JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Supreme Court Misconstrues Religious Liberty Again In New Discrimination Case
Brief #208 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
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.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS PART 2: HEALTHCARE
OF ED
U.S. Resist News
The US healthcare system is extremely fragmented. Healthcare access varies from state to state and according to income level and racial and ethnic background.
Book Review: Traffic: Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral, Ben Smith, Penguin Press, N.Y., 2023.
Brief #92 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
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.
Democrats’ Attempts to Rearrange the Primary Calendar Have Put Biden in a Bind
Brief #84 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
There’s not a particularly good solution available to Biden and the DNC in resolving the primary calendar dilemma.
Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper
Brief #206 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
Under this interpretation, there could be several different scenarios where the doctrine could be used to try and undermine a U.S. election.
The Path to U.S. Immigration Reform: Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities in a Globalized World
Brief #147 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
The current U.S. immigration system is widely criticized as being outdated and ineffective, often failing to address economic needs, family reunification, refugee…
Medicare for All: Assessing the Potential for Universal Healthcare in the United States
Brief #80 – Health & Gender Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
The current system relies heavily on private insurance, often provided through employers, creating disparities in access and coverage.
Saudi Arabia’s Buys Into Sports as an Image Builder
Brief #83 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Reilly Fitzgerald
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.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #24
Brief #82 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
On June 24, 2023 the Wagner group led by hot dog sales-man turned warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin, led an armed revolt against the Russian military.
Re-Energizing the Nations’ EV Infrastructure
Re-Energizing the Nations’ EV Infrastructure
Technology Policy Brief #82 | By: Steve Piazza | March 30, 2023
Header photo taken from: forbes.com/Getty
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed back in November, 2021 has reportedly already provided funding for over 20,000 projects related to strengthening the nation’s present and future transportation and energy needs. Beyond providing support for more traditional activities focusing on highways and bridges, the law has paved the way for advancements in electric vehicle (EV) technologies.
President Biden recently announced that his administration would be working closely with the EV industry to improve the infrastructure specifically for EVs. According to a recent White House FACT SHEET, forthcoming action steps include increasing the number of charging stations, creating charging accessibility for all vehicles regardless of manufacturer, and funding for additional research and development.
These measures are designed for meeting the Administration’s goal of creating 500,000 new EV charging stations placed 50 miles apart by 2030. $7.5 billion of the Infrastructure Law is earmarked to meet that goal.
Meanwhile, another $7 billion is allocated for the development of improved battery technology and distribution.
Photo taken from: cnbc.com/Evan Vucci/AP
Project Analysis
The automobile landscape is undergoing another historic transformation. From the design of cars to the online buying and selling of them that leave car dealership lots virtually empty, the world of cars is becoming almost unrecognizable. One significant catalyst might be the way cars are being powered.
The number of EV registrations jumped over 60% in the early part of 2022, despite an overall automobile market trending downwards. The Wall Street Journal reports that over 800,000 EVs were sold last year, reaching over 5% of all car sales.
But that’s not the only change in the scenery. Just as solar panels and windmills have found their place, so too has the EV charging station. And with the recent financial support from the government, we can expect to see even more and more charging stations in retail centers, gas stations, school campuses, homes, and elsewhere.
According to the Alternative Fuels and Data Center, there are over 50,000 charging stations around the country. But with so many EVs on the road and the count projected to become 50% of all vehicles by 2030, the government is now partnering with private companies to make charging them more accessible. The list includes automobile manufacturers like Tesla, General Motors, and Ford, industry charging station leaders such as EVBox (Netherlands), Charge Point (U.S.) and ABB (Switzerland), and other energy technology firms like Francis Energy and Forum Mobility.
In the United States, Charge Point presently leads the way with 27,000 charging stations in place offering a total of 50,000 ports, followed by Tesla, with 6,000 and 28,000, respectively. But this ranking can be deceiving.
The Open Charge Point Interface Protocol, developed by the Dutch-based EV Roaming Foundation, provides a common standard used in many countries to determine the effectiveness of different charging devides and platforms,
The distance you are able to drive on a charge will vary depending on the type of charger and the length of time you leave it on. Battery size and type is another key variable that helps determine who far you can drive on a charge.
Photo taken from: forbes.com/Getty
Charging stations come in three separate port types: Level 1 (110V, similar to a standard wall outlet), Level 2 (240V, what’s used for heavy appliances in the home), and Level 3 (480V, aka Fast Charge). Level 3 uses direct current (DC), and is what constitutes most of Tesla’s ports.
Often referred to as the Level 3 Supercharger, Tesla’s proprietary ports can charge a battery in a fraction of the time it takes Charge Point’s Level 2. In 15 minutes, the Supercharger can energize a car for 200 miles of range, whereas a Level 2 charger would provide a similar range only if charged overnight. For additional perspective, the lowest of the three charging level types, Level 1 would require days to reach full charge.
But since not all EVs and charging stations are compatible and increased accessibility is what the government is attempting to accomplish, cost incentives are a logical approach.
