JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
President Trump Misconstrues Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right To Confront Accuser
Policy Summary The Confrontation Clause contained in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted by the witnesses against him." On September 29, 2019, it was revealed...
What Does the September Jobs Report Really Tell Us?
Brief #53—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Trump’s Impeachment Investigation Gets Off to a Fast Start
The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration
Historic Decision Handed Down on Digital Bias From The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); Discrimination
Brief #100—Economics
By Rod Maggay
Asylum Cooperation Agreement: What it Entails in Practice
Brief #81—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Purdue Pharmaceuticals Turbulent Dealings with the Opioid Crisis
Brief #62—Health
By Taylor J Smith
The Administration Joins Others in Concern Regarding E-Cigarettes and Vaping
Brief #63—Healthcare
By Taylor J Smith
Income Inequality at Highest Since Records Kept
Brief #52—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Proposes Six Anti-Poverty Bills for a “A Just Society” Program
Brief #51—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
California and U.S. Department of Justice Reach Tentative Agreement in Ongoing Net Neutrality Fight
Policy Summary
In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promulgated the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” That order rolled back regulations from 2015 that were originally intended to bar Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging users more for selected content. The order curtailing the 2015 regulations went into effect on June 11, 2018. In addition, the FCC also passed regulations that banned individual states from passing their own net neutrality regulations.
On September 30, 2018, California Governor Edmund “Jerry” Brown, Jr. signed Senate Bill (SB) 822 which would put back into place the 2015 FCC regulations that were curtailed by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. The California bill would apply to internet service providers located in California and is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2019. On the very same day that Governor Brown signed the bill into law, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against California to block the law from ever going into effect. On October 26, 2018, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that an agreement had been reached with DOJ. The Department of Justice agreed to temporarily suspend their lawsuit against the state while California agreed to delay enforcement of the law after January 1st, 2019 until a separate net neutrality lawsuit being heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is resolved which could take years. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The ongoing battle over the future of net neutrality regulations, which have always been contentious, made further headlines with the speed with which the battle is being fought. After the Restoring Internet Freedom Order took effect in June thirty states introduced bills to try and preserve net neutrality in their states while six state governors signed executive orders declaring that their individual state will not do business with internet service providers that violate net neutrality. And, DOJ did not even wait a day to oppose California’s SB 822 as they filed suit opposing the bill the very same day Governor Brown signed the bill into law which clearly shows DOJ knew what was coming and was prepared to fight it out.
What the FCC and the Federal Government have failed to recognize is that they are engaging in a fight for a policy that does not have wide support. The mis-named Restoring Internet Freedom Order does nothing of the sort. What the order does is it will give internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast the ability to determine which content they want to prioritize and provide to consumers. Lawful content not to their liking can be blocked or slowed down or even subject to an additional fee. The 2015 regulations sought to provide an even playing field by forcing companies to provide all lawful content at the same technical speed and by preventing companies from charging an additional fee for other content that was not their own. The fact that more than half of the states in the U.S. introduced bills preserving the 2015 net neutrality regulations should have alerted these companies that there was not wide support for the Restoring Internet Freedom Order that changed those 2015 regulations.
The FCC also made a tactical mistake by stating in the order that individual states could not pass their own net neutrality regulations. That section of the order was seen as a way for the FCC to thumb their noses at the rest of the country and say that the states could have no say in the future of net neutrality. That only seemed to fire up the net neutrality opponents even more. Had the FCC been more attuned to the pulse of ordinary citizens instead of beholden to the monetary donations of internet service provider companies and not been so arrogant in trying to silence individual states from having a say on the issue, then they would have seen that the new regulations is not something that the American public wants. The FCC would do better to reach out and objectively determine what most ordinary Americans want with their Internet instead of trying to force a policy that only the large telecommunications companies wanted. Instead, the FCC will get bogged down in a long litigation case and become potentially a loser in a fight that they did not have to fight in the first place. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit group’s infopage on net neutrality issues.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit group’s infopage on privacy and net neutrality issues.
