JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS PART 3: IMMIGRATION
OF ED
U.S. Resist News
US immigration policy is in disarray. The number of immigrants crossing our border…
Democrats Vie to for a Vacant Senate Seat
Brief #101 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by William Borque
The question that many Californians are asking is if Butler will enter the race.
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief #93 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
The militant group Hamas launched a surprise assault inside Israeli territory this past weekend that has so far killed over 900 people and became the deadliest attack in Israel’s history.
A Clash of Titans: FTC Chair Lina Kahn Takes on Amazon
Brief #98 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
As a law student Lina Kahn authored a widely respected critique of Amazon’s market power. Now that she’s chair of the Federal Trade Commission will she be able to do something about it?
Trump’s Violent Tongue
Brief #100 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
Like the plot point in the hellscape of a dystopian novel, Trump’s Truth Social network provides users a soapbox for vitriol and calls for violence.
Violence Against Women
Brief #149 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
It should cause us all consternation when society rewards men for spouting dangerous rhetoric, while it chastises and punishes women for expressing the same sentiments.
Examining Competitive US House Races in the Northeast
Brief #99 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
Republicans shocked many pundits by only winning a four-seat majority in the House of Representatives during the midterm elections.
China’s Geopolitical Influence Around the World: Should We Be Worried?
Brief #92 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
China’s mammoth economic initiatives, such as the BRI, are seen as double-edged swords. On one hand, they promise to…
The United Auto Workers (UAW): Who Are They? Why Are They On Strike? Why Does It Matter?
Policy Brief #55 – Economic
by Arvind Salem
This is an incredibly calculated decision, which allows the UAW to inflict the most harm by having the workers of the most profitable plants go on strike, while everyone else works… A strike of this magnitude has multiple downstream effects on the economy…
Supreme Court Declares Affirmative Action Unconstitutional
Supreme Court Declares Affirmative Action Unconstitutional
Civil Rights Policy Brief #207 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 14, 2023
Photo taken from: www.japantimes.co.jp
__________________________________
In November 2014, the group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed separate lawsuits against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). The lawsuits claimed that the race – based admissions programs of both schools violated federal law. Specifically, the lawsuits claimed that the programs were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Bench trials were held in both cases. In both the Harvard College and UNC trials, the district courts sided with both universities and upheld the race – based admissions programs. The Harvard College case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the trial court’s decision for Harvard. Both cases were then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to both cases.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a 6 – 2 decision in the Harvard College case and a 6 – 3 decision in the UNC case. The voting of the justices only included eight justices in the Harvard College case because Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself because she had previously served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers. In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, he declared that the race – based admissions program violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because the programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidable use of race in a negative manner, involved racial stereotyping, and lacked meaningful end points.” In total, the entire decision is comprised of six separate opinions and runs 237 pages. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College was a disappointing decision it was not unexpected. The current 6 – 3 conservative majority on the Court all but ensured that the Court would strike down affirmative action, as bringing an end to the policy has been a conservative rallying cry for decades. While the outcome may have already been decided beforehand, the separate opinions raised some interesting points.
Chief Justice John Roberts in his opinion thoroughly went through the “strict scrutiny” analysis required under the Equal Protection Clause. While that clause guarantees that all people and/or classes of people will be treated equally under the law, an exception is permitted if the rationales put forth by the government pass strict scrutiny. That two step process asks first if the separate classification of a group of people is for the “furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” And if so, if the use of a separate class for race is “narrowly tailored” or necessary to achieve that interest. Using this legal test, Roberts states that the interests put forth by Harvard and UNC are difficult to measure and seem haphazard to determine if having race – based admissions programs is actually providing a benefit. Because it can be difficult to determine if an admissions program today is helping to train leaders of tomorrow, the Chief Justice finds that the admissions programs may not be the only means to achieve that goal and therefore fail strict scrutiny as he analyzes it. Once his analysis determines that, the programs are declared in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and easily struck down.
However, Justice Kavanaugh wrote an interesting concurring opinion which deserves a reading more than the majority opinion. Justice Kavanaugh writes about the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court law school admissions decision, which included a discussion on how long affirmative action programs should last. Affirmative action programs, from the beginning, were always meant to be temporary until improvements or progress were deemed made. While the holding in that case says that considering race in a student’s application for law school is permissible, a number of Justices in that case stated that affirmative action may not be necessary twenty – five years in the future. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the majority opinion, explicitly said this while other Justices on both sides of the aisle mentioned their hope that affirmative action programs would not be necessary in twenty – five years. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed although warned that it should not be so firm that affirmative action would not be needed at such a definite date. This discussion from the prior case is key to Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion because it opens the door to the discussion whether affirmative action programs is still needed today or should end.