And they seem to be working. Tesla has already pledged to install or retrofit 7500 chargers so their ports can accommodate competitors’ vehicles, while others have promised to increase the number of Level 2 or Level 3 stations.
But the effectiveness of the charging stations can only be as good as the batteries they’re charging, and though advancements in battery technology have been made, more improvement is needed.
That’s why the government is also making funds available to strengthen the supply chain. Supported programs are underway at companies, universities, and other organizations develop safer batteries that can recharge more rapidly and more often, provide longer lasting charges, and can withstand extreme temperatures.
Another objective is to reduce dependence on rare and expensive elements like nickel and cobalt, main ingredients in many existing batteries. New alternatives, which include potassium-ion or sodium metal batteries, can add to the increased use of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries by leading global companies like China’s BYD and Tesla.
Cars, car dealerships, and parking lots may never look the same as before, but this transformation is no different than any other previous seismic shifts and seems poised to stay. Time embraces change, and incentives like these can only accelerate it.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Advocates, like Drive Electric USA, work to educate states and consumers on the benefits of EVs
Tools related to alternative fuel technologies
Dark Money in Politics: Understanding its Impact, Origins, and How to Combat It
Dark Money in Politics: Understanding its Impact, Origins, and How to Combat It
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #71 | By: Inijah Quadri | March 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: brennancenter.org/Getty/Shutterstock/BCJ
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the influence of money in politics, particularly in the form of “dark money.” “Dark money” refers to political spending by groups that are not required to disclose their donors. Dark money can be used for a variety of political activities, including advertising campaigns, direct mail campaigns, and issue advocacy.
These groups are not required to disclose their donors because they are classified as non-profit social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows them to keep their donors’ identities private. This form of political spending has become increasingly prevalent in the United States, and its impact on democracy is a cause for concern.
Other organizations, like political action committees (PACs), are required to disclose their donors because they are specifically designed to support or oppose political candidates, while 501(c)(4) organizations are primarily intended to promote social welfare.
This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of dark money in politics, its origins, and its effects, as well as explore ways to combat it.
Photo taken from: publicintegrity.org
The Origins of Dark Money in Politics
The use of dark money in politics is not a new phenomenon in the United States. Dark money has been used since the 1970s, but it gained prominence after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. In this case, the court ruled that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to spending money on political campaigns. These rights include the freedom of speech, which allows for the expression of ideas, opinions, and support for (or opposition to) political candidates or issues, including through financial contributions.
This decision opened the door for unlimited spending by corporations and unions, and it also paved the way for the rise of super PACs (Political Action Committees). Super PACs are independent political organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate’s campaign.
The 2010 Citizens United decision also allowed for the creation of dark money groups, which are non-profit organizations that can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, without disclosing their donors. These groups are known as 501(c)(4) organizations, after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that governs their tax status. These organizations are primarily intended to promote social welfare, but they are also permitted to engage in limited political activities, as long as those activities do not constitute their primary purpose. Due to this classification, they are not required to disclose their donors, which differentiates them from other types of political organizations, like PACs.
The Impact of Dark Money on Politics
Dark money has a significant impact on politics, as it allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have an outsized influence on the political process. By spending unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, these groups can sway public opinion and influence the outcome of elections. Some campaigns and candidates have gotten help from dark money. For example, President Biden is reported widely to have gotten a lot of help from dark money groups for the 2020 presidential election.
The use of dark money also undermines transparency in the political process. When donors can give money to political groups without disclosing their identity, it becomes difficult to determine who is behind a particular political campaign. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for voters to make informed decisions about candidates and issues.
Furthermore, dark money can give the appearance of impropriety. When candidates receive large amounts of money from unknown sources, it can create the perception that they are beholden to these donors, rather than to their constituents.
The rules governing the size of regular campaign contributions vary depending on the type of organization and the election. For example, individuals can contribute about $3,000 per election to a federal candidate, $5,000 per year to a PAC, and about $40,000 per year to a national party committee. These limits are subject to change and are adjusted for inflation every election cycle.
Photo taken from: newyorker.com/Mark Henle/The Republic/Reuters
How to Combat Dark Money in Politics
There are several ways to combat dark money in politics, including:
a. Disclosure Laws
One way to combat dark money is to strengthen disclosure laws. This would require political groups to disclose their donors, making it easier for voters to understand who is behind a particular political campaign. This could be done at the federal level, but it could also be done at the state level.