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 rawpixel
Migrant Caravan: the Newest Attempt to Achieve the American Dream
Policy Summary
Migrants from Central America have banded together on their quest for a better life through what has become known as the “migrant caravan,” that began in Honduras on October 12. The numbers of migrants have fluctuated, but it has been consistently in the thousands. Some have had to veer off as nervousness and exhaustion contribute to anxiety and paranoia, as well as physical ailments: sickness, dehydration, sore throats, respiratory infections, blistered feet, pink eye, etc. News of the caravan spread throughout Central America through Facebook and local tv stations, appealing to men, women, families and the elderly. Most are from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and now also Mexico. People joined the caravan to flee poverty, drug and domestic violence, and political unrest. Travelling as such a big group offers a form of protection against bandits who target migrants for kidnap, extortion and/or rape, while also saving many migrants from having to pay people smugglers to get through borders.
Upon reaching Mexico, some people have provided water, food, clothes and even ice cream to passing migrants. In the town of Huixtla, a restaurant owner served 200 plates of beans, rice and tortillas to the group. The journey is through essentially 90 degree weather and occasional heavy rains – so access to food and water are of the essence. One woman from Honduras felt that crossing the border into the US (legally or illegally) even if it resulted in long detention would be better than the Honduran misery she left behind, and expressed that “we prefer to die on the American border than die in Honduras from hunger.” Though, for others the journey has been very taxing. Of the ever-growing group, 1,699 people (Hondurans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians) have applied for asylum in Mexico and 495 Hondurans have asked to be repatriated thus far, as the journey is very taxing.
Mexico has now put in place checkpoints throughout the country because of the caravan, which forces them to take longer and more dangerous routes. Some have considered going towards California rather than Texas in hopes they will be more receiving. Mexican president, Enrique Pena Nieto launched a program called “You Are Home” that promises shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs to Central Americans who agree to stay instead of trekking on to the US. Most migrants rejected the plan, but would re-evaluate once they got to Mexico City as many of the members of the group have said once they make it to the border they are likely to turn themselves to the authorities and claim asylum (though, a few young men have said they will cross illegally if needed). But some (pregnant women, children and the elderly) did agree and were issued ID’s that allow them to stay and work in Mexico.
President Trump has said he will not let caravan members in, but the US is legally obligated to consider asylum seekers. If they pass the first step of asylum process, called the “credible fear interview” they will be held in detention or released in the US and face immigration court in months or years – or else they will be deported. He has also stated that as of now, foreign aid to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador will be severely reduced or stopped altogether. Earlier this year, Trump had spread out 2,100 National Guard Soldiers along the US Southern border, and plans to send 800 troops to the US-Mexico border to confront the caravan.
Analysis
To further invoke xenophobia to the Republican voting base, Trump has insinuated that the caravan members were a part of gangs and that “middle easterners” were included in the mix. Not only is this false, but it appeals to the American voters who have channeled a deep hatred for Muslims and the Middle East as a reason to condemn immigration to the United States, just before the Midterm Elections. In addition, the Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernandez told Mike Pence that the Venezuelan government was financing the journey, but no proof or indications have been made on that claim. In continuing to provide false allegations and rumors surrounding the caravan, the American public receive a very filtered view of the group and in turn respond with fear, rejection and ultimately hostility. The American public has been trained to view “outsiders” as intrusive, exploitative, and malicious over the course of 2018 through Trump’s aggressive and ruthless immigration crackdowns and policies. Decades of gang violence, corruption, destitution and lack of basic civil freedoms are most prominent in parts of the world that suffer from post-colonialism and/or outside governance, even if minutely. Due to corruption, inefficient distribution of foreign aid (or lack of appropriate foreign aid) and wealth and improper use of resources, Central America’s poorest citizens are forced to leave their homeland to seek economic stability and escape oppression.
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 Drew Farwell
Trump Mistakenly Credits Himself for Gains in the Economy
Brief #27—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
One of President Trump’s favorite things to tout has consistently been the economic growth that the United States has enjoyed during his presidency. The picture he paints is one of economic turnaround, often highlighting the problematic elements of the U.S. economy before he took office. During his 2016 campaign, he described the U.S. economy as a “disaster.” Anyone keeping up with his statements (frequently made on Twitter) on economic growth will notice some common themes he frequently touts – job growth and employment, his tax cuts, and wages as well as overall GDP growth.
