| October 2009 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Saturday, October 24
Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting Rights in Iowa
by
Trish Nelson
on Sat 24 Oct 2009 01:00 AM CDT
Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting Rights in Iowa
 by Michael A. Zuckerman
Cornell University
Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 28, 2010
Posted with permission from the author. The following is an excerpt (citations have been excluded for space). Click on the link at the bottom of the post to download the entire article.
Abstract:
This paper examines the constitutional vulnerability of English-only laws as they relate to voting materials. The topic is timely in light of King v. Mauro, a recent Iowa decision that drew national attention by interpreting a state statute to bar non-English voter registration materials. In short, this paper argues that English-only policies as applied to voting are constitutionally suspect. After providing background about the English-only movement and the recent high-profile Iowa decision, the paper considers complex and uncertain areas of constitutional law, outlining how one might argue that English-only laws violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. In the end, the nation has an important choice to make: encourage participation in the electoral process, or use voting rights as means to disenfranchise language minority citizens. If the nation continues down the latter path, civil rights lawyers must be ready to respond.
INTRODUCTION
An ironic tension exists between politicians and an increasingly influential block of potential voters. During the 2008 election, Barack Obama and John McCain appealed to Hispanic voters by campaigning in Spanish, yet states like Iowa prevented those very same voters from registering to vote in any language other than English. This is the new American reality, where the Spanish-speaking electorate is expanding rapidly as calls for forced assimilation and closed borders grow louder. A consequence of this has been the rise of English-only legislation in a number of states. One state in particular, Iowa, made national headlines last year when a state court in King v. Mauro interpreted its English-only statute to prevent the Iowa Secretary of State from providing non-English voter registration forms. As a result, eligible voters in Iowa who did not speak English were hindered from registering to vote in state and national elections.
Legislative efforts, like Iowa’s, to restrict state communications to English are not new. Indeed, this debate has raged on since the founding of our nation. Although early attempts to establish a national language were rejected, politicians have continued to push language legislation since that time. The World War I era, for instance, saw the rise of state bans on teaching of foreign languages. Similarly the modern English-only movement has focused on establishing English as the official language of the United States and restricting government communications accordingly. To date, nearly 30 states have passed English language legislation, although many of these measures are merely symbolic and the courts have limited their scope. Using Iowa as a backdrop, this Article explores the constitutional vulnerability of English-only laws when states apply these laws to voting.
The purpose of this piece is not to argue that English-only laws are facially unconstitutional; rather, it aims to chronicle the recent application of English-only laws to voting and provide the legal foundation that practitioner and plaintiffs may use to overturn these laws as applied to voting. It considers complex and uncertain areas of constitutional law, detailing how one might argue that English-only laws violate the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.
To that end, Part I provides a brief overview of the English-only movement. It considers the history and status of language in the United States, language legislation, and significant court decisions that have informed the English-only debate. Part II turns to the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act. Specifically, it provides an overview of the Act, and then describes how one Iowa court, in King v. Mauro, recently interpreted this law to enjoin state officials from distributing non-English voter registration materials. Using Iowa as a backdrop, Part III argues that English-only legislation is legally suspect when applied to voting. It details the strongest arguments that can be marshaled against the constitutionality of laws like the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act.
Excerpt:
II. KING V. MAURO: THE IOWA ENGLISH LANGUAGE REAFFIRMATION ACT
Discussion of the recent controversy over English in Iowa begins with the state’s passage of the Iowa Language Reaffirmation Act (ILRA). Signed into law by Governor Tom Vilsack in 2002, the Act declares English “to be the official language of the state of Iowa.” To that end, it mandates that “the English language shall be the language of government in Iowa.” The Act explains that this means “[a]ll official documents, regulations, orders, transactions, proceedings, programs, meetings, publications, or actions taken or issued [by the state] shall be in the English language.” The stated legislative purpose of the Act is to encourage proficiency in English, thereby promoting civic and economic participation in society. Indeed, although the Governor recognized that the legislation was not without controversy, he implied that enacting the English-only bill would improve the lives of children in Iowa.