Several states have already taken steps to increase transparency in the political process. For example, California requires all political advertisements to disclose their sponsors, and Maryland also pioneered local laws that required online platforms to disclose the sponsor of any political ad.
b. Public Financing
Another way to combat dark money is to provide public financing for political campaigns. This would give candidates an alternative to relying on wealthy donors and corporations for funding. Public financing can level the playing field and reduce the influence of special interests in the political process.
c. Overturning Citizens United
Another way to combat dark money is to overturn the Citizens United decision. This would require a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy and difficult process. However, several states and cities have passed resolutions calling for an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court itself could overturn Citizens United in a future case that challenges the precedent set by the decision. This has happened before with other landmark cases, such as when the Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson with the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
d. Advocacy and Education
Finally, advocacy and education can play a role in combating dark money in politics. Educating the public about the impact of dark money and advocating for stronger disclosure laws and public financing can help build momentum for reform.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dark money in politics is a significant issue that undermines transparency and democracy, as it allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have an outsized influence on the political process. To combat dark money, strengthening disclosure laws, public financing, overturning Citizens United, and advocating for reform are all viable options. These solutions can help reduce the influence of special interests in the political process and promote true democracy. It is important for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the fight against dark money in politics.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
California Fair Political Practices Commission
California Fair Political Practices Commission Political Advertisement Disclosures
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update: #21
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update: #21
Foreign Policy Brief #177 | By: Abran C | March 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: sentinelassam.com
Vladimir Putin’s Arrest Warrant
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the alleged crime of overseeing the abduction of Ukrainian children. According to the ICC there is credible evidence of Ukrainian children being forcibly removed from their homes and being sent into Russia at the orders of President Putin. The warrant is the first to be issued by the ICC for crimes committed during the war in Ukraine. It is also one of the rare occasions where the court has issued a warrant for a sitting head of state, putting Putin in company of the former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir. Putin is unlikely to be handed over to the court anytime soon, Russia itself does not recognise the court’s jurisdiction. However, the Russian president will now face limits on his freedom of travel to the 123 countries that recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction as these are all places where he could be apprehended and handed over.
Photo taken from: Sputnik/Aleksey Druzhinin/Kremlin via REUTERS
Putin and Xi Jinping Hold Talks
Last week Chinese President Xi Jing Ping, now the first world leader to meet with Putin following his arrest warrant, flew to Moscow to hold talks that were set to deepen ties between the two countries. In growing conflict with the West and particularly the United States, the two have sought to present a united front. The timing of Xi’s visit was certainly a boost for Putin, just three days after the ICC accused him of war crimes it enabled him to show he still has the backing of a powerful ally who shares his opposition to the idea of a US dominated unipolar world. The summit itself produced 14 agreements on topics from soybeans to atomic energy, but also showed Russia’s possible openness to pursuing China’s version of peace talks. According to their joint statement both leaders called for the cessation of actions that increase tensions and prolong the war in Ukraine. But Putin said the plan could be put forward only when “they are ready in the West and Kyiv”. China’s plan does not explicitly call for Russia to leave Ukraine and Kyiv has made it repeatedly clear that a Russian withdrawal is a necessary precondition for it to engage in peace talks, meaning that it is still unlikely peace talks will occur anytime soon.
Photo taken from: forbes.com/Omatr Marques/Getty Images
Poland to Send Fighter Jets to Ukraine
Poland recently pledged it would send four MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine, the first NATO member to do so. Ukraine has been asking for fighter jets now for sometime in order to be able to better combat and repel Russian air attacks. Most of the destruction unleashed on Ukraine has come from air strikes by the Russian air force. NATO members have been hesitant to send heavy weaponry such as jets and tanks to Ukraine in order not to provoke Russia. Poland though has been one of the most vocal European nations against Russia, which is still seen by many in Poland’s political and diplomatic circles in a Cold War context. The biggest question will be if the move puts pressure on the rest of the NATO block to do the same, which was likely Poland’s intention to begin with.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Banning TikTok Won’t Make the Data Safe
Banning TikTok Won’t Make the Data Safe
Technology Policy Brief #81 | By: Mindy Spatt | March 24, 2023
Header photo taken from: axios.com/Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
TikTok is under attack from all sides. The Biden Administration is threatening to ban the app altogether, the Justice department is investigating it, advocates say it is dangerous to children, a school district is suing, and governments in the US and the UK won’t allow their workers to use it.
Photo taken from: 9to5mac.com
Policy Analysis
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The alarm bells coming from Washington are due to security concerns over the access Chinese-owned TikTok has to American’s data. The company could avoid the threatened ban if it sells a substantial stake to an American company. It is unclear how a ban would work; although several states and the governments of the US and the UK have banned their employees from using TikTok on state issued phones the country-wide ban would likely be far more difficult to implement. As would a sale. An article in the NY Times on March 17 opined that few American companies are likely to be interested. That same day, CBS news reported that the Justice Department is investigating ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, for possible spying on U.S. citizens.
Even if TikTok could find a buyer, forcing a sale would hardly protect America’s data, which is widely available for purchase. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC.org), the information collected and sold by data brokers includes our income, political preferences, children, purchases, health, online activities, and, thanks to smart phones, our location. Sale of this information is not restricted to the US, or even companies based in the US.