While it is true that the economy has been doing well raises the question of who should be credited for it. The quick economic growth that the U.S economy experienced in the early months of Trump’s presidency made it easy for him to take credit. Much of his campaign success was built on the promise of restoring economic growth through job creation and business investment. Despite the period of economic expansion that President Barack Obama presided over during Trump’s campaign, many voters believed that Trump’s promises were necessary for the restoration of economic prosperity.
A quick look at the facts and figures will show anyone a fairly robust economy that has been driven by recent growth. A further examination into the economic areas that Trump is so quick to boast about, though, reveals a trend that should not be ignored, one that he has neglected to mention-almost any area that has been strong under Trump can be traced back to the growth it experienced under Obama.
Analysis
Let’s take U.S. job growth as an example. Despite Trump’s claim that he has added 4 million jobs to the U.S. economy, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has produced data that would indicate otherwise. Their data indicates that only 2,188,000 jobs were added to the economy during in Trump’s first year in office, less than the number of jobs added during each year of Obama’s second term.
From job growth we move to the subject of employment and the people actively employed. Yes, the number of employed adults between the ages of 25 and 54 is on track to be the highest of the decade but again we see the trend of Trump enjoying growth that began during the Obama era. During Obama’s first year in office, the recession had brought about a low point in employment statistics, with the number at roughly 74.8 percent. By the time he left office, though, it had spiked to 77.9 percent. During Trump’s first year, it averaged 78.6 percent for the year. We are again presented with a president who has caught the wave of economic growth spurred by the policies of his predecessor.|
Another area that has seen steady growth since the Obama era is that of wages. The real median wages earned by America’s workers have been rising steadily since 2014, despite Trump’s claim that for the first time in “many years,” wages are rising under him. It is true that wages suffered some slight turbulence during the early days of Trump’s presidency but they were fairly quick to rebound. While it is technically true that wage growth has risen under Trump, it has likely not been because of any policies he enacted, but is simply continuing the trend set in motion by Obama.
No analysis of the economy under Trump would be complete without examining the deficit-to-GDP ratio, a figure that refers to the amount of money earned by a country vs. the amount it spends in return. Despite a boom in 2009 due to the recession, by 2016 it had been reduced to 3.1 percent. During Trump’s first year, the number rose to 3.4 percent. This might seem odd, given the robust economy, but many signs point to Trump’s tax cuts that he so highly touted and the effects that they had on government revenue.
This increase in the federal deficit has the potential to be dangerous. If another economic crisis should threaten the U.S. or global economy, the growing deficit could easily make it difficult for our government to address it. Economic recession often comes when a troubled economy is hit with a shock that pushes it in a way that forces it to contract, such as the housing bubble bursting in 2008. The current deficit is largely due to Trump’s tax cuts. If he wants to take credit for any impacts they have had on economic growth, he should be ready to shoulder the responsibility for the negative effects it has had.
Resistance Resources:
- The National Bureau of Economic Research is a non-profit research organization dedicated to conducting economic research for public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.
- The Center for Economic and Social Justice is a non-profit educational center and grassroots think tank that studies, teaches, and promotes economic equality.
- The American Economic Journal: Economic Policy is a publication that publishes a wide variety of papers on matters involving economic policy.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Sam O’Brient: Contact Sam@usresistnews.org
Photo by Jørgen Håland
Michael’s Aftermath
Brief #45—Environment
Summary
The official death toll from Hurricane Michael is at 26 and counting as of last week, as rescuers continue to find bodies, and reports say many are still missing. The future looks tenuous for the Florida area that was devastated by the hurricane, with many concerned about their future housing security in demolished towns. The hurricane also indiscriminately destroyed an Air Force Base in a Florida city, which is raising concerns that climate change could also become a matter of national security.
While the man-made disaster has been devastating, it has almost done the impossible: convince some Republicans that climate change is real. Republicans living in areas that are experiencing changing weather patterns are starting to believe, and minds are beginning to change. Though, farmers in nearby Georgia are still debating whether or not the hurricane was caused by climate change or bad luck.
