow Jones Industrial average rose by 25 percent, the S&P 500 climbed 18 percent and the Nasdaq Composite 24. 2018, on the other hand, hasn’t produced the same consistent gains for the U.S. market. We’ve seen the Dow fall by 0.1 percent and the S&P by 0.6 with the Nasdaq rising, though only by 3.8 percent. October was been a particularly turbulent month for the market. As the closing bell sounded on Wall Street at the close of last week, all three indexes had dropped, the Dow by 6.7 percent, the the S&P by 8.8, and the Nasdaq by 10.9 for the month.
Trump has neglected to comment on the recent market declines. While discussing markets under Trump, we should not forget that he took office in the midst of a thriving economy. When Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones enjoyed steady growth, climbing by 41 percent between his inauguration and the final weeks before his first midterm election. We have reached that exact point in Trump’s presidency and the same index has only risen by 25 percent.
Analysis
The stock market bumps that helped shine a positive light on Trump’s proposed economic policies early in his presidency indicate a common market trend-anticipation of legislative changes that favor investors can easily spur quick market growth. Unfortunately for him, though, we are now seeing the other side of a trend. Quick market growth is often short lived and ultimately unsustainable.
While a market may bounce back, as we’ve seen during Trump’s presidency, such a trend can easily lead to significant drops, as we have also seen. This type of trend can easily raise concerns among economists and investors as to weather the market is headed for a significant correction. Many economists see a poorly performing market as an indication of financial troubles down the road that will affect more than just investors.
The third-quarter of this year has brought some GDP growth, but it is clear that it was spurred by considerable consumer spending. Any economic growth we have seen in 2018 has been overshadowed by recent declines both in capital expansion on the part of corporations and general business investment. Long-term economic growth could be powered by business investment in areas such as job training and company expansions but there are few signs that point to such trends taking place, despite Trump’s claims that the tax cuts would lead to exactly that.
Declines in investor confidence could also likely be linked to the continuing developments in the trade war caused by Trump’s tariffs. Talks to resolve trade difficulties between the U.S. and China have been halted for the time being, likely not a comforting phenomenon for the companies who have affected by the tariffs or their shareholders. Barron’s has reported that stocks of companies with direct ties to the trade war have been hit harder those of companies that are not. This month has seen declines in sectors such as industrial manufacturing, information technology and retail, all of which have manufacturing costs that are linked to Chinese imports. It is hard to see such a trend as a coincidence, especially given the uncertainty surrounding trade relations between the two countries.
These concerning economic elements are coming at what could be a costly time for the Republican party. Midterm elections are quickly approaching and many conservative candidates are faced with the reality that it will likely be difficult for voters to equate their party with economic prosperity. Republicans have longed clinged to the argument that their policies can undo the damage done to the economy by Democrats. While they touted the stock market gains as proof that Trump’s policies worked in the early stages of the election, any credibility that such an argument had is quickly disappearing. Despite the claim on Trump’s part that his tax cuts would benefit both workers and executives, that argument has been proven false. It is also likely that any points that the tax cuts may have earned the Republican party among voters have been canceled by the higher interest rates implemented by the Federal Reserve.
These recent trends regarding the stock market continue the trend of a lack of sustainability that has plagued almost all of Trump’s policies that have spurred any economic growth. Talk and anticipation do not create the kind of sustainability that power an economy to prosperity. What goes up must come down and Donald Trump has proven that.
Resistance Resources
- The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to promoting economic
policies that benefit people across the globe. - The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College is a nonprofit nonpartisan think tank that provides research and analysis of economic policies.
- The Roosevelt Institute is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to helping create a new economic and political system that benefits works for everyone.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact Sam@usresistnews.org.
Photo by rawpixel
Two Important Georgia Voting Cases Issue Rulings Days Before 2018 Election
Brief #69—Civil Rights
Policy Summary: On October 30, 2018, Judge Leigh Martin May of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled against Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s request to stay an injunction that the judge issued the week prior. Judge May’s injunction prevented Georgia election officials from throwing out absentee ballots. Georgia election officials had been tossing out absentee ballots if the voter’s signature on the ballot did not match exactly the signature of the voter on their initial voter registration document kept by the state. Judge Martin’s ruling will allow the absentee ballots to be counted for this current 2018 election cycle.
On November 2, 2018, in a separate case, Judge Eleanor L. Ross issued a much broader ruling on Georgia’s “exact match” voting policy by ruling that 3,141 voter registrations that had been marked “pending” by the state be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections on November 6, 2018. Some voters, including a high proportion of minority voters, who registered to vote in Georgia had their registrations listed as “pending” if personal information in their registration did not match exactly personal information found in Georgia Department of Driver Services or Social Security databases. Judge Ross’ ruling permits those “pending” voters to vote in the 2018 election cycle. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: These two court rulings are important rulings that highlight the danger of voter suppression tactics. In the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race, Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp are in a very tight race with the projected winner still too close to call. Election officials have called their exact match policy an effort to clean up the voter rolls and bring integrity to the process of registering voters. But with as many as 53,000 registrations marked pending and nearly 70% of those from minority voters it was possible that preventing those votes from being counted could easily have had an effect on the 2018 gubernatorial race. The exact match policy currently in force in Georgia also gives those voters who have had their voter registrations marked pending 26 months to correct inconsistencies in their registrations. But that option still did not allow those voters to cast their ballot this Tuesday. Georgia’s preferred course in not counting the ballots and then telling the voter to fix the problem after Election Day has passed would have had the same effect – that eligible voters would not have had their ballot counted in this election cycle. In her ruling Judge Ross stated that voters with pending voter registration applications would suffer “irreparable harm if they lose the right to vote.” And Judge May wrote in her ruling that “the public interest is best served by allowing qualified absentee voters to vote and have their votes counted.” With less than a week to Election Day in 2018, these two rulings will help to ensure in Georgia that all eligible voters who cast a ballot will have it counted and not have it thrown out for minor clerical or political partisan reasons. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group blogpost on dangers of voter signature match requirements.
- Voter Participation Center (VPC) – non – profit group seeking to increase civic engagement among unmarried women, people of color and millenials.
- VoteRiders – non – profit group that seeks to inform voters on acceptable ID requirements in their state.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Parker Johnson