Talking Justice

Learning the Wrong Lessons

Kevin Cathcart — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:00:00 GMT

By Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal Executive Director

Back-to-school time brings up mixed feelings for most students, but for some LGBTQ students, fear and anxiety are there in the mix. That’s harmful. It’s unfair. And it’s unacceptable.

Joey Ramelli and Megan Donovan were forced to drop out of high school and complete their education at home after being harassed by their classmates during their sophomore and junior years. The students taunted them with antigay slurs. Ramelli was assaulted, his car vandalized. Lambda Legal recently defended the jury decision in their favor in a California court.

K.K. Logan attended high school in Indiana, where his classmates and teachers supported him when he wore clothes typically associated with girls his age. But when Logan attended the prom wearing a dress, the principal blocked him at the door. Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Logan arguing that the school violated his First Amendment rights. It’s heartening to know that many of his classmates and neighbors were on his side.

And recently at a Florida high school, 17-year-old Brittany Martin and other students who formed a gay-straight alliance (GSA) were told they didn’t have the right to meet on school grounds, a right that other student organizations were given. The ACLU took the case to federal court and won on both Equal Access Act and First Amendment grounds.

Lambda Legal has had similar victories. When a group of students in a Salt Lake City high school were told they couldn’t form a GSA, we stepped in as lead counsel for a coalition of groups that filed suit against the school district for violating the Equal Access Act. And in California, we fought and won a case on behalf of Anthony Colín and others, after the Orange Unified School District Board denied the students permission to meet. These victories and others like them support students and allies who are working together to make schools safer places where all students have the chance to pursue an equal education — and be themselves.

But even where state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are on the books, the fight is not over. Lambda Legal filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief to protect a state law in California that is threatened by a lawsuit brought by antigay organizations Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, which seek to block their enforcement. And in New York, we spoke up when two different school districts argued that the state Human Rights Law that prohibits discrimination does not apply to them. One district has already dropped its challenge in response to our letter.

School is the place where young people learn history and geometry — and how to be in the world. They also learn how the world around them works, and they don’t miss much: they see when teachers, parents, administrators and elected officials stand up for fairness — and when they don’t.

Back-to-school blues should be about the small stuff — not about the fear of violence or discrimination, whether on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, race or any other factor. We will soon issue an enhanced version of one of Lambda Legal’s most popular educational booklets, and we’re especially proud of the title: every child should be able to return to school and be Out, Safe and Respected.

Support Systems

warnewsradio — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:16:00 GMT

Afghan women learning to make fruit preserves. Photo courtesy of Rosemary Stasek.

This week on War News Radio, we examine just how closely Pakistan’s equivalent of the CIA is tied to Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. Sonny Sidhu prepared this report.

Next, we check in on the current status of al-Qaeda with Bruce Riedell, a counter-terrorism expert at Brookings Institution, amid reports of of a recently discovered letter intercepted from senior members of the organization. Alex Imas has this report.

Then, we talk to a California mayor turned humanitarian aid worker, who has been working and living in Afghanistan for the past six years. Elise Garrity reports.

Finally, we look at what’s behind the rise in violence against journalists in northern Iraq. Elizabeth Hipple prepared this report.

These stories, this week on War News Radio.
Read the transcript for this show »

Thank God for those who "flipped-flopped" on race

Ward Connerly — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:42:00 GMT

One thing I have learned after over 13 years of fighting to bring my nation closer to its promise of equal treatment for every American regardless of race, sex, color or ethnicity is that politicians can triangulate more about this issue – and get away with it – than almost any other issue in the public policy arena.

A few days ago, Senator John McCain gave his support to our effort in Arizona to prohibit preferences through a constitutional amendment. In explaining his reason for doing so, McCain said, “I have always opposed quotas.” Instantly, Senator Barack Obama pounced on McCain’s endorsement.

Speaking at a convention of “journalists of color” Obama said, “I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”

Having now been thrust into a presidential campaign by Obama, it is appropriate for me to offer my thoughts.