Analysis
Hurricanes such as Michael may be a hit to American democracy, as well. With at least 200,000 people affected in this area, concerns have risen that those needing to participate in the November 6th election will face difficulties. Those living in affected counties may be able to have access to slightly more lenient voting practices in order to ensure the right restored. This all happens as the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for the second time, to halt a Youth Climate Lawsuit. 21 young people are suing the federal government for their failure to act on climate change. The Supreme Court had previously denied the stay request, as well as the petition to overrule the case being moved far enough to be viewed before the supreme court, though this was before the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Engagement Resources
- Alliance for Climate Education (ACE): They aim to educate young people on the science of climate change and aid them in meaningful advocacy.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Photo by John Fowler
Bipartisanship Response on Opioid Crisis isn’t Bold Enough
Brief #43—Health
Policy Summary
This week, the Senate is poised to vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act (OCRA) of 2018. This bill would increase access to addiction treatment centers, increase opportunities for research on non opioid painkillers, and make it harder to get fentanyl and other synthetic drugs across borders. It would do this with 7.9 billion dollars of federal funding, although this is coming from similar already allocated funds and isn’t much of an increase in spending on this issue. There is a crisis of epidemic proportions occurring in the U.S. with regards to opioid related deaths and lives spiraling out of control. Almost 80% of heroin users first became addicted through prescription painkillers and yet, the OCRA does little to attempt to regulate the pharmaceutical industries and doctors that over prescribe opioids. Little funding, and a relatively lax bill does not help curb a crisis that took almost 43,000 lives last year alone.
Policy Analysis
OCRA doesn’t seem to attack the overarching causes for the opioid crisis in the U.S.: the pharmaceutical industry’s involvement in proliferating the prescription of opioid painkillers. This rate has nearly tripled in the past twenty years, and due to consistent strong lobbying from “Big Pharma,” there has been little attempts by way of legislation to curb their influence. Congress is willing to tamp down on border crossings of illicit drugs but has not attempted to further legislate on the proliferation of prescriptions and continues to be influenced by campaign funds from PACs supporting Big Pharma. A solid 39% of users say they get drugs from friends and family with opioid prescriptions versus a cartel or the Chinese dark web. This bill is simply not bold enough to legislate on issues that could seriously impede the accessibility of opioids. While OCRA will aid in accessibility to treatment resources and impede access to foreign opioids, it avoids attacking the real cause, which is incidentally funding a lot of campaigns in the upcoming midterm election cycle.
Resistance Resources
- To help aid your community that has most likely been affected by the opioid crisis, please consider taking action today in steps outlined by the Partnership for Drug Free Kids.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support. Regularly check social media to see how you can get involved in local protests and rallies.
- Contact
This brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact sophia@USResistnews.org - Keywords: opioid crisis act 2018, big pharma, fentanyl, illicit drug trafficking, big pharma lobbying
- Photo credit: Driving forces
Editorial Cartoon by Walt Handelsman, The Advocate, 2017. Image source theadvocate and @Walt_Handelsman.
Federal Judge Upholds For Profit Colleges Student Loan Forgiveness Program
Brief #28—Education
Summary
This past Tuesday, students rejoiced, nationwide, as the courts cleared the way for an Obama-era policy making it easier for individuals who have been scammed by for-profit universities and colleges to have student loans forgiven. The parameter, known as borrower defense, was designed to help student-loan debtors. It has been subject to numerous delays by the Trump Administration and conservatives, through years of litigation.
Now, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is required to implement a regulation, which she has fought to rescind, as she believes it unnecessarily allows students to free themselves of what have become insurmountable educational loans. She has gone on to say, the regulation was unfair to taxpayers as it made releasing loans too forgiving for the borrower.
The statute was originally expected to come into effect on July 2017, but DeVos suspended the deadline, while she attempted to develop an opposing regulation. However, last month, US District Judge Randolph Moss declared that DeVos’ postponement was unlawful. Judge Moss also turned down an appeal submitted by an organization representing for-profit colleges in California, to continue to delay the rule, therefore allowing student borrower defenses to come into play. On Friday, the Department of Education said it would not pursue further delays.
Analysis
With the Obama-era regulation at hand, a more obtainable path has been laid whereby defrauded students can have their federal student loans annulled. Students who feel they have been duped by false advertisements, such as employment rates following graduation statistics will have a legal voice. Furthermore students whose educational institutions have shut their doors while still enrolled will be entitled to an immediate release of their debt. Additionally, higher colleges and universities that accept federal funding can no longer force students to waive class actions lawsuits or manipulate them into arbitration.