The majority opinion in this case seems to want to end affirmative action regardless of the current landscape in the U.S. In the U.S. today, there is still a hostility to Asian – Americans and other minority communities that belies the majority opinion’s insistence that there is a true equality of races today. Elderly Asian – American people were brutally attacked during the years of COVID due to a misconception that Asian – Americans brought the COVID virus to the U.S. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis just recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese persons from purchasing real property in the state. In Atlanta in 2021, six Asian – American women were targeted and killed (eight people total were killed in the mass shooting) by a shooter who was a client at their establishment. What these terrible incidents show, and the bigotry and ignorance they show toward Asian – American communities, is that there are still virulent strains of hatred against Asians that could seep into educational policies, including admissions programs now that race is prohibited from being an essential factor. For the Court to declare that there is no longer any racial animus in the U.S. and that the U.S. is colorblind is ignorant of the racial climate in the U.S. today, especially against Asians. Affirmative action programs should not be permanent but today is not the time for the programs to be dismantled. The case may only apply to race – conscious admissions programs but has the unintended effect of opening the door to potential discrimination against Asians in academia, the corporate world and other industries. Now, in the wake of the decision there are reports that Republicans are going to challenge race based scholarships and that the founder of SFFA, Ed Blum, is going to now challenge the use of race on corporate boards and academic fellowship programs. Because of the current hostile environment against Asians, this case was wrongly decided at this particular time. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- PBS – report on the rise of Asian hate incidents.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit’s group comments on the latest decision.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Temperatures are going up as the trees are coming down
Temperatures are going up as the trees are coming down
Environment Policy Brief #156 | By: Todd J. Broadman | July 12, 2023
Photo taken from: https://fox40.com/
__________________________________
Recognizing the significant role that healthy forests play in climate and biodiversity, 145 countries were represented last year in Glasgow, Scotland at the Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The resulting agreement aimed to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Of particular focus is the preservation of primary or first-growth forest; in 2022, on average 11 soccer fields of primary forest were destroyed each and every minute. That rate of destruction adversely impacts climate and biodiversity. With global demand for wood expected to grow by 54 percent between 2010 and 2050, it is highly unlikely that the Glasgow agreement will be met.
That demand is largely driven by agricultural commodities, fuel and timber products like woodchips, as well as paper and cardboard. Logging to meet that demand will cover an area roughly equivalent to clear-cutting the entire continental U.S. Among other functions, a healthy forest sequesters carbon from the atmosphere and produces sugar, and during the process of decay carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Throughout the U.S., 12% of carbon emissions are captured by forests.
Deforestation rates outside the U.S. continue to be alarming. Tropical primary forests are of particular concern, and four countries that are witnessing a rapid decline in forested acreage are: Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, and Bolivia. Within Brazil, the states of Amazonas and Acre saw record levels of primary forest loss last year. Amazonas state’s forest cover loss has doubled over the last three years. These industrial scale clearings do more than threaten biodiversity, they threaten people – the many indigenous tribes living there.
Policy Analysis
96% of all forest removal takes place in the tropics – the very forests needed most to aid in regulating climate. In Brazil, the rate of tropical primary forest loss increased by 15% from 2021 to 2022, the vast majority of that loss coming from the Amazon. There is good research to suggest that there is a tipping point in which the Amazon can become too dry due to lack of rainfall and turn into savanna. Throughout the tropics, the economic driver is commodities production.
Following Brazil in tropical forest destruction is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In the DRC trees are cleared to make way for small-scale agriculture and charcoal production used for household energy needs. Over half of DRC’s population is deeply impoverished – 81% don’t have electricity. Another example of how socio-economic conditions intersect and directly determine habitat loss. To the west of DRC is Ghana, where forests are being cleared for added cocoa farms and related production, and this is in addition to gold mining activity.
Bolivia saw a record-high increase in primary forest loss in 2022, almost a third more land laid bare than the year before. Even more than the country of Indonesia. Bolivia, not coincidently, was absent from the Glasgow agreement. Commodity production, yet again, is the driver there – soybean acreage. Bolivia has lost nearly a million hectares of primary forest since the turn of the century, of which nearly a quarter can be attributed to Mennonite colonies, who have made a sizable footprint in South America raising commodities such as sugarcane, corn, sorghum and cattle, in addition to soybeans.
The World Resources Institute’s Rod Taylor asks, “are we on track to halt deforestation by 2030?” and answers, “the short answer is a simple no.” He and many other concerned observers see a trend. The United Nations has established a line in the sand, one of many that we see get washed away, for companies and financial institutions to eliminate commodity-driven deforestation by 2025. A 2022 analysis is sobering: in Brazil, over a recent three-year period, only 2% of illegal deforestation were subject to any penalty by federal law enforcement agencies. The President of Kenya, Wiliam Ruto, has removed the long-standing logging ban in that country; another invitation for further crucial habitat loss and corrupt Kenya Forest Service officials. “By lifting this ban, president Ruto has prioritized profit over people and nature,” said Greenpeace Africa’s Community Manager Tracy Makheti.
The desperation of the poor coupled with the sanctioned greed of the wealthy will continue to drive deforestation in the face of anger and protests, in the face of organizations like the U.N. that cannot enforce the very agreements they have labored so long to put in place. The major destinations for the commodities of palm oil, beef, leather, soy, rubber, and coffee, that arrive at the cost of primeval forest, are China, the European Union, and the United States. And like oil, there are no laws to prevent their continued importation.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.wri.org/ The World Resources Institute works globally to meet people’s essential needs; to protect and restore nature; and to stabilize the climate and build more resilient communities.
- https://maaproject.org/en/ The Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP) is a project of the conservation nonprofit Amazon Conservation Association and is at the forefront of the field of high-tech, real-time monitoring of deforestation.
- https://www.clientearth.org/ Ingeniously uses the law to create systemic change, focusing on the most pressing environmental challenges.