Over the past ten years, no American president, Congress, legislature or governor has acted to eliminate preferences and to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act which commands equal treatment “without regard to race, color, national origin or sex” by our government. In addition, the Supreme Court has handed down conflicting opinions about the matter. That is why I have led the national effort to ask the people in various states to exercise their power to end such practices through ballot initiatives, wherever permitted. I find it interesting that the only ones who consider such initiatives “divisive” are the ones who oppose them, such as Senator Obama. But, they never seem to find preferences themselves as being “divisive.”

Apparently, as long as those who are harmed by such policies and those of us who believe that preferences are fundamentally wrong keep our mouths shut and accept the status quo, sweet harmony will ring throughout the land.

While he acknowledged the resentment that affirmative action engenders in his March 18 speech about race, Obama now claims that our initiatives are not really all that important and are “all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.” This is neither the tone nor the substance of what he said on March 18 when he was trying to appeal to white Democrats to get the issue of Jeremiah Wright off his back.

It is true that McCain has “flipped” about whether ballot initiatives are appropriate as a device for ending preferences. It is NOT true that he has “flipped” with regard to the substance of this issue. The record is clear that he has consistently evidenced disdain for preferential treatment based on race. But, let’s assume that he has even changed his position substantively.

In truth, millions of Americans are at a different point in their thinking about race today than they were ten years ago when McCain opposed legislation to place an initiative on the ballot to end preferences in Arizona. For this, Senator Obama should be thrilled and should thank God for race “flippers.” Without them, he would not be the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party for president of the United States.

While he criticizes McCain for changing his position, Obama evidences an equal readiness to change his from support of race-based preferences to one based on socioeconomic circumstances – a position with which I concur.

Asked if there would continue to be a need for affirmative action should he be elected president, Obama said, "I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so that it is not just a quota, but it is acknowledging and taking into account some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced, continue to experience…”

What he fails to say is that it is not only “communities of color” that experience hardships and difficulties. Nor does he say how a president who professes the desire to unite the American people intend to do so by asking those who are not “of color” to look the other way when they are discriminated against.

If Obama is truly concerned about divisiveness, why didn’t he speak out when his foot soldiers at ACORN were taking pride in blocking our petition circulators from gathering signatures in Missouri? Their despicable tactics of harassment give new meaning to the term “divisive.”

Until we reach the point that we are living out what Martin Luther King Jr. often called the “true meaning of our creed” that all men (and women) are created equal, how we deal with the issue of race will be a work in progress; and something tells me that deep in his soul Senator Obama knows this. Certainly, he should.

Hand in Hand

warnewsradio — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:54:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, an Iraqi journalist tells us the story of a suicide bombing, which exploded thirty meters away from him during a peaceful political demonstration. Ayub Nuri prepared this report.

Next, we hear about a diverse group of Iraqi and American youth who assembled in Jordan to construct their own vision of what the war’s big players need to address. Kristin Caspar reports.

We also talk to Congress candidate Tom Perriello whose background in Afghanistan has molded his understanding of US policy in the country. Listen now to Elise Garrity’s report.

Finally, we examine the growing militant presence in Pakistan, despite generous counterterrorism aid from the US. Sonny Sidhu reports.

These stories, this week on War News Radio.
[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]

Squaring Off

warnewsradio — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:06:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, we take a look at US-Iran diplomacy and what it means for the two countries to be engaging in talks. Asher Sered and Alex Imas prepared this report.

We also hear from three Iranian-Americans about their views on US-Iran relations. Kristin Caspar reports.

Next, we hear about a women’s boxing program in Afghanistan that is teaching young women how to roll with the punches, inside the ring and out. Listen now to Elise Garrity’s report.

Finally, we hear from Iraqis about their thoughts on the US timetable for withdrawal. Sonny Sidhu reports.