DeVos has been rightfully criticized far and wide by both consumer organizations and democrats for choosing to put students in the back seat over for-profit universities. The ruling also symbolizes a noteworthy stumble for DeVos, who has made decontrolling for-profit colleges a weighty precedence. This is alarming, considering the federal government nearly has a monopoly over the annual $100 billion student loan market. The future regulations and rules in regards to how the Trump administration will handle fraud and other debacles, for example, hang in the balance now. Particularly since thus far over 160,000 individuals have petitioned that their college defrauded them. A large majority of these complaints originated from the nearly 7,000 for-profit institutions found coast-to-coast. As many have contended, this issue hits close to home since it was just this past April a judge finalized a $25 million settlement for students who claimed they were defrauded by Trump University, issuing an overall 90% tuition refund.
US District Judge Randolph Moss’ recent decision means that the borrower defense rule would come into effect around July of 2020, leaving many liberals and pro-higher education organizations with a feeling of accomplishment for now but whether the current administration will retaliate or implement this ruling continues to leave us with a feeling of unrest.
Resistance Resources
- Student Debt Crisis is a people-powered advocacy organization committed to making education free and saving families from the crushing burden of student debt: https://www.studentdebtcrisis.org/
- RISE is a group of student advocates fighting for free college in California. Public colleges and universities were free in California for more than 100 years. Join us in working to restore that promise. https://www.carise.org/
- The Project on Predatory Student Lending was formed in 2012 to combat the massive fraud that was being perpetrated against students and taxpayers by for-profit colleges. They represent thousands of former students across the country and litigate landmark cases against the predatory for-profit college industry. http://www.legalservicescenter.org
- Higher Ed, Not Debt is a multiyear campaign of dozens of organizations dedicated to tackling the crippling and ever-growing issue of student loan debt in America. Higher Ed, Not Debt provides support to borrowers currently paying off the existing $1.4 trillion of debt. They also address the causes of declining affordability and quality, including changes to state funding and financial aid policies. https://www.higherednotdebt.org/
- The U.S. PIRG Higher Education Project is working to keep loans affordable, increase grant aid to students, such as the Pell Grants, and to make textbooks more affordable. You can donate to the project here: https://www.uspirg.org/issues/usp/make-higher-education-affordable
This Brief was posted by USRRESIST NEWS Analyst Erin Mayer: Contact: erin@usresistnews.org
Photo by Good Free Photos
What is Happening to the Environmental Protection Agency?
Brief #44—Environment
Policy Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is changing shape. In the last week, the EPA has decided to change its rules on how it uses scientific studies, effectively deregulating public exposure to harmful toxins. Meanwhile, the Agency has announced that it will liquidate a key scientific review panel of 20 experts, in order to make room for a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). The panel of experts previously advised on particulate matter in the atmosphere, and out of the five new nominees to the CASAC, only one is a scientist. And the rest of the nominees are reported to have fairly anti-science perspectives. More still, the EPA’s director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection was suspended last month for reasons that have yet to be disclosed to her. The director views her suspension as an attack on children’s health, saying, “my sense is that the government has absolutely no intention of taking any action toward seriously changing lead in children’s environments…It basically means that our kids will continue to be poisoned. It basically means that kids are disposable, they don’t matter.”
Analysis
In the wake of Hurricane Michael, one of the most devastating hurricanes to have pummeled the Florida coastline thus far, President Trump went on 60 Minutes to discuss climate change. In the interview the president said that he no longer thinks of climate change as a “hoax” but is unsure if it is manmade and alleged that scientists “have a very big political agenda.” The magnitude of such allegations is large, given the disarray and anti-science bureaucratic changes taking place within the EPA. And the GOP is now positioning itself as aggressively anti-environment, recently coming down on an EPA provision that protects water, arguing that it makes it too easy to “stop fossil fuel production in some states.” The warning signs are now blaring louder for many Americans, as the GOP dismissed the recent IPCC report regarding the fate of the planet, with Trunp even going so far as to say that the climate is currently “fabulous.” It is unclear how much restructuring the EPA will face under the supervision of former coal-lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, but given the GOP’s environmental record, the fate of the EPA looks grim.