Supreme Court Misconstrues Religious Liberty Again In New Discrimination Case
Supreme Court Misconstrues Religious Liberty Again In New Discrimination Case
Civil Rights Policy Brief #208 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 12, 2023
Photo taken from: nytimes.com
__________________________________
Summary
Lorie Smith owns a graphic design business in Colorado named 303 Creative, LLC. Ms. Smith decided that she wanted to expand her business into website design, specifically wedding websites for couples. However, Ms. Smith was worried about what effect Colorado’s Anti – Discrimination Act would have on her business and her personal religious beliefs concerning same – sex marriages. Ms. Smith believes that her religious beliefs instruct that only a man and a woman can enter into a marriage because this is “biblical truth.” She feared that under Colorado’s statute that she would be compelled to design a wedding website for a same – sex couple in contravention of her beliefs.
Ms. Smith brought a lawsuit in federal district court seeking an injunction prohibiting Colorado from enforcing the State’s anti – discrimination statute against her and forcing her to create wedding websites for all customers. During the trial, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts. The most significant facts stipulated to were that the wedding website designs were created by Ms. Smith and were “expressive in nature” and were “original, customized” creations that conveyed her beliefs about marriage. The federal district court ruled against Ms. Smith and denied her request for an injunction. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appeals court ruled that while Ms. Smith’s creation of wedding websites constituted “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment she was not entitled to an injunction prohibiting Colorado from enforcing its anti – discrimination statute against her. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
On June 30, 2023 the Court decided in a 6 – 3 decision that under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment that Ms. Smith could properly refuse to create a wedding website for a paying same sex couple. LEARN MORE
Analysis
This case is very similar to a Supreme Court case from 2018 that was also from Colorado and also focused on whether a business could decline to provide a business service to a same sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a narrow ruling against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission finding that the Commission was not neutral to religion in that particular case. But that case also avoided issuing a sweeping judgment addressing the contentious issue as to whether religious beliefs can be used to discriminate against a class of people such as LGBQT persons. There was hope that the 303 Creative, LLC case might address that but the Court again refused to address the religious beliefs to discriminate conflict directly and instead decided this case differently. The Court ruled for Ms. Lorie Smith on Free Speech grounds.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion tracks the “strict scrutiny” analysis employed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but comes to a different conclusion. Under the two – step strict scrutiny analysis, speech can be prohibited if the government has a “compelling governmental interest” and “no less restrictive alternative exists to secure that interest.” When he analyzes the compelling government interest Justice Gorsuch recites the long history of cases that showed that the government had no compelling interest in forcing persons to espouse a particular message or viewpoint. Children could not be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette), a veterans group could not be forced to include LGBQT members in their parade (Hurley v. Irish – American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.) and the Boy Scouts could exclude a scoutmaster because he was gay (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale). At the heart of all these cases is that the government may not compel a person or association from speaking a specified or preferred government message. According to Justice Gorsuch then, the “compelling government interest” prong of the strict scrutiny analysis fails because there is no government interest in forcing Ms. Smith to create wedding websites for same sex couples because of the expressive nature of her “speech” in creating these websites.
However, Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion contains an interesting historical footnote that should not be overlooked. In Section C – 1 of her dissent, she recounts the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legal history of antidiscrimination statutes similar to the Colorado act at issue in this case. What is noteworthy is that business owners who were opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claimed that by being forced to serve a certain class of people would force them to act against their religious convictions. This is the same argument being made today by those who want to deny service to LGBQT persons. Congress rejected those arguments and proceeded to pass the landmark civil rights law. The history then shows that these opponents tried to take their concerns to court where they consistently lost. In Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court rejected a business owner’s argument that his personal convictions prohibited him from serving Black people at his restaurant. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. the Court rejected the argument that a business owner forced to serve Blacks would violate his religious liberty. And lastly, in Runyon v. McCrary the Court rejected a school’s First Amendment Free Speech argument in support of their policy of excluding Black children from enrolling. The Court said that Free Speech under the First Amendment did not permit a school to discriminate because the school was still free to teach its preferred “ideas or dogma.” What the debate prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and these cases illustrate, and what Gorsuch’s majority opinion misses, is that the arguments and rationales supporting discrimination based on religious beliefs and convictions had been previously rejected by Congress and the Supreme Court. This Court is simply ignoring these cases in order to get their preferred policy result in allowing religious beliefs to be used as justification to discriminate against a class of people. Back then, the goal was to exclude Blacks but now the same rationales are being brought up again but now to exclude LGBQT persons.
While Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion does a proper free speech strict scrutiny analysis of the case, even he admitted that he came to a different legal conclusion than what the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals came to when it did its own strict scrutiny analysis. Legal rules can often be twisted and manipulated to get a preferred policy outcome. But his opinion fails to address the concerns raised by Justice Sotomayor in her dissent that could have changed the outcome in the case. Gorsuch’s penchant of picking and choosing convenient facts and ignoring significant cases and precedents makes his reasoning less credible in the ongoing religious liberty – discrimination debate. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Human Rights Campaign – statement from non – profit group on 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis case.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement from non – profit group on 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis case.
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 rodwood@email.com.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS PART 2: HEALTHCARE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS: PART 2: HEALTHCARE
OP ED | By: U.S. Resist News | July 11, 2023
Photo taken from: nytimes.com
This is the 2nd in a series of U.S. RESIST NEWS recommendations of platform positions for use by 2024 Democratic Party candidates.