These stories, plus the week’s news, from War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio] Read the transcript for this show »

Justice Talking Says Farewell

ilakey@appc — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:46:00 GMT

Note: Justice Talking ceased production on June 30 of 2008. Commenting on blog posts has been suspended. Listeners who still want to communicate with us may address emails to: "jtinfo@justicetalking.org."

Thank you from the JT Crew

Today is the final day for the Justice Talking staff. I want to thank all of the talented people who have been part of our production team! I also want to thank everyone who has posted their thoughts and comments to this blog. Your appreciation for our work is so important to each of us.

A few folks have also made comments about NPR on this blog. I want to be clear that this decision was not NPR’s. We have never received funding from NPR and they have been completely supportive over the lifetime of this program. They, too, were saddened to hear that Justice Talking would be ending.

As for the many suggestions of how we could raise money to keep the show going, we appreciate your activist spirit! At this point though, it is, in fact, too late. There are no remaining staff to produce the show and stations have already found other programs to fill the space left by Justice Talking.

But as Margot Adler said in her closing remarks of our final show. “Justice Talking may end, but show or no show, this conversation and these debates will continue in the courts, in demonstrations and in the continuing battles that courageous men and women wage.”

With gratitude,

Ingrid Lakey

Acting Executive Producer

Justice Talking

Original Farewell Message

After nine years on the air, Justice Talking is ceasing production. We've heard from many people wondering why, so here's the deal: Our grant has ended. In many ways, it is quite amazing that Justice Talking has been around as long as it has. We appreciate the support we’ve received over that time from the Annenberg Foundation, the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands and the Annenberg Public Policy Center. We are proud of the hundreds of hours of programs we produced which, we believe, helped people to understand the ways that our lives, the U.S. Constitution and the justice system intersect.

It has been an honor to be part of the NPR family and to have been heard by the listeners of over 100 large and small, urban and rural public radio stations.

We are going to continue producing the show through June 30 and you’ll be able to hear those programs here on our website www.justicetalking.org <http://www.justicetalking.org/> . We expect that our archive will remain online for the foreseeable future as well.

On behalf of the entire staff, thank you for listening to Justice Talking!

Questions about Funding

First, I want to thank everyone who has written to us with such thoughful words about Justice Talking! The funny thing about radio is that usually we have to take it on faith that what we produce is actually being heard and, we hope, making a difference.

Second, I'd like to address some of your questions about our funding situation. The show and website cost almost a million dollars to produce. We tried over a three year period to locate the needed funding but had to sunset the program when we failed. If someone found a funder willing to provide a multi-year commitment to the funding needed to produce Justice Talking and our sister website, Justice Learning, we would certainly revisit the decision.

Again, thanks to everyone who has shared their appreciation for Justice Talking. It has been enormously gratifying to the whole staff to hear that our efforts have mattered to you.

Ingrid Lakey
Acting Executive Producer
Justice Talking

Loss of Status

warnewsradio — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:21:00 GMT

Loss of Status

July 18th, 2008
An Iraqi army patrol at Kirkuk’s northern gate. Photo courtesy of Ayub Nuri.

This week on War News Radio, we examine why the negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and the Iraqi government have stalled. Asher Sered and Sonny Sidhu prepared this report.

We also talk to two college professors who are sending help from America to Iraqi universities. Elizabeth Hipple reports.

Next, we learn about the Chaldeans, a Christian minority in Iraq that is struggling to survive. Listen now to Kristin Caspar’s report.

Finally, we hear about how Iraqi athletes rebounded after oppression during Saddam’s regime, and how Iraq’s soccer team has boosted morale across the country. Matthew Diaz has more.

These stories, this week on War News Radio.

Out of Tragedy, A Lesson

Kevin Cathcart — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:59:00 GMT

Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond were together almost 20 years. They had adopted foster children and created a good life for their family in Washington State. Last summer they decided to take three of their children on a family cruise — but they never left the port in Miami.