Engagement Resources
- Save the US EPA: National campaign that was started by the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238 in order to stop the dissolution of the EPA.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org
Photo by <a style=”background-color:black;color:white;text-decoration:none;padding:4px 6px;font-family:-apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "San Francisco", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Ubuntu, Roboto, Noto, "Segoe UI", Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.2;display:inline-block;border-radius:3px” href=”https://unsplash.com/@tchompalov?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=photographer-credit&utm_content=creditBadge” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer” title=”Download free do whatever you want high-resolution photos from Vlad Tchompalov”><span style=”display:inline-block;padding:2px 3px”><svg xmlns=”http://www.w3.org/2000/svg” style=”height:12px;width:auto;position:relative;vertical-align:middle;top:-1px;fill:white” viewBox=”0 0 32 32″><title>unsplash-logo</title><path d=”M20.8 18.1c0 2.7-2.2 4.8-4.8 4.8s-4.8-2.1-4.8-4.8c0-2.7 2.2-4.8 4.8-4.8 2.7.1 4.8 2.2 4.8 4.8zm11.2-7.4v14.9c0 2.3-1.9 4.3-4.3 4.3h-23.4c-2.4 0-4.3-1.9-4.3-4.3v-15c0-2.3 1.9-4.3 4.3-4.3h3.7l.8-2.3c.4-1.1 1.7-2 2.9-2h8.6c1.2 0 2.5.9 2.9 2l.8 2.4h3.7c2.4 0 4.3 1.9 4.3 4.3zm-8.6 7.5c0-4.1-3.3-7.5-7.5-7.5-4.1 0-7.5 3.4-7.5 7.5s3.3 7.5 7.5 7.5c4.2-.1 7.5-3.4 7.5-7.5z”></path></svg></span><span style=”display:inline-block;padding:2px 3px”>Vlad Tchompalov</span></a>
Voter Suppression Accusations Takes Center Stage In 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial Race
Brief #67—Civil Rights
Policy Summary
On October 11, 2018, a federal lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Georgia to prevent the “exact match” protocol used by the Elections Division of the Georgia Secretary of State Office, which organizes and oversees all election activity in the state. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of civil rights organizations including the NAACP and a number of Asian – American and Latino groups. The lawsuit was prompted by a report from the Associated Press that approximately 53,000 voting registrations in the state were “pending” because of the “exact match” policy. That policy can deny an eligible voter’s voter registration application if any personal information in the application does not match exactly the voter’s personal information when cross – checked with information in motor vehicle and Social Security databases. An analysis by the Associated Press found that nearly 70% of those pending registrations were from Black voters while 80.15% of the registrations were from Black, Latino and Asian – American voters. The Georgia Secretary of State overseeing the Elections Division is Mr. Brian Kemp who is a white man currently running for Governor of Georgia in the upcoming 2018 election. His opponent is Ms. Stacey Abrams, an African – American woman looking to become the first African – American female governor in United States history. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: The “exact match” protocol is a controversial voter verification technique but with the upcoming 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia the flaws of the policy has been magnified even more because of the racial background of the election. The potential to bar nearly 53,000 eligible voters from casting a vote in the upcoming elections is disturbing enough on its face. But when the Associated Press’s analysis of the 53,000 “pending” voter registrations revealed that 80.15% of the applications were from people of color, the discussion took on a racial element and raised questions of voter suppression of minority voters especially considering that minority voters traditionally vote Democratic. (Stacey Abrams is a Democrat while Brian Kemp is a Republican).
The problem with the “exact match” protocol is that any small or minor error can prevent the voter from successfully registering to vote. A missing hyphen, a couple of transposed numbers in an address or phone number or a data entry error by a voting official can bar a registration application. This system is not reliable because of errors that can be made that are not under the control of the voter – data entry errors from the official, errors in a third – party database (DMV or Social Security offices) or name, phone number or address changes (marriage/maiden names, new cell phone, students with numerous addresses in college). It is a system that Georgia had implemented once before they were sued and agreed to make changes in a settlement agreement. However, Georgia went ahead and re-enacted a different version of the same law with the only major change being how many months a voter has to correct their application.