The roots of the recent controversy in Iowa can be traced back to 2003 when then-Iowa Secretary of State Chester Culver made non-English voter registration forms available online. By 2006, the forms were available in at least four languages: Spanish, Vietnamese, Laotian, and Bosnian. As the 2008 election approached, a number of individuals and groups, including U.S. Congressman Steve King and English Only Inc.* brought a lawsuit in Iowa state court contending that the non-English voter registration forms violate the ILRA. The Iowa Secretary of State defended its action by arguing that (1) its action did not violate the text of the statute; (2) even if it did violate the statute’s prohibition, it falls into one of the statute’s exceptions; and (3) the Act is unconstitutional.
*The other plaintiffs were Iowa County Auditors Scott Reneker, Joni Ernst, Judy Howrey, and Karen Strawn; Iowa Senators Paul McKinley, Jerry Behn, and Ralph Watts; Ngu Alons, a citizen of Iowa; and U.S English Only, Inc., an interest organization “dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English Language in the United States.”
Michael Zuckerman holds his undergraduate and law degrees from Cornell University. Over the last two years, he has written four articles on constitutional law that have appeared (or will appear) in legal journals at Cornell, Yale, the University of Virginia, and Notre Dame. Michael, who graduated law school in 2009, is currently a law clerk to a federal judge.
Download the entire article here
Thursday, December 4
Diebold Whistleblower: Karl Rove Involved in Election Rigging
by
Trish Nelson
on Thu 04 Dec 2008 05:00 AM CST
Diebold Whistleblower: Karl Rove Involved in Election Rigging
Marketwatch.com
 In an exclusive interview with Velvet Revolution ("VR"), a DC based non-profit dedicated to a clean and accountable government, a former Diebold vote machine contractor who was in charge of preparing the 2002 election between Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland has stated that the software patches placed on the voting machines in the weeks prior to the election could have rigged the election in favor of Republican Chambliss. The contractor, Chris Hood, was ordered by the President of Diebold, Bob Urosevich, to secretly install uncertified software patches on machines in predominantly Democratic counties, according to Mr. Hood. Saxby Chambliss won a surprising victory after trailing badly in the pre-election polls. The interview with Mr. Hood, posted by Velvet Revolution ("VR"), can be seen on YouTube.
VR has been working with whistleblowers who have stated that the GOP, under the direction of Karl Rove, has been using computers to change election results. In order to protect the runoff election from such manipulations, a federal RICO lawsuit is being pursued in Ohio to take depositions from those who have been implicated in this illegal strategy. Last week, the attorneys in that case sent document holds to Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel asking that she retain all memory cards and hard drives used in the runoff, and all documents related to uncertified patches. Cliff Arnebeck, the lead attorney in that case states, "Karl Rove has made a career out of rigging elections. Electronic voting machines like those being used in Georgia are his favorite tool, so this important race cannot be watched too closely."
Complete coverage of this suit is at rovecybergate.com.
Click here to read the entire article.
Thursday, November 13
It's Time to Get Back to Work on Election Integrity
by
Linda Thieman
on Thu 13 Nov 2008 05:00 AM CST
It's Time to Get Back to Work on Election Integrity
Political activist Ellen Olenska sets the stage for what needs to be done in order to restore integrity to our elections systems, i.e., get rid of electronic tabulations.
The Oregon mail-in system should be the model, and all votes could be linked to Social Security numbers to ensure accuracy and prevent fraud. All computerized systems, monitored in total secrecy by private corporations, not by the American people, have been proven failures, and most Americans rightly believe that they exist at all for the purpose of stealing elections. The Help America Vote Act was developed at the Crawford ranch in the summer of 2002 where Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, a major Bush fundraiser, was a frequent guest. O’Dell was given multi-million dollar government contracts in exchange for creating a voting system, unverifiable and linked to central computers, that in the end proved capable of changing vote tallies and erasing and/or flipping votes. Such a system had the potential to give Karl Rove his “permanent Republican majority”.