Lisa, a healthy 39-year-old, had been cheerfully watching her children play basketball on the boat’s upper deck, when she suddenly collapsed. She was rushed by ambulance to Jackson Memorial Hospital and diagnosed with a fatal brain aneurysm.

When Janice and their children arrived at the hospital, a social worker was confrontational and rude to them. He told Janice that she was in an antigay city and state. Hospital staff would not give Janice any information about Lisa and kept the family from seeing Lisa for hours. Lisa lay dying alone with her family just feet away in the next room.

No one should have to go through what this family went through at the hospital, making a horrible tragedy worse. That seems like common sense. But even as we are making enormous strides for equality in America, this case is a stark reminder of the kind of discrimination that LGBT people and people with HIV continue to suffer. And it’s particularly egregious when it comes during medical emergencies, when everyone deserves to be treated with compassion.

Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit against Jackson Memorial Hospital on behalf of Janice and her children. We hope to win justice for the family and also to educate people about discrimination in hospitals and health care settings. We’ve also launched a petition campaign urging the next President of the United States to create a health care plan that ensures equal access for LGBT people and people with HIV in hospitals and health care settings.

Equal access means treating people without discrimination and honoring the wishes of all patients. It also means that hospitals must create visitation policies that have a broader definition of who is considered “family.” It never occurred to Janice, for instance, that she would not be treated like her partner’s family. “We had spent almost 20 years of our life together, were raising children together,” Janice recalled. “If that’s not family, I don’t know what is.”

On top of their deep commitment to each other, Janice and Lisa had created medical power of attorney documents, which Janice had a friend fax to her at the hospital as soon as she got there. A power of attorney or health care proxy allows you to choose the person you want to make medical decisions for you and authorizes doctors and other medical staff to release information to this person. (For more information on health care documents, see “Take the Power,” Lambda Legal’s life-planning toolkit.

All people should execute these documents, but for LGBT people and people with HIV they become crucial for two reasons:

While different-sex spouses in every state automatically receive the right to make medical decisions for each other, same-sex couples, even those that have married, do not have this right in most states. A medical power of attorney is one of the few ways anyone can alert health care staff about their medical wishes and who should be making decisions about these wishes.
When discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status does occur, having this documentation gives Lambda Legal and other groups a stronger base that we can argue from.

Nothing can bring back Lisa Pond or the nearly eight hours Janice Langbehn lost with her dying partner. But we can all learn something from her suffering and help make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Wide Awake

warnewsradio — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:09:00 GMT

Wide Awake

July 11th, 2008

An insurgent in custody of the
Iraqi army in Mousel.
Photo courtesy of Ayub Nuri.

This week on War News Radio, we consider the Awakening movement as a path to better security in Iraq. First, Iraqi civilians talk about how the Awakening Councils have affected their personal security. Elise Garrity reports.

Then, members of the US military talk about the value of this movement as a strategy for a safer and self-protecting Iraq. Kristin Caspar and Alex Imas prepared this report.

Next, we examine what it will take for Iraq’s politics to keep up with the recent improvements in security. Listen now to Elizabeth Hipple’s report.

Finally, how a recent car bombing in Kabul may have consequences beyond Afghan borders. Asher Sered reports.

These stories, this week on War News Radio.

This week’s show features music by Ahmed Al Asheq.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio] Read the transcript for this show »

Change of Scenery

warnewsradio — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:08:00 GMT

Change of Scenery

July 4th, 2008
A US humvee during a patrol
in the city of Kirkuk.
Photo courtesy of Ayub Nuri.

This week on War News Radio, the mother of a young Iraq veteran tells us about how the war has affected his return home. Elise Garrity reports.

Then, we hear about one soldier’s dissatisfaction with the media’s coverage of the war, and what he did about it. Elizabeth Hipple has the report.

In February of this past year the Iraqi government announced a new flag, we hear reactions to the change from Kurds in Iraq’s north. Listen now to Jess Engebretson’s report.