__________________________________
The US healthcare system is extremely fragmented. Healthcare access varies from state to state and according to income level and racial and ethnic background. We suffer from high rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney and lung disease and stroke. Mental health problems and drug addictions are widespread. Abortion recently has been stripped of its country-wide right by the Supreme Court. With the recent notable exception of insulin, most prescription drug prices are unregulated. Our public health system seems unprepared to deal with new diseases and pandemics.
The misshapen, unequal state of our health system calls out for the Democrats to make universal access to affordable health care (Medicare for All) a central part of their 2024 election platform. At the core of the platform should be a call for healthcare to be embraced as a basic human right, be it through legislative action or a constitutional amendment. And a related call should be made for continued support for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) until Medicare for All becomes a reality.
The call for reproductive rights for women and the Supreme Court Dobbs decision (that reversed the Supreme Court’s decades long support for abortion as a federal right) should be another major component of the Democratic platform.
Dobbs has proven to be a highly unpopular decision among women of all backgrounds. Coming out against Dobbs will help promote the turnout of women voters for Democratic candidates.
Democrats should announce their intention to build on the Biden administration’s success in reducing insulin prices and call for reductions in other widely used but overpriced drugs. They also should turn their attention to stronger regulation of drugs that do us harm, such as opioids.
The Party platform also might consider putting greater emphasis on preventive health care measures to help address the growing incidence of mental health behavioral problems and obesity in our country. Such measures should also call for greater promotion of the use of existing and new vaccines that have proven to be effective in preventing disease, such as the Covid vaccine
And finally the party needs to give serious consideration to labeling gun violence as a public health issue that should be addressed by health professionals as well as law enforcement officials.
Book Review: Traffic: Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral, Ben Smith, Penguin Press, N.Y., 2023.
Book Review: Traffic: Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral, Ben Smith, Penguin Press, N.Y., 2023.
Technology Policy Brief #92 | By: Mindy Spatt | July 11, 2023
Photo taken from: theintercept.com
__________________________________
A history of the early 2000’s Internet media wars by a former Editor of Buzzfeed News. Ben Smith describes how the founders of upstart news sites like Gawker and the Huffington Post started off racing to post breaking, under-reported news and ended up in a race for online traffic. And how Breitbart News and Steve Bannon were ultimately the ones who won that race.
Review
If you’re a news freak like I am, you might enjoy this romp through some of the tawdriest news stories of the first 20 years of this century, including Anthony Weiner’s penis pics and Trumps’ pee tape. Ben Smith is the ideal person to guide us, since as he experienced the boom and the bust from two perspectives, working at Buzzfeed News in its heyday and joining the NY Times as media correspondent after that.
The story goes something like this: privileged young white guys want to shake up the media landscape via the Internet, but get caught up in an urgent competition for traffic on the information superhighway. Smith attempts to put a human face on the story by centering it around himself, Jonah Peretti of Buzzfeed and Nick Denton of Gawker as they move through a series of offices in the hippest parts of Brooklyn and lower Manhattan and lunch with potential financiers at Balthazar. As characters Peretti and Denton aren’t particularly likeable or interesting, and there’s no surprise in their pursuit of engagement becoming the pursuit of profit.
Peretti was an editor at Huffington Post, working alongside Andrew Breitbart, an even less likeable character who Stein repeatedly describes as “pudgy“, “overweight” and a “flea bag.” But there’s no surprise as Breitbart ended up heading a right-wing media empire either; he knew Ariana Huffington from her days as a republican spokeswoman and had worked for the Drudge Report, whose right-wing views Huffington launched her site to counteract. Since neither reader nor author like him, the lengthy descriptions of Brietbart’s “humiliations” at the hands of Matt Drudge, and how they might have made him feel, add nothing to the book.
The subtitle notwithstanding, I wasn’t particularly impressed with the genius of the three either, as they watch traffic carefully in order to devise new ways to attract it. For example, he describes the exhilarating moment when Buzzfeed editors realized how they could monetize 10 best lists or quizzes, i.e., “What’s your love style,” the type of content that, as Stein notes, was already a mainstay of women’s magazines. After posting a quiz entitled “What State Do You belong in” that readers had strong reactions to on Facebook, “…we gathered astounded as [T]raffic …built to around 200,000 people…about twice as many as most days.” Now Buzzfeed knew how to use Facebook to its own advantage.
Gawker, with its often-salacious coverage of media celebrities, comes off as little more than tabloid journalism for the Internet age. According to Stein “Nick had always produced traffic flow by giving people the things they wouldn’t admit they wanted, and by publishing the things that nobody else would. The purest form of this was the sex tape….” It’s ironic that one of Denton’s earliest successes was outing financier Peter Thiel as gay, since Denton is gay himself. Theil returned the favor years later by backing Hulk Hogan’s sex tape lawsuit that forced Gawker into bankruptcy.
“While Stein speaks admiringly of a few women who rose to the top of this field, he doesn’t ponder whether the sites might have had more staying power or more substance had they included more content by and about people of color or women, or had more diverse leadership and staffing. However, he does note the great success of Gawker’s sister site for women, Jezebel, which “had a community, a real one.”