For an excellent history of how and how many elections have been stolen using electronic voting machines, there's this disconcerting article by Michael Jay over at the Huffington Post:
Mark Crispin Miller said it: There are two types of people in the world; those who address election integrity issues, and the happy people....
We've since seen the evidence on Ohio from Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, authors of How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008 and Richard Hayes Phillips, author of Witness to a Crime, which includes photos of 30,000 doctored ballots and poll books. (This evidence was introduced to Congress by Rep. John Conyers.) I watched Dan Rather's special report, in which whistle blowers from Sequoia elections systems told how the company changed their paper standards prior to the 2000 election, solely so as to send unworkable ballots to heavily Democratic Palm Beach, Florida.
I learned that the "HAVA" laws introduced after the 2000 election debacle, ostensibly to fix things -- especially through electronic voting -- were substantially written by the disgraced Republican lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff.
Read the full article here. Be forewarned; it's not for the faint of heart.
Tuesday, October 28
Why the Dems Need a Large Margin of Victory to Win
by
Linda Thieman
on Tue 28 Oct 2008 05:00 AM CDT
Why the Dems Need a Large Margin of Victory to Win
by Greg Palast, The Progressive Populist
Don’t worry about Mickey Mouse or ACORN stealing the election. According to an investigative report in Rolling Stone magazine, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast, after a year-long investigation, reveal a systematic program of “GOP vote tampering” on a massive scale.
• Republican election officials of swing-state Colorado have quietly purged one in six names from their voter rolls.
• While Obama dreams of riding to the White House on a wave of new voters, more then 2.7 million have had their registrations REJECTED under new procedures signed into law by George Bush.
Kennedy, a voting rights lawyer, charges this is a resurgence of “Jim Crow” tactics to wrongly block Black and Hispanic voters.
• A fired US prosecutor levels new charges—accusing leaders of his own party, Republicans, with criminal acts in an attempt to block legal voters as “fraudulent.”
• Digging through government records, the Kennedy-Palast team discovered that, in 2004, a GOP scheme called “caging” ultimately took away the rights of 1.1 million voters. The Rolling Stone article predicts that, this Nov. 4, it will be far worse.
Read more here.
Wednesday, May 16
Establishing Our Progressive Iowa Network (PIN) - Mark the Date!
by
Caroline Vernon
on Wed 16 May 2007 11:25 AM CDT
Establishing our Progressive Iowa Network (PIN) – Mark the Date!
By Caroline Vernon
On Saturday, June 9th, progressive leaders, activists and legislators from across the state will converge on Iowa City for our first 2007 Democracy for Iowa Organizing Summit. We are still working out the details on the venue (forthcoming) but we will be meeting from 9am to 3pm (the last hour will be reserved for DFA-IA members to discuss administrative business so it will not be necessary for everyone to stay for that segment).
The purpose of this gathering is to establish the Progressive Iowa Network (PIN). This network will serve to better unite progressive organizations, legislators, and leaders across the state so we can support each other’s efforts around progressive issues in Iowa.
Currently,
we have an unprecedented opportunity to get progressive legislation
passed in our state. However, in order to achieve legislative victories
on the issues that we care about, we must establish an effective
framework that allows us to better organize our efforts, clarify our
message, mobilize our base, educate the public and influence our state
officials. We have identified the following 5 issues as requiring urgent action:
1. VOICE (Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections)
2. CAFO regulations / Farm Bill
3. Fair Share
4. Healthcare
5. Media
Please note: we want ALL progressive organizations to attend this meeting and become part of this network even if we may not be focusing on your specific issues at this time.