Due to the Georgia governor’s race being between a white male and an African – American female and the “pending” voter registrations affecting mostly people of color, it is hard to ignore the accusations that the Georgia GOP are trying to suppress minority votes and gain an unfair advantage. Those accusations seem to gain more traction with Republican candidate Brian Kemp in charge of the elections as Secretary of State while simultaneously running for governor, which raises a serious conflict of interest issue. There was also the bizarre incident where Georgia Republican Senator David Perdue grabbed a college student’s cell phone when asked a question about voter identification policies which goes on to contribute to the image of the GOP being hostile to efforts to encourage everyone to vote. With the re-enactment of the controversial “exact match” policy, conflict of interest issue with one of the candidates and the racial elements of the election, it is becoming more difficult to see if the GOP has any real interest in tearing down barriers that permits every eligible voter to cast his or her ballot without regard to race or partisan politics. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s infopage on voter suppression issues.
- Brennan Center for Justice – infopage on voting suppression issues in Georgia.
- Congressional Voting Rights Caucus – group comprised of Members of Congress that seek to inform and educate citizens on voter suppression tactics and to advance legislation to prevent those tactics.
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 Arnaud Jaegers
Saudi Dissident Journalist Murdered in Istanbul
Brief #51—Foreign Policy
Policy Summary
Last February, Senators Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Mike Lee introduced legislation to invoke the 1973 War Powers act in order to withdraw the United States from Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen – a war which has led to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with three quarters of its 28 million citizens in need of humanitarian aid, 8 million in starvation, and the worst cholera outbreak in modern history. The measure, which hoped to end American provision of arms and intelligence to the Saudi war effort, was defeated in a bipartisan show of support for one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East. Now, eight months later, that support has finally begun to erode with what seems to be the shocking assassination of a world renowned Saudi journalist.
Jamal Khashoggi built a reputation for himself covering Afghanistan, Algeria, and Kuwait in the 1980’s and 90’s for the Al-Hayat newspaper. He formed a relationship with Osama Bin Laden while covering the jihad against the Soviets, and attempted to convince him to pursue peace during the 90’s before cutting ties after September 11th. While often seen as a sort of de facto spokesperson for the Saudi Arabian royal family, and a useful source for Western insight into the relatively closed political society of Saudi Arabia, he periodically ran into trouble for his reformist views. In 2003 he was fired from his editorial position at the Al-Watan newspaper, which some blamed on his editorial policy. Later reinstated, he was fired again in 2010 for “pushing the boundaries of debate within Saudi society” according to his website. His dissent grew stronger during the rise of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) in 2017, when he criticized the hypocrisy of those who “vigorously applaud social reforms and heap praise on the crown prince” but ignore the continued authoritarian policies as well as the history of those who have fought them for years. The 33 year old MBS has received lavish praise for his modest reforms, including allowing women to drive, all the while cracking down on women’s rights activists. His sudden rise to power included the arrests of hundreds of clerics, business leaders, and royal family members who stood in his way.
Fearing being targeted himself, Khashoggi moved to Washington D.C. in 2017 and entered a role as an opinions editor at the Washington Post. He wrote disparagingly of MBS’s regime, beginning with an article titled “Saudi Arabia Wasn’t Always This Repressive. Now it’s unbearable”. Last month Khashoggi published an article entitled “Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Must Restore Dignity to His Country – by Ending Yemen’s Cruel War”. By this time he had become estranged from his Saudi wife and had become engaged to a Turkish researcher. On October 2nd, he flew to Istanbul to obtain documents from the Saudi consulate which would verify his divorce and allow him to proceed with his wedding which was planned for the next day. His fiancee waited outside the consulate but he never left it. Four days later, the Turkish security announced that they believed he had been killed
Khashoggi’s disappearance and presumptive murder have led to a rift between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US political establishment, and Trump. The Turkish government has reported that they possess tapes proving that Khashoggi was interrogated, tortured, and killed by a team of 15 Saudis who stayed in Turkey for a brief period and then left. While Turkish President Erdogan has refused to explicitly call for the help of the US, in a country which was economically destabilized by Trump’s recent tariffs, he has refused to take action himself and a Turkish official anonymously conceded that “At the end of the day, the U.S. has to take action.”