In the final chapters of Stein’s book we see Steve Bannon succeed Andrew Brietbart after his death and, with Bannon’s help, candidate Donald Trump decisively wins the traffic wars. “He’s made for Facebook” Stein says. And anyone can get in on the act. Stein describes how “a handful of teenagers in Veles, Macedonia,” hoping to make a few bucks, created anti-Hillary websites with articles like “Your Prayers Have Been Answered” (Hillary will be indicted) that drove Americans to their sites. Genius?
Stein doesn’t have much to say about why things worked out so badly, or how lies and misinformation became so easy to spread, nor does he appear to question the capitalist underpinnings of the traffic race. His conclusion focuses on a few individuals who went over to the dark side rather than any broader societal implications or doubts about his own role.
Democrats’ Attempts to Rearrange the Primary Calendar Have Put Biden in a Bind
Democrats’ Attempts to Rearrange the Primary Calendar Have Put Biden in a Bind
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #84 | By: Ian Milden | July 7, 2023
Photo taken from: newrepublic.com
__________________________________
Summary
With Joe Biden’s support, the DNC worked to rearrange the early parts of the primary calendar. However, states where Republicans play a role in scheduling primaries have not cooperated. This brief will explain the dilemma that Democrats put themselves in, with a focus on the first in the nation primary.
Analysis
Earlier this year, the DNC and President Biden proposed a plan to alter the presidential primary calendar for the 2024 nomination. The proposal, which was approved by the DNC, would remove Iowa from the early state lineup, move South Carolina to the first spot, have New Hampshire and Nevada go the week after that, and have Georgia and Michigan be the last two states to go before Super Tuesday. I’ve previously written about this plan with a focus on the effects of removing Iowa from the early part of the calendar.
The implementation of this became problematic because the states have the formal power to set their own primary dates since they pay for and administer the election. South Carolina is an exception because the state parties have some flexibility in setting the date. The DNC only has the power to set rules for delegate selection, which have specifications on what days states can hold their primaries. Some of these states have Republican Governors and state legislatures that are controlled by Republicans. The most notable of these states in the early primary slate is New Hampshire where the Governor is a Republican, and Republicans control a majority in both houses of the state legislature. Neither is likely to take orders from Biden or the DNC on how their state should conduct its primary.
If the lack of power in the New Hampshire state government wasn’t a big enough challenge to change the date of the primary, there is a New Hampshire state law in effect that requires the state to have the first Presidential primary in the nation. The law also gives the state Secretary of State, which is the state’s top election official, broad power to move the New Hampshire Primary’s date to keep the state in compliance with the law. New Hampshire state government officials have made quite clear to the DNC that they will not change the law.
The DNC has responded by repeatedly postponing the requirements for New Hampshire to change the law, which pushes the problem to a later date. The latest date is September 1st, which won’t result in any changes on New Hampshire’s part. The Republicans in the state government don’t stand to benefit in any manner if they comply with the DNC’s requests.
If New Hampshire remains the first primary, Biden will have broken a promise to South Carolina Democrats. This would be particularly harmful to Biden since South Carolina Democrats helped him get the nomination in 2020. South Carolina’s main Democratic constituency is black voters, whom Democrats need to turn out to vote in large numbers in the general election. If Biden appears insensitive to black voters in South Carolina, black voters in other states will notice and might be less likely to vote.
If Biden sticks with his plan and elects to ignore the New Hampshire primary, he risks allowing a fringe candidate such as anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Marianne Williamson to gain a foothold in the primary and appear credible. The Biden campaign and the DNC do not want to waste financial resources fending off a primary challenger to an incumbent President, especially one who has suggested without evidence that the CIA could assassinate him.
There’s not a particularly good solution available to Biden and the DNC in resolving the primary calendar dilemma. At this point, Biden and the DNC should quietly begin to accept that New Hampshire is going to go first and plan around that. While they don’t control New Hampshire politics, they can control the strategic decisions they make. Their strategy for the primary campaign should revolve around figuring out how to prevent any primary opponent from gaining a significant following in New Hampshire while appeasing black voters in South Carolina by being visibly present in the state.
Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper
Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper
Civil Rights Policy Brief #206 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 7, 2023
Photo taken from: npr.org
__________________________________
Summary
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision in the Moore v. Harper case. At issue in the case is a redistricting map from North Carolina that was being challenged as an impermissible partisan gerrymander. But the heart of the case is a challenge to the Elections Clause found in Article I, § 4, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution which requires the legislature of each state to prescribe the “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner of” federal elections.
After the 2020 decennial census, the North Carolina General Assembly proceeded to redraw its state congressional district map. The map was passed in November 2021 but immediately came under scrutiny by several voting groups and individual voters and a lawsuit was subsequently filed. The lawsuit alleged that the maps were drawn to favor and give an advantage to Republican candidates in the state while excluding Democratic candidates from being competitive in a number of districts. The trial court agreed but said that no relief could be had. An appeal was taken to the North Carolina Supreme Court. That Court reversed the trial court and declared that the maps drawn were impermissible partisan gerrymanders and that North Carolina state courts could issue relief to the plaintiffs. The Court then ordered a redrawing of the congressional district map. However, the legislative defendants again made a second appeal of the trial court’s remedial order ruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Court then overruled it’s decision in the first appeal and held that partisan gerrymander cases could not be reviewed by North Carolina state courts and again ordered the North Carolina General Assembly to again redraw the state’s congressional district map. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court to determine the question if state legislatures have the sole power to determine redistricting issues free from restrictions and limitations from state law and other branches of state government, e.g. review by a state court or veto from the Governor.