Data on the military is also available for a price. In an article entitled “Data Brokers Are a Threat to National Security”, Captain Steven J. Arango, of the U.S. Marine Corps writes that “China, Russia, and Iran can go directly to data brokers to purchase information about service members and veterans or, if that fails, they can just steal it.” He notes the ubiquity of hacking, including a Chines hack of Equifax that revealed sensitive information on an estimated half of all Americans.
“Data’, he says, “allows these countries to track service members’ movements, impersonate personnel online or in email, and identify personnel working on specific tasks within the military.” So the security dangers Tik Tok presents may be no worse than other platforms. But advocates for children and adolescents are also seeking major changes at Tik Tok and other platforms which they say are necessary to alleviate the dangers posed by algorithims and viral challenges that can cause injury, illness and in some cases death.
According to Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay For Kids, “TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube’s profit-seeking algorithms expose millions of children and teens to risky content that they are encouraged to imitate,” One example he cited was the case of a 15 year-old boy who died after attempting the so-called “Choking Challenge” Fairplay is part of a coalition of children’s advocacy groups urging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (S. 3663). The bill, authored by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn, passed the Senate Commerce Committee easily, but has not yet been scheduled for a floor vote.
It includes requirements that platforms allow minors to disable addictive features, protect their information and opt out of algorithmic recommendations, and requires mitigation of the “promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and unlawful products for minors.” Both it and a California law that demands changes to online platforms serving children are virulently opposed by the tech industry.
Governor Gavin Newsome signed California’s Appropriate Design Code Act, in 2022. It restricts data collection by internet companies that serve children and requires that they design their platforms with children’s “well-being” in mind. The tech industry is challenging that measure in court, and fighting efforts to replicate it currently taking place in Maryland, Minnesota and elsewhere.
“This is an absolute virus spreading across the country… to create new rules on how Americans and their families engage online,” whined Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, a big tech lobbying organization, in an interview. NetChoice’s members include Google, Meta, Twitter, and yes, Chinese-owned TikTok as well.
Photo taken from: nbcnews.com
The lobbying blitz will be hard for advocates to counter, according to Nicole Gill of Accountable Tech. Accountable Tech is part of a coalition backing the age-appropriate design bills similar to California’s that also includes Parents Together and Design It For Us “It’s certainly not a fair fight,” said Gill, noting the industry’s ample resources.
Advocates insist the law is needed to better protect children from harmful online content and to block features like Autoplay that encourage youth to spend hours online. They also want default privacy settings configured to the highest possible level and restrictions on the collection and sale of children’s data.
The San Mateo County Board of Education isn’t waiting for the California law to go into effect in 2024. It is suing some of the biggest names in social media, claiming TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube and others create a “destructive environment for children,” leaving parents and educators to deal with a growing crisis in childhood mental health.
With all of this TikTok’s CEO Shou Zi Chew will be on the hot seat during his scheduled testimony to the House of representatives on March 23. The committee has said the hearing will focus on TikTok’s “consumer privacy and data security practices, how the platform affects children, and its relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.”
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Dared by the Algorithm: Dangerous Challenges Are Just a Click Away
California’s New Child Privacy Law Could Become National Standard
Dominion Voting Machines and Its Case Against Fox
Dominion Voting Machines and Its Case Against Fox
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #70 | By: Maureen Darby-Serson | March 20, 2023
Header photo taken from: poynter.org
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Dominion, known publicly for the use of their voting machines during the 2020 election, sued Fox news for defamation in court, with some documents being made public this past month. These recently released documents revealed that Fox News knew that the 2020 election was not stolen and still openly reported that President Joe Biden had not been the real winner of the election. Fox News reported that there was widespread voter fraud in public while, behind closed doors, acknowledged to colleagues that they were not aware of any legitimate evidence of such.
The $1.6 billion lawsuit brings up many questions. Why is Dominion suing? Does the first amendment cover Fox News? What will happen if this case goes to trial?
Photo taken from:
apnews.com
Policy Analysis
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Dominion, a popular voting machine manufacture, is suing Fox News for defamation, stating that Fox published at least four statements that they knew were not true regarding the company. According to court fillings, the four statements are as follows:
- Dominion committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 Presidential Election.
- Dominion’s software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the 2020 Presidential Election.
- Dominion is owned by a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections for the dictator Hugo Chavez.
- Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials who used its machines in the 2020 Presidential Election.
Photo taken from: cnbc.com / Alexi Rosenfeld / Getty Images
Dominion claims that, despite publishing all the above, Fox News knew that all these statements were not true. In addition, they claim that, despite all the evidence government officials released showing that Dominion voting machines were effective and not faulty, Fox News spread lies and conspiracies to steal the 2020 Presidential election. This, in turn, hurt their company and its name. Fox News argues that their reporting is covered under the first amendment protection of free speech and freedom of the press.