Republican lawmakers have begun criticizing the Saudi Regime, with Mitch McConnell calling US-Saudi relations “not great” and Lindsey Graham stating that MBS has “got to go”. Trump has appeared far less concerned with Khashoggi’s death, telling reporters after speaking to Saudi King Salman “it sounded to me like maybe these could have been rogue killers – who knows.” He later said “They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things. If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ ” Trump also took to Twitter to lie that he did not have any personal financial interests in Saudi Arabia. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with MBS on Tuesday to “reiterate the President’s concern”, where they “agreed on the importance of a thorough, transparent, and timely investigation”. Some American CEO’s have backed out of next week’s Future Investment Initiative conference, a major part of MBS’ plan to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil. At this time, US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reportedly still plants to attend. Saudi Arabia is reportedly working on a report which will conclude that Khashoggi was killed in a botched interrogation, without clearance from MBS.
Analysis
Saudi Arabia has long been a strong ally of the United States, only ever receiving minor admonishments for its horrific human rights record. The country serves as a powerful opponent of Iran, a military outpost, and a crucial source of oil. In the past, Saudi Arabia also helped suppress Communist influence in Afghanistan and fought alongside the US in the Gulf War. The fact that MBS has presumably overstepped so far as to murder a high profile journalist on foreign soil suggests that he has overestimated the blank check for terror the US has given him. Khashoggi was not a vital political enemy. His colleagues described him as a moderate reformer rather than revolutionary, a “loyal Saudi” who still hoped to return to his homeland. His editorials mostly fell on deaf ears in a country spoiled by Saudi military spending. MBS’ recklessness may doom him here, as some in Washington seem eager to replace him with a more cautious leader, one willing to continue to support US interests in the region without stirring up this sort of attention.
Engagement Resources
- Yemen Peace Project – An organization dedicated to promoting self determination for the people of Yemen
- International Federation for Human Rights – Is a federation of 184 organizations working to defend human rights as outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Colin Shanley; Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
Paul Manafort Cooperates and Trump Reverses Decision to Declassify Documents
Earlier this month, Paul Manafort agreed to cooperate fully with the Mueller investigation. As part of a plea agreement following his trial on numerous charges, Manafort has forfeited over 46 million dollars in assets, including several homes in New York City and the Hamptons, as well as several bank accounts. As part of this agreement, Manafort will not appeal the charges from his previous trial which stemmed from allegations of tax fraud and other charges. Only a few days prior, Manafort’s legal team had met with members of Trump’s legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, leading to speculation that Manafort would remain close-lipped about any information he had related to the ongoing investigation.
In response to the announcement that Manafort would cooperate, Giuliana released a statement saying “Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign. The reason: the president did nothing wrong and Paul Manafort will tell the truth.” Interestingly, this statement was soon after revised to remove the phrase “the president did nothing wrong.” While it certainly does not mean anything on its own, it is interesting to consider why the Trump team would take the time to edit this statement so carefully when the president himself is often fast and reckless in his own tweets. It would seem that as the investigation gains speed and midterms draw near, even the suggestion that the president is capable of doing something wrong may further erode both the president’s approval numbers and the slim majority that his party currently enjoys in congress.
Perhaps in retaliation, or perhaps in a desperate attempt to derail the investigation, president Trump ordered documents related to the investigation declassified in a move that riled politicians on both sides of the spectrum. Immediately following this announcement, Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and outspoken advocate for the Mueller investigation, tweeted: “The President shouldn’t be declassifying documents in order to undermine an investigation into his campaign or pursue vendettas against political enemies. He especially shouldn’t be releasing documents with the potential to reveal intelligence sources.” A few days later, on September 21st, Tump backed-off of the order, tweeting that “I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release.” Trump had received criticism from numerous intelligence officials requesting that he not move forward with the declassification of the documents, “warning that sources and methods could be revealed”. Britain also voiced serious objections to the declassification of investigation documents, concerned that “The material includes direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled a dossier alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
This Entry into USRN’s Russia Investigation blog was submitted by Thomas Wellesley: contact Tom@usresistnews.org