The Summit Agenda will cover the following:
I. Why is PIN important?
The first part of this summit will discuss why PIN is important. Groups/Individuals will be asked to introduce themselves and identify their main areas and issues of focus:
• Policy/Research
• Lobbying
• Media/Public Relations (including bloggers)
• Grassroots Organizing
This will NOT be an informational meeting about the issues, but rather a strategy session on how we can support each other moving forward.
II. Update & Evaluation of the recent Iowa Legislative Session
• What went well?
• What would we do differently?
III. Break-Out Sessions by Issue
• Strategize with other progressives around the state that are working on the same issue.
• What kind of help do you need from other organizations/leaders who may not be directly involved in your issue.
Lunch
IV. Report back to larger group identifying specific needs
• What do you need from PIN?
We will not have time to hear specific plans but rather will want to hear your list of needs on how other organizations/leaders can help you make progress around your issue.
V. Where does PIN go from here?
We will discuss logistics, network structure and set a date and time for our next meeting(s).
VI. DFA-Iowa Administrative Planning Session (for DFA-IA members)
This last segment will be for DFA-IA members to discuss by-laws, how we can better support Blog for Iowa, and other administrative details.
Outreach around this summit has been underway for awhile -- many progressive organizations/individuals in Iowa have already been notified. However, if you have not yet heard from us directly, please email Caroline Vernon ASAP: carolina1961@gmail.com. We need every progressive organization, leader and legislator in Iowa to participate in order to achieve maximum effectiveness as a network.
Thursday, February 8
Abandon Touchscreens
by
Sam Garchik
on Thu 08 Feb 2007 09:00 PM CST
Abandon Touchscreens
By Trish and Ellen, Rapid Response Iowa
The good folks at Iowans for Voting Integrity http://www.iowansforvotingintegrity.org/News.htm have been working hard behind the scenes to assure election integrity in Iowa.
They are working with state legislators to introduce a bill that will bring paper
ballots and verified voting to all Iowa elections.
Your
help is now needed. County Auditors may well be resistant to more
changes in equipment; last year the Iowa's Auditors' association
opposed even the modest bill SF 351, which would only have required
that paper printers be added to the touchscreens.
Action:
Please
consider calling or writing your County Auditor and ask her or him to
support legislation that would replace touchscreens in Iowa. Be sure to note that you support legislation that would have the state fund the transition to paper ballots.
Click here for contact information for all the County Auditors in Iowa:
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/auditors/AuditorsList.html New Legislation being introduced this week: Legislation
being introduced this week by U.S. Representative Rush Holt will
establish strict new standards for the paper rolls, which no current
touchscreen system meets. This will strongly favor paper ballots, with
assistive marking devices for disabled voters.
Contact your auditor:
You
may ask, why not just add the printer on to the touchscreen to allow
the voter to see their vote on paper? Below is some information. From the IVI website: A survey by the group Iowans for Voting Integrity (IVI) found that one-fourth of Iowa voters used the touchscreens in the June 2006 primary. Says
IVI chair Carole Simmons, “With touchscreen machines, votes are
recorded as a chunk of computer code that the voter cannot view. This
leaves the door open for error or fraud."
Numerous
academic studies and independent security reports over the past year
warn that elections on these machines are at high risk of being
compromised, either unintentionally or by deliberate, malicious design. Touchscreen systems, even with an added paper printout the voter can see, are no match for voter-marked paper ballots. Why paper ballots are better than a "paper trail": In case of a recount, ballots are far superior than a printer roll. A ballot marked by the voter more definitively communicates the voter's intent than a secondary printout. Paper ballots are more amenable to recount or audit by hand.
Disabled
voters have successfully used paper-ballot markers like the Automark
(used in almost a third of Iowa's polling places) without trusting to glitch-prone touchscreens.
The paper that the printer rolls use is low-quality, flimsy paper; the roll is commonly called a "toilet-paper roll."
Legislation
being introduced this week by U.S. Representative Rush Holt will
establish strict new standards for the paper rolls, which no current
touchscreen system meets. This will strongly favor paper ballots, with
assistive marking devices for disabled voters.