The Supreme Court eventually decided by a 6 – 3 vote that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures the sole power to act under that clause and that the power wielded by state legislatures is subject to state constitutional limitations such as review by a state court and a veto by the Governor. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The Moore v. Harper case was an eagerly anticipated Supreme Court case because of the fringe legal doctrine at issue, the independent state legislature doctrine (ISLD), and the possibility that an adverse decision would plant the seeds for a chaotic 2024 election season.
In 2000, the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore. But in Chief Justice William Rhenquist’s concurring opinion he mentioned in passing that the Elections Clause granted to state legislatures authority over elections that could not be diminished or altered by state judges. It was easily overlooked but soon gained traction in Republican circles who interpreted the Elections Clause to mean that state legislatures had exclusive and near – absolute authority to regulate federal elections in their state. State legislatures would have a free hand and did not have to abide by any restrictions or limitations in regulating federal elections. Their actions would not be reviewable by a state court and a veto by the state’s Governor would be unenforceable.
Under this interpretation, there could be several different scenarios where the doctrine could be used to try and undermine a U.S. election. It was this theory that President Donald Trump and his allies relied on to try and overturn the results of the election in a number of states. Additionally, some state legislatures have tried to ban their extreme drawing of gerrymandered state district maps from review by state courts because they claimed that only the state legislature could decide what a state congressional map looked like. And the theory could also be used to rationalize the elimination of state independent redistricting commissions in a number of states as well as permit a state legislature from refusing to certify a properly conducted election based on flimsy legal arguments and other unwarranted excuses.
But the Supreme Court, surprisingly, rejected the theory outright. While some thought that the conservative majority on the Court would adopt the theory, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett joined the three Liberal justices in rejecting the independent state legislature doctrine. They also brought numerous historical examples and Court precedents to show that that doctrine has never been accepted. Chief Justice Roberts cites historical evidence that the word “legislature” during the era of the Founding Fathers was not meant to refer to the legislative body only as we know it today but instead meant all of the branches of government together. This implies that sole power over elections was not meant to be held by the state legislature alone. And, his opinion cites cases that have rejected the legal theory. He cites Ohio v. ex. rel Davis v. Hildebrandt and Smiley v. Horn where a state legislature’s power under the Elections Clause was subject to a state referendum in the former case and where a Governor’s veto of a redistricting plan was proper in the latter case. What the historical evidence and the Court’s precedents demonstrate is that the independent state legislature doctrine has always been a failed legal doctrine, which the Court strongly emphasized. The conduct of free and fair elections in the U.S. can be subject to review or veto from the other branches of government.
An interesting side note is that the case may have been used Chief Justice Roberts to try and boost the current standing and reputation of the Supreme Court, which has flagged recently. Some believe that the conservative majority on the Court is merely rubber – stamping conservative policies instead of being unbiased when cases come before the Court. However, when it comes to the legitimacy of the Court, Chief Justice Roberts has been known to switch sides in order to save the Court from accusations of partisanship. In 2012, the Chief Justice famously sided with the liberals on the Court to save Obamacare and demonstrate that the Court can side with liberal policies even if they personally did not support it. The Chief Justice may have just done the same thing in this case to try and persuade a skeptical public that there is no partisan bias at the Supreme Court.
In the aftermath of what President Trump tried to do in attempting to steal the 2020 election and of what other Republican candidates and operatives have been trying to do to manipulate state legislatures to ignore the will of the people, this decision is the best decision at the most opportune time. The decision takes steps to ensure that elections will have the safeguards of their state constitutions and other branches of government while rejecting the independent state legislature doctrine once and for all. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice – non-profit group’s explanation of the independent state legislature theory.
- Campaign Legal Center – non-profit’s group explanation of the independent state legislature theory.
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 rodwood@email.com.
The Path to U.S. Immigration Reform: Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities in a Globalized World
The Path to U.S. Immigration Reform: Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities in a Globalized World
Social Justice Policy Brief #147 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 5, 2023
Photo taken from: lwvgr.org
__________________________________
Summary
Immigration, a cornerstone of the United States’ history and growth, also has consistently been a contentious topic in U.S. policy discourse. Immigration public policy has been influenced by socio-economic, political, and humanitarian considerations. According to data from the Pew Research Center, more than 44 million immigrants live in the U.S., making up 13.7% of the nation’s population. The complexities of immigration are escalating in an era of globalization, technological advancement, and increased international mobility.
The current U.S. immigration system is widely criticized as being outdated and ineffective, often failing to address economic needs, family reunification, refugee and asylum considerations, and the status of undocumented immigrants already in the country. Comprehensive immigration reform, therefore, is essential for a system that is just, humane, and suits America’s needs in the 21st century.
Analysis
Approaches to immigration reform in the United States have been multifaceted, ranging from attempts to overhaul the entire immigration system to more targeted policies addressing specific issues. These include the DREAM Act, which provides a way to achieve legal status for individuals brought to the U.S. as children, and the RAISE Act, which aims to transition the U.S. to a merit-based immigration system.