Finally we hear about some of the struggles that Iraqi immigrants in America face in their new homes. Sarah Whites-Koditschek reports.

These stories, this week on War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]

Changing Colors

warnewsradio — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:07:00 GMT

Changing Colors

June 27th, 2008

A camp for displaced people in the southern Iraqi city of Kut.
Photo courtesy of Ayub Nuri.

This week on War News Radio, we look at how ethnic diversity is changing in Iraqi neighborhoods.

First, hear from Iraqis who have left their homes for more homogeneous neighborhoods. Alex Imas and Ayub Nuri report.

Then, we talk about the long term consequences of sectarian segregation. Asher Sered and Elise Garrity report.

Next, we chat with journalist Nir Rosen, who has witnessed the demographics of a Baghdad neighborhood change since the 2003 invasion. Listen now to Sonny Sidhu’s report.

Then, two Iraqi immigrants tell us about what it was like to move to Philadelphia and take root in a new country. Elizabeth Hipple reports.

Finally, we hear from an Iraqi artist who tells us about ethnic diversity inside his own family and his art work. Listen now to Kristin Caspar’s report.

These stories, this week on War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]

Discrimination

Ward Connerly — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:42:00 GMT

One of the least-kept secrets in higher education is the fact that many colleges and universities, especially the more select ones, consciously seek to suppress their “Asian” student enrollment.

During the first year of my term as a regent of the University of California (UC), a prominent member of the staff at one of the UC campuses remarked to me that at least two of the UC campuses could become “all-Asian” if conscious efforts were not pursued to “maintain diversity.” It was at that point that I learned that “diversity” was the fig leaf to hide this pervasive system of discrimination against Asians.

The case filed by Jian Li against Princeton and the decision of the Office of Civil Rights to take this case, and to even expand it, is an extremely important one for those who believe that racial discrimination is morally wrong and that every American is entitled to equal treatment. This insidious practice of Asian discrimination has largely gone unchallenged for a variety of reasons. First, there is a prevailing view that “opportunities” granted to one group do not come at the expense of another. This view was recently expressed by one of the presidential candidates. It is a sentiment that enables institutions of higher education as well as others to get away with their Asian discrimination. Few are aware that the percentage of Asians at the University of California at Los Angeles campus went from roughly 22% when preferences were being accorded to “underrepresented minorities” to over 40% once they were eliminated.

Second, Asian discrimination occurs because Asians – unlike black and Latino activist groups – remain silent in the face of discrimination against them. Stepping forward as he has done, Li might very well trigger an attitude that “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore” among other Asians. And that would be a good thing.

Until recently, the unbridled pursuit of “diversity” has allowed public and private institutions to operate with reckless abandon based on their belief that the end of racial integration and “inclusion” justified the means of achieving it – a means that they failed to even acknowledge as constituting discrimination. Hopefully, the Office of Civil Rights can unmask the consequences of this diversity gambit and restore the principle of individual rights to the decision-making process.

Taking Care of Business

warnewsradio — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:33:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, personal stories of working in a post-invasion Iraq.

First, we talk with Antonia Juhasz, from Oil Change International, and author of The Tyranny of Oil, about the involvement of foreign oil companies in Iraq. Kristin Caspar and Alex Imas report.

Next, we learn what it is like to be an Iraqi working for an American company in Iraq. Listen now to Alex Ginsberg’s report.

Then, we explore why Americans are going to Iraq to find work. Cyrus Stoller reports.

Finally, in our series, A Day in the Life, we speak with a neurosurgery nurse in Kirkuk about how he copes with the stress of his patients’ traumatic injuries. Listen now to Ayub Nuri’s report.

These stories, plus the week’s news, from War News Radio.

Landmark Trials

Jim Landman — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:33:00 GMT

I'm writing this blog from Washington, DC, where our Division will be hosting a summer teacher institute with the Federal Judicial