Rep. Holt's bill will provide $300 million to states and counties to upgrade to the new standards.
Iowa should not find itself in the position of catching up to Florida. We should move to adopt the most proven, easily verified method of voting throughout the state: the paper ballot. If you have questions, send an e-mail to Iowans for Voting Integrity at
Friday, January 26
ICCI Voter Owned Lobby Day
by
Caroline Vernon
on Fri 26 Jan 2007 06:06 PM CST
 ICCI Voter Owned Lobby Day in Des Moines
By Caroline Vernon
Progressive Action for the Common Good (PACG)
has reserved a passenger van to transport Quad City activists to Des Moines next Monday, January
29th. We will be joining other progressive activists across Iowa in order to lobby our
state legislators on the importance of clean elections and public
financing of campaigns. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI)
is the main organizer of this event and has already laid a lot of
groundwork around this issue. This is a price-less (pun intended)
opportunity to make a difference in the fight to reclaim our democracy.
Monday's Agenda:We will leave from the NE corner of the Northpark Mall parking lot
(near Sears) at 8:00am. This van seats 12. We have 6 open seats available and will be stopping at the Perkins restaturant in Iowa City to pick up a couple more folks so if you live in the QC area or in Iowa City and would like to join us, please contact Caroline ASAP to reserve a
seat: 563-676-7580,
carolina1961@gmail.com. Others from the QC area will also be carpooling to Des Moines.
Please wear a green shirt (representing money) and if possible, bring a
dozen or more home-made cookies along. Currently, lobbyists are allowed
to spend a maximum of $2.99 on each legislator so we would like to
bring home-made cookies to share, to represent home-made elections. If
you are willing to contribute goodies for the cause please let me know.
If you are unable to attend, but would be willing to bake some cookies,
that would be terrific! Finally, to help defray some of the cost of
renting the bus, we are asking for a $10 donation from each
participant.
Once
we get to the Capitol, we will debrief at 11am to go over our talking
points and the day's activities. At noon, we will participate in a
rally and press conference. Former Congressman Berkley Bedell, Ed
Fallon, Pam Yoakum, and Mike Connelly will all speak to the importance
of voter-owned clean elections. From 12:30 to 3pm, we will all have an
opportunity to lobby each of our state reps on this issue. We will then
plan to leave Des Moines promptly by 3:15pm so we can return home in time for
dinner, around 6pm.
CCI is expecting an estimated turnout of
close to 150 activists from around the state. I am hopeful that we can fill the remaining seats in the van. We
expect to have a bill number to lobby around by next week.
Thanks for all you do - hope to see you in Des Moines!
Caroline Vernon
563-676-7580
carolina1961@gmail.com
For more information on why this issue is so important, please read the following:
Are Political Action Committees trying to use money to influence OUR legislature?
Iowans shouldn't have to wonder.
Tell your legislators to support Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections!
The
Clean Elections Act will help restore fairness to our elections by
allowing everyday Iowans the opportunity to run for office, regardless
of how much money they can access. Voters won't have to wonder if
large contributors are gaining unbalanced access to OUR
representatives.
The Clean Elections Act would provide a limited amount of public financing for candidates
who:
Pledge to not raise any private money for their campaigns.
Pledge to not use any of their own money for their campaigns.
Collect a set number of signatures and $5 contributions from within their own district to prove they are viable.
It Can Work!
Maine and Arizona have been effectively using the system for four election cycles and the results have been good for democracy.
More people are running for office.
More people are turning out to vote.
Candidates report spending more time talking to voters.
9
of 11 statewide officeholders in Arizona, including the Governor and
Attorney General, have been elected without taking money from PACs and
big money contributors, spending only a fraction of what is used in
conventional races like Iowa's.
We Need it Now!
Voter-Owned Elections help ensure a healthy democracy by:
Freeing candidates from the money chase and allowing them to spend all their campaign time talking with voters.