The DREAM Act, offering a potential pathway to legal status for individuals brought to the U.S. as children, has been introduced in Congress multiple times. However, it has yet to become law. Similarly, the RAISE Act, which aims to transition the U.S. to a merit-based immigration system, prioritizing immigrants based on skills, education, and proficiency in English, has also not been passed as of now.
Proposed immigration reforms have sparked considerable debate. Critics (e.g. political conservatives, anti-immigration groups, and some segments of the general public concerned with national security and resource allocation) argue that lenient immigration policies may lead to a surge in illegal immigration, risk national security, and strain public resources. Proponents (e.g. human rights organizations, immigrant advocacy groups, and businesses seeking skilled labor), on the other hand, point to the potential economic growth stimulated by skilled immigrants, the moral imperative to aid refugees and asylum-seekers, and the need to resolve the status of millions of undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S.
Some significant cases that shed light on the complexity of immigration reform include:
a. DACA and DREAM Act: The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was established by President Obama in 2012 to protect from deportation certain immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. The Dream Act is legislation that seeks to make the DACA Program law. The Act directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel removal and grant lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis to certain non-U.S. nationals who initially entered the United States as minors (younger than 18 years of age). The DREAM Act, offering a more permanent solution, has been introduced in Congress multiple times but has never become law.
b. Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” policy: Under this policy, adults who entered the U.S. from the southern border were prosecuted for illegal entry. Children can’t be imprisoned with parents and other family members, so young kids were taken into federal custody — resulting in more than 3,000 children being separated from their families. This policy provoked a national and international outcry about the treatment of migrants, and was rescinded by the Biden administration in early 2021.
c. The Biden Administration’s immigration bill: The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is a sweeping immigration bill proposed by President Biden. The proposal included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expanded refugee admissions, and increased funding for border technology. However, its passage remains uncertain.
Addressing the issue of immigration reform requires careful balancing of various interests. It necessitates cross-party cooperation, comprehensive legislation, effective enforcement, and consideration for humanitarian concerns. A modern and efficient immigration system that is flexible to changing dynamics can contribute significantly to the country’s economic growth, diversity, and global standing.
Engagement Resources
- American Immigration Council (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/): A nonprofit organization advocating for the value of immigrants and immigration to the nation.
- National Immigration Forum (https://immigrationforum.org/): An advocacy organization promoting the value of immigrants and immigration, with a focus on policy analysis and communication.
- Immigrant Legal Resource Center (https://www.ilrc.org/): The ILRC is a national nonprofit resource center providing legal training, educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights.
- Migration Policy Institute (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/): MPI is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to the analysis of the movement of people worldwide.
- National Immigration Law Center (https://www.nilc.org/): NILC is one of the leading organizations in the U.S. exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low-income immigrants.
- American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org/): ACLU works in the courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the U.S. guarantee everyone in this country, including immigrants.
Medicare for All: Assessing the Potential for Universal Healthcare in the United States
Medicare for All: Assessing the Potential for Universal Healthcare in the United States
Health & Gender Policy Brief #80 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 5, 2023
Photo taken from: businessinsider.com
__________________________________
Summary
The healthcare system in the United States has long been a topic of debate. Despite significant advances in medicine and technology, access to high-quality healthcare remains out of reach for many Americans, largely due to affordability issues. The current system relies heavily on private insurance, often provided through employers, creating disparities in access and coverage.
A proposed solution gaining traction is “Medicare for All“, a single-payer healthcare plan aimed at providing comprehensive healthcare coverage to every American, irrespective of employment status or income. This approach is based on the belief that healthcare is a fundamental right, not a privilege tied to economic status. While proponents argue that it would ensure universal coverage and potentially reduce total healthcare costs, critics express concerns over issues such as funding, potential impacts on healthcare quality, and the role of the private sector.
In my opinion, I share the belief with many others that healthcare is a right for all people. This belief stems from the understanding that the availability and quality of healthcare can significantly impact one’s quality of life, longevity, and overall well-being. Therefore, it is a critical resource that should be accessible to all, not only those who can afford it.
According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, quite a number of Americans support the idea of a national health plan or Medicare for All, indicating growing public interest in exploring more equitable healthcare solutions.
Analysis
The implementation of Medicare for All would constitute a significant shift in the US healthcare landscape, transitioning from a multi-payer to a single-payer system. It would eliminate the need for private health insurance, as the federal government would be the sole payer for all medical services.
Typically, the divide between proponents and critics of Medicare for All seems to align somewhat along political and wealth lines, although there are exceptions. Generally, more progressive and left-leaning individuals and those with fewer economic resources tend to support the idea. Conversely, conservatives and those with more substantial economic resources, including many in the healthcare industry, often express reservations.
Proponents argue that the adoption of Medicare for All could lead to a more equitable system with improved health outcomes. They cite examples of other developed nations that have successfully implemented universal healthcare systems, leading to better health outcomes at lower per-capita costs.
Critics, however, raise concerns about the financial feasibility of such a plan, citing the potential for increased tax burdens and concerns about government control over healthcare decisions. They also highlight potential impacts on innovation and quality of care, as well as the significant disruption to the current healthcare industry that a shift to Medicare for All could entail.