The first amendment under the U.S. Constitution does protect free speech and freedom of the press. The issue with this case is that the Constitution protects the press when they make good faith mistakes in reporting, it does not protect them against reporting news which they know is not true. The court filling recently made public shows that Fox News employees knew that they were reporting false claims but still reported it as fact anyways. This shows that it was not a good faith mistake, and would cause major issues for Fox News if the case ever went to trial. A jury would have to find that Fox News made a good faith mistake in reporting to be covered under the first amendment. This is unlikely after the release of the various text messages, emails, and statements by Fox executives this past month.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Why Fox News’ lies about Trump’s defeat probably aren’t protected by the 1st Amendment
The Whole Thing Seems Insane’: New Documents on Fox and the Election
Important Elections in the First Half of 2023: Municipal Elections
Important Elections in the First Half of 2023: Municipal Elections
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #65 | By: Ian Milden | March 20, 2023
Header photo taken from: lac.org
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In this brief, I discuss the importance of municipal elections in public policy. Specifically, I focus on the election for mayor of Chicago, where the two candidates have significantly divergent ideas on how to improve public safety. I also provide some updates on elections I discussed in a previous brief.
Photo taken from:
Chicago Tribune/Armando L. Sanchez/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Policy Analysis
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
While the year before a Presidential election doesn’t often feature major federal elections, many local offices are up for election this year. Municipal officeholders have the power to shape policy on issues such as transportation, infrastructure, housing, public safety, and other government services. Some of the cities that are holding municipal elections in 2023 include Philadelphia, Houston, Chicago, Charlotte, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Columbus, Memphis, Nashville, Dallas, San Antonio, and Salt Lake City. The race for Mayor of Chicago is an example of a race where the winner could significantly reshape policy on public safety.
Chicago held municipal primaries on February 28th. In the primary, incumbent Mayor Lori Lightfoot was not successful in advancing to the general election. Instead, the non-partisan runoff on April 4th will be contested by former Chicago Public Schools superintendent Paul Vallas and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson. Nearly half of the voters who participated in the primary voted for a candidate who did not make the general election, so this race is wide open.
Vallas and Johnson have significant differences in their policy views on the police department and public safety. Vallas has campaigned for funding to hire hundreds of additional police officers, as well as investments in new facilities for the police department such as a forensic lab. This position has won him the endorsement of the city’s police union. Vallas has made these positions the central focus of his campaign.
Brandon Johnson’s position on reducing crime is different. Johnson’s campaign argues that investments in social services and other core needs like affordable housing and mental health services will help reduce crime by addressing the root causes of crime. Johnson’s campaign argues that his approach should be tried since previous increases in crime rates have been responded to by hiring additional police officers, and that has not worked well for many neighborhoods.
While the policy positions of the candidates are important, voter perceptions of the candidates may affect the outcome as well. Johnson has attacked Vallas as too conservative for Chicago, while Vallas’ campaign is trying to depict Johnson as someone who holds views that are consistent with socialism.
Regardless of who wins the election, the new mayor will have to convince the city council to approve their policy proposals. If you want to know if your municipality is holding elections for local offices, check the websites of your state or municipal board of elections. In jurisdictions where the filing deadline has passed for candidates, a sample ballot should be available.
Photo taken from: CNN
An Update on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court Race
Janet Protasiewicz and Dan Kelly advanced to the April 4th general election for the open seat on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Judge Protasiewicz received the most votes. Overall, the liberal leaning justices had 54% of the vote, which is a positive sign for Judge Protasiewicz’s chances. An analysis of Washington State’s top two election system found that the partisan vote distribution in the primary closely mirrored the results of the general election when the general election featured a Democrat and a Republican. While the trends from the analysis of Washington State’s election are a positive sign for Wisconsin Democrats, they may not hold due to the unusual timing of the election and lower voter turnout rates for elections that occur at unusual times.
Updates on Congressional Special Elections
Jennifer McClellan was elected to fill the vacancy in Virginia’s 4th Congressional District. McClellan got a higher percentage of votes, 74.29%, than recent Democratic performances in the district. While McClellan’s election fills the last vacancy in the House of Representatives, a new vacancy is expected this summer because Rep David Cicilline of Rhode Island announced plans to resign on June 1st to take a job at a non-profit organization. Cicilline’s district is a strongly Democratic district, so Democrats should expect to retain the seat. Governor Dan McKee (D-RI) will not be able to set a date for the special election until after Cicilline leaves office. A special election will likely occur in the late summer or early fall.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The Diversification of US Soccer
The Diversification of US Soccer
Foreign Policy Brief #176 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | March 15, 2023
Header photo taken from: Los Angeles Times / Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Football, or soccer as we Americans often refer to it, is one of the most diverse sports in the world. It is played on every continent, except for Antarctica, and is played in every country in the world by people of all ages, races, genders, abilities, etc. It is often called The Beautiful Game, and it truly is beautiful. It is remarkable to look at the composition of some professional teams and look at the different skin tones that are represented, the different countries represented, the amount of languages that can be spoken on a team, and to consider all of the complexities that those conditions may bring with them.
The American professional soccer league, Major League Soccer (MLS) has a reputation among soccer fans as a growing league. It has even attracted some top stars from around the world, even if some were eyeing retirement shortly after arriving, such as David Beckham, Robbie Keane, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Gareth Bale, Steven Gerrard, and Wayne Rooney. Many of the biggest signings to come to the United States to play have been European players. However, the American soccer story begins before the MLS with the league called the North American Soccer League (NASL), which started in the 1960s and died out by the mid-80s – but, this league set the American soccer leagues up to be among the most diverse in the world.
Photo taken from:
Yahoo / AP Photo / Kirsty Wigglesworth
Policy Analysis
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The North American Soccer League was a league developed in the mid-1960s and lasted until the mid-1980s. It was a VERY poor league when it started, in every sense of the word. It did not have a lot of money, as soccer was not a major athletic interest in the United States (even though it was being played in Europe and around the world since the late 1800s). The quality of play in the sport was severely lacking, so much so that the immigrant communities in the US were not interested at all, according to an article from The Conversation. Also, European players who attempted to come and play in the United States were quickly frustrated and didn’t even consider it to be the same sport as European football. To address this lack of talent, and quality, the NASL decided to try and tempt high quality players from under-represented countries in football world to come to the United States to play.
The NASL began to attract players from Africa, and immigrants from Africa already in the United States, to play professionally. Africans, and many other minorities, were not particularly welcome in Europe’s top leagues and had many reasons to leave their continent. This was especially true in South Africa, where the Apartheid policies were causing blacks to be excluded from local leagues.The NASL also began to attract top quality talent from South America, such as the Brazilian player Pélé (arguably the greatest player in history) who signed with the New York Cosmos.
This new injection of quality and skill soon brought over European players such as Beckenbauer, George Best, and Johann Cruyff; each legends for their former clubs and their national teams. While the US, politically, was dealing with the Civil Rights Movement and attempting to address racial inequalities, it was becoming one of the most tolerant and diverse leagues in the world of soccer. Today, Major League Soccer (MLS) is the most diverse sports league in North America (and one of the most diverse soccer leagues in the world). According to an article in The Conversation, there are 82 countries represented by players in this league.
Photo taken from: Los Angeles Times / Jeff Zelevansky / Getty Images
Unfortunately, this story changes a bit when we start to look at the national teams, and in particular the United States Women’s National Team (USWNT), which is one of the most successful national teams in history with multiple World Cup wins, Olympic medals, and some truly amazing star players like Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe. The USWNT, according to an article by NPR, is one of the least diverse national teams in the world. In their last World Cup, the United States had a total of five players of color on a 23 woman roster; for comparison purposes, the article states, that France had a total of 12 (half the roster). NPR also interviewed Crystal Dunn, a player on the USWNT, and she reported that during the 2019 World Cup the team did not have a stylist who was familiar in working with Black hair, and she was required to attend media events as part of being on the team.
The biggest barrier to getting women and men into this sport (and to grow the sport in general) is the idea of “pay to play” sports. Rich families are able to outspend families from disadvantaged and marginalized communities. US Soccer’s Cindy Parlow Cone referred to soccer as a “rich, White kids’ sport” as she is working on ways to increase diversity and inclusion of all players, regardless of background. Sports in the United States, in general, can cost thousands of dollars per year – and if the kid is skilled enough to go onward, then the costs can really start to rake up when you account for travel teams, the travel to matches, the equipment, the coaching, summer camps, etc. Very quickly, youths from disadvantaged communities are left behind – regardless of their skill on the ball; and this seems to be holding true, across genders.
Desmond Armstrong, according to the New York Times, was the first Black player to play in a World Cup for the United States (after not having qualified for a World Cup for 40 years), alongside the substitute player Jimmy Banks (came on later in the match); and he states that the United States Men’s team is finally starting to have an increase in diversity. The US Men’s National Team (USMNT) roster is the most diverse it has ever been. There are players that are White, Black, and Latino that represented at the last World Cup in Qatar in December 2022; and they are captained by a Black player named Tyler Adams, who also plays in the English Premier League, the top league in the world.
The trajectory for US Soccer, on the topic of diversity, is a positive one – it seems. There are now programs aiming to address access to the sport at a grassroots level. US Soccer’s Soccer for Success program has impacted over 400,000 children, overwhelmingly from communities of color, according to NPR; which also reported that the number of non-white female players has increased from 24% in NCAA Division I, ten years ago, to 34% now. So, growth and inclusion has been going in a positive direction.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Department of Labor Rescinds Religious Exemption Rule Used To Discriminate
Department of Labor Rescinds Religious Exemption Rule Used To Discriminate
Civil Rights Policy Brief #202 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | March 7, 2023
Header photo taken from: house.gov
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Reuters / Evelyn Hockstein
Policy Summary
In 2019, the Trump Administration proposed a Department of Labor (DOL) rule that expanded the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as applied to employees of federal contractors. This rule is popularly known as the “Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption.” When the agency rule was finally enacted on January 8, 2021 the rule permitted federal contractors to not hire or fire employees if there was a conflict with the federal contractor’s religious beliefs. A federal contractor could now openly discriminate against an employee based on his sexual orientation, gender identity or different religious belief and point to his own religion or belief as justification for his action against the employee.
On February 28, 2023, DOL announced that the Trump Administration – era rule will be rescinded. The rule was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2023. With the rescission of the rule, the previous policy of the department regarding the interpretation and implementation of the religious exemption rule will fall back to the prior application of Executive Order 11246 in effect under the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Under that executive order, federal contractors are barred from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.
The original religious exemption that allows religious corporations, associations and societies will remain (e.g. allowing certain religious schools to hire teachers with similar religious beliefs). Except now the exemption is no longer so broad as to allow any group to claim the ability to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs without thoroughly scrutinizing their claim of a religious belief exemption. Now, each claim invoking the religious exemption will be reviewed on a case – by – case basis to determine if the claim of exemption is valid. LEARN MORE 1, LEARN MORE 2
Policy Analysis
The rescission of the Department of Labor rule proposed and implemented during the Trump Administration reflects the ongoing struggle in how to handle discrimination based on religious beliefs cases. Until a legal framework is implemented it seems likely that the pendulum will swing back and forth – at one moment favoring those who are arguing for religious liberty and then swinging back the other way to favor those whose civil rights and liberties are being infringed in the name of religious beliefs.
What was unique about the rescission of the Trump Administration era rule was that it did not add, delete or modify any language found in Executive Order 11246. That executive order, since 2003, has been interpreted to permit a limited religious exemption which is modeled on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those who wished to invoke the exemption to engage in a discriminatory action were reviewed on a case – by – case basis in accordance with cases and statutes interpreting Title VII. In practice, the Executive Order provided that federal contractors receiving federal taxpayer funds could not discriminate on the basis of race, color or religion and other protected categories. This was the prevailing practice under the Bush and Obama Administrations.
However, when the Trump Administration era recission rule was introduced it expanded the scope of the original rule to such an extent that it caused an uproar when it was finalized. The agency received more than 5,000 comments to rescind the agency rule. Comments from Members of Congress, labor unions, and civil liberties organizations focused on Trump’s removal of non – discrimination protections as a major reason why they wanted President Biden to support rescission of the agency rule. Groups argued that when the Trump rule was introduced it allowed just about anyone to use their religious beliefs as a justification to keep out employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity even though the federal contractors were receiving federal dollars.
And on a larger scale, if the rule continued it would allow just about any federal contractor to opt out of any federal rules they disagree with and simply claim “religious beliefs” without any legitimate scrutiny of their claims. Instead of giving potential federal contractors a home – made excuse to discriminate as they please with no limitations or restrictions, the groups wanted a return to the previous practice. If a contractor claimed a “religious exemption” to discriminate then their claim would be measured on prior case law to determine if their claim has any merit based on prior law.
Luckily, the DOL agreed and decided to rescind the Trump era rule and return to the prior practice. This action represents a win for those who do not believe that another person’s religion should allow those people to discriminate or deprive another of their civil rights on the basis of their religious beliefs. But it also demonstrates that the fight will be ongoing against those who would try to use their religion to justify discriminating or depriving others of basic rights guaranteed to them. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
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.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Freedom From Religion Foundation – press release from non – profit group applauding rescission of agency rule regarding discrimination protections for federal contractor employees.
Americans United For The Separation of Church and State – press release from non – profit group celebrating rescission of agency rule regarding discrimination protections for federal contractor employees.
The Week That Was #5
The Week That Was #5
Foreign Policy Brief #175 | By: Abran C | March 14, 2023
Header photo taken from: The Guardian
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: China Daily / Reuters
A new series to catch you up on the top stories that occurred around the world last week.
China- Iran & Saudi Arabia Deal
Last week Beijing brokered a deal to restore diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, signaling a shift in the politics of the Middle East region and global diplomacy. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were cut in 2016 after Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shia cleric, angering many in Iran. This cut in relations came after decades of animosity between the two countries.
After the signing of the new deal mediated by China, Saudi and Iranian officials have said they will also work to reimplement a decades-old security cooperation pact and revive agreements on technology, and trade. The two regional powers have been at odds for years with hostility directed at one another through indirect conflicts such as the war in Yemen where Saudi forces fought Iran-backed Houthi rebels.
The talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia were occurring at the same time that negotiations between Iran and the United States to revive the Iran nuclear deal were faltering. The new deal is an indicator of China’s growing influence in the Middle-East, as well as its growing role internationally as a mediator and global power. While the deal is a positive development for peace and security in the region, it demonstrates that China’s standing globally has risen, and the US has lost the confidence of many countries in the region.
Georgia’s Foreign Agent Law
Thousands of people took to the streets of Georgias capital Tbilisi last week to protest a controverial draft law proposed by the country’s congress. The proposed law “On Transparency of Foreign Influence” would target organisations such as media outlets and NGO’s that receive over 20% of funding from abroad, stating they would be classified as foreign agents.