Creating a fair playing field by reducing the need to raise large amounts of money to win.
Giving
more Iowans the chance to run for office – regardless of their access
to big money or their willingness to accept PAC contributions.
Creating
a system where Iowans won't have to wonder if big contributions are
influencing votes at the capitol with their campaign contributions.
The Clean Elections Act = Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections
Background:
A
Clean Elections Act would create voluntary public financing for state
elections. Candidates would qualify for public funding if they vowed
to raise no private money, vowed to not use any of their own money, and
collected a set number of signatures and $5 contributions from within
their district.
In a contested general election, eligible candidates who chose to use the system would receive:
$3 million for a team running for governor and lieutenant governor.
$200,000 for a candidate for attorney general.
$125,000 for a candidate for a statewide office other than governor, lieutenant governor, or attorney general.
$40,000 for a candidate for the Iowa senate.
$30,000 for a candidate for the Iowa house or representatives.
Summary:
Voter
Owned Iowa Clean Elections is a system that would free candidates from
the money chase and allow them to spend more time with voters and
constituents. The same system has been used in Maine and Arizona for
four full election cycles and has proven to be an effective way of
reducing the influence of big money on elections. 6 of 8 statewide
office holders in Arizona were elected without using any special
interest money. Voter turnout has increased by over 20%. The number
of people running for office has increased. And in the Nov 2006
Election, Governor Janet Napolitano won re-election, combining with her
challenger to spend only $2 million, compared to the combined $18
million spent by candidates in the Iowa gubernatorial race.
A
Clean Elections Act will allow every day Iowans to run for office
without having to worry about raising large amounts of money. Phase I
of CCI's "Money and Elections in Iowa" study shows that the majority of
money given to candidates is coming from PACs. Challengers are at a
huge disadvantage, needing to raise $65,000 to be competitive in a race
for the house and $100,000 to be competitive for the senate. And as
campaign spending has gotten out of control, campaigns have gone south.
The Clean Elections Act would limit unnecessary spending by placing
contribution limits on donors. The Clean Elections Act would also
require Media outlets to file reports outlining who is paying for
political advertisements, curbing the explosion of negative
advertising.
For the cost of $5 per voter, Iowans could know for certain
that their elected officials are working to address the needs of all
Iowans, and not have to wonder about where all the money comes from.
For around $10 million a year, our state elected officials would have
the chance to focus on ideas and meeting their constituents, not
chasing down the combined $32 million spent in the Nov. 2006 elections.
Tell your legislator today: "Iowans want Voter Owned Clean Elections!"
Tuesday, January 16
Overton to Speak on Voting Rights at UI
by
Sam Garchik
on Tue 16 Jan 2007 09:52 AM CST
Overton to Speak on Voting Rights at UI
By Chellie Pingree, President of Common Cause
We want to tell you about a chance to meet a good friend of ours who
will be speaking in at the University of Iowa College of Law. Spencer
Overton is a voting rights activist, a law professor at George
Washington University, and a member of our board. He will be
discussing his new book, Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression, at the University
of Iowa College of Law on Friday, January 19, at 3 p.m. in the Levitt
Auditorium of the Boyd Law Building. Admission is free and open to the
public.
Stealing Democracy is
fun, timely, and important. It starts off by showing how the themes
from the movie "The Matrix" are played out in our flawed political
system, and builds on that insight by recounting hot controversies like
partisan redistricting in Texas, renewal of the Voting Rights Act,
felon disenfranchisement, photo ID requirements, English-only ballots,
and the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Please pass this email on to anyone you know who may want to attend, or might be interested in Spencer's book.
Thank you.
P.S.
While serving on a commission about presidential primaries, Spencer
urged Iowa to restore voting rights to citizens who had completed their
sentences. A couple of months later, Iowa's governor did so (a move
that restored rights to 98,000 voters, including 25 percent of the
state's African American voting-age population). You can see more
about Spencer's book at http://www.stealingdemocracy.com.
|
|