Key examples of healthcare systems that could inform the Medicare for All debate include:
a. Canada’s Single-Payer System: Canada’s healthcare system is publicly funded and mostly free at the point of use, offering a potential model for a U.S. Medicare for All system. However, critics note that Canadians often face long wait times for certain procedures and treatments.
b. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare): The ACA expanded access to health insurance for millions of Americans and implemented important consumer protections. However, it did not achieve universal coverage, and affordability remains an issue for many.
Given the compelling need to address healthcare disparities and access in the U.S., I am persuaded that a strategic shift toward a Medicare for All system is a course of action that warrants earnest exploration. Yes, such a transition would be monumental and not without challenges – increased tax burdens and the disruption of the current healthcare industry, to name a few. Yet, the potential to extend comprehensive healthcare to every American – regardless of employment status or income – cannot be overlooked or undervalued.
However, moving forward does not mean moving hastily. Thoughtful, meticulous planning and implementation will be essential to mitigate any adverse effects of such a substantial systemic change.
While the task of healthcare reform is complex and intimidating, it is more a time for decisive action than for continued debate. Policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the public need to rally together and push for a transformative resolution. The ultimate goal must remain clear – an equitable, accessible healthcare system for all Americans.
Engagement Resources
- Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/): PNHP is a non-profit research and education organization of physicians advocating for single-payer national health insurance.
- Healthcare-NOW (https://www.healthcare-now.org/): Healthcare-NOW is an organization working to help achieve a national single-payer healthcare system because access to healthcare is basic to human dignity.
- The Commonwealth Fund (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/): The Commonwealth Fund promotes a high-performing healthcare system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency.
- National Nurses United (https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/): National Nurses United is a large union and professional association of registered nurses in the US. They support Medicare for All.
- Kaiser Family Foundation (https://www.kff.org/): KFF provides information on health issues, including the analysis of the U.S. healthcare system, Medicare, and health policy proposals.
Saudi Arabia’s Buys Into Sports as an Image Builder
Saudi Arabia’s Buys Into Sports as an Image Builder
Foreign Policy Brief #83 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | July 3, 2023
Photo taken from: newarab.com
__________________________________
Saudi Arabia is undergoing a massive public relations revolution that is heavily focused on the investment, and promotion of, global sports. The arrival of global football phenom, Cristiano Ronaldo (arguably one of the most famous athletes ever) made a historic move to Saudi Pro League team Al-Nassr earlier this year. Saudi Arabia, as reported previously, has had their hands involved heavily in creating a second professional golf tour to rival the PGA tour. The details are not entirely clear yet, however, the two golf leagues have prepared to merge into one.
Saudi Arabia is attempting to invest in areas that will allow them to maintain their financial status in the world, after the planet has moved away from fossil fuels and oil. This is bankrolled by the Saudi’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) which has done a remarkably good job laying out all of their investment plans and ideas, even outside of the sports world. But the question remains, is Saudi Arabia doing this to perhaps try to mask or wash away a fraction of the horrific human rights abuses that they are guilty of, or is this an attempt to genuinely move the world in a better direction free of oil?
Analysis
The PGA Tour is one of the most iconic sports leagues in the world. LIV Golf has changed the way professional golf works – it has added a more dynamic way of play, involving teams and ways to expedite the time it takes to play a golf tournament. They have expanded the number of golfers who win money at tournaments; and they have been criticized by some for the amount of money that they are willing to pay the golfers in the league as well as the economic perks given to these athletes. Oh, and not to mention that LIV streamed all of their tournaments on YouTube, for free – which seems insane in the world of digital streaming. Needless to say, PGA and LIV have not been getting along very well in the last few years due to these massive differences.
However, the PGA Tour and LIV Golf have decided to merge together, along with the European DP World Tour, to create a new entity. It remains to be solidified entirely and brought into fruition. At least, according to a report by CNBC, the PIF/LIV Golf will be a minority stakeholder in this new arrangement; but they still plan to invest millions of dollars into the venture. This new merger will eliminate the need for any and all pending lawsuits between the two major golf leagues; it will also alleviate any punishments given to individual golfers by the PGA for switching to compete with the LIV Golf tour.
The US Senate, on July 11th, is planning on having a hearing where the parties involved in this deal will testify; as the Justice Department is looking into antitrust allegations connected to the three leagues joining forces. There are questions about whether the PGA players who did not join the LIV tour will be compensated, and the merger has yet to be approved by the PGA’s player board of directors.
Saudi Arabia’s millions of dollars of investment into sports, especially football (or soccer for some readers), is starting to bear fruit – the Saudi PIF owns English Premier League club Newcastle United, which has just qualified for the UEFA Champions League for next season; domestically, the PIF owns severally teams in Saudi Arabia – most notably, Al-Nassr; the team that signed Cristiano Ronaldo. Several other major stars of world football have signed with Saudi Arabian teams such as Karim Benzema (current winner of the Ballon D’or) from Real Madrid in Spain’s La Liga, Ruben Neves from Wolves in the English Premier League, N’Golo Kante from England’s Chelsea FC, Edouard Mendy also from Chelsea FC, and many more will sign over the summer as well.
The important question to be asking, as global citizens, is does Saudi Arabia seriously believe that this attempt at ‘sports-washing’ will make people forget about their human rights abuses? The murder of journalist Jamal Khassogi? Their brutal war in Yemen? Or their treatment of women as 2nd class citizens?
Engagement Resources