Many in the country said the law if passed would stifle press freedom in Georgia, where a large portion of the media is already controlled by the government. The law was dubbed the new “Russian law” because of its similarities to a 2012 law in Russia that was used to crack down on non-state funded NGOs and media.
Those who opposed the new law, said it would not only limit press freedom but would also undercut Georgia’s efforts to become a candidate for EU membership. Georgia applied for EU membership in March 2022, only a week after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The EU, however, rejected its application and approved the candidacies of Ukraine and Moldova. The rejection was widely seen as a consequence of democratic backsliding under the leadership of the Georgian Dream party.
Photo taken from: Agenda.GE
(click or tap to enlargen)
Much of the fury against the proposed law, that has since been struck down, was aimed at Georgian Dream’s founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire who made his fortune in Russia and reportedly continues to have close ties to the Kremlin.
There is widespread distrust of Russia in the country. In 2008, the Kremlin sent forces into Georgia to support two Russian-backed breakaway regions and Moscow continues to keep its troops there, giving them de facto control of 20% of Georgia’s territory.
Israel Protests
Israelis continue weeks of protest against plans by Benjamin Netanyahu’s far right government to “reform” the country’s judicial system. For ten weeks now hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to voice opposition to the reform which many see as authoritarian. The reforms would weaken the country’s courts and erode the judiciary’s ability to check the power of the country’s other branches of government and increase the powers of the Prime minister.
The legislation, if passed would give Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, the power to overrule the country’s Supreme Court rulings with a simple majority. The law would also allow the ruling far right government to continue legalizing further expansion into the occupied territories, something which the US has expressed concern over. US Secretary of DefenseLoyd Austin last week during a visit to Israel that was cut short due to the protests that called for “a halt in unilateral actions that undermine the US’ enduring goal of two states”. The Netanyahu administration has made no indication that it plans to reverse the proposed reforms.
The Ethical Dilemma of A.I. and Mental Health
The Ethical Dilemma of A.I. and Mental Health
Health and Gender Policy Brief #158 | By: Geoffrey Small | March 10, 2023
Header photo taken from: APA.org
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Shutterstock
Policy Summary
The United States continues to fall short in providing basic healthcare necessities that other high-income nations provide globally. The proportionally low quality healthcare system in the U.S is compounded by a growing mental health crisis in a post-pandemic society, where demand for psychological help is higher than ever. With increasing demand, a shortage of mental health professionals make accessibility for individuals in need even more daunting. U.S. companies are trying to find innovative solutions to this shortage by turning to A.I (artificial intelligence).
However, as mental-health companies are taking the initiative to help with this shortage of accessibility in a time of crisis, there is a debate in the healthcare community about tech companies ethical practices. This policy Brief will explore the use of A.I. to address the national shortage of mental healthcare and the concerns that public health and tech professionals have about the ethics of introducing A.I. without protocols that the scientific community has used since the Tuskegee Study.
Policy Analysis
According to the Commonwealth Fund, U.S. citizens experience the worst overall health outcomes of any other high-income nation. People in the U.S. are more likely to die younger from avoidable causes than peer countries. Health care spending for a person in the U.S. is significantly more than any other high-income nations. Americans see health care professionals, like physicians and psychologists, far less than citizens in other countries. This comes at a time where the World Health Organization has reported a 25% increase in anxiety and depression worldwide, which is directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Business insider recently profiled a nonprofit mental health company’s solution to this growing crisis in accessibility. Rob Morris, the cofounder of Koko, tweeted that his company used GBT-3, chatbots to help develop responses for 4,000 users who were in need of mental health-related support. Morris claims that the experiment was “exempt” from informed consent laws due to the nature of the test.
Even though he indicated that humans were supervising A.I. responses, the experiment did not work when people later learned a machine was involved in their online conversations. Morris later followed up his tweet clarifying that people were not paired with chatbots without their knowledge, once his previous tweets drew the ire of public health and tech professionals.
Some public health and tech professionals claimed that this method violated informed consent laws. The HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) clearly states that “legally effective informed consent of individuals before involving them in research is one of the central protections provided.”
Infographic taken from: Frontiers (.org)
(click or tap to enlargen)
A full understanding of the information needs to be disclosed in order for the participant to make informed decisions. These guidelines were formulated after the 1979 Belmont Report, published by a Federal commission that investigated the Tuskegee Study, where African Americans were clinically observed for long-term effects of syphilis without treating the individuals.
After criticism from the public health community, Morris stated that the A.I. program was discontinued in January. Innovative methods may be needed to address the growing U.S. mental health crisis, but the tech industry needs to be aware of informed consent laws when exposing participants to Artificial Intelligence.
Data and advocacy from organizations like The National Alliance of Mental Illness and Mental Health America are conducted with ethical best practices. That is why it’s important to donate to these organizations to better understand the repercussions A.I. chatbots may have on willing participants with mental health issues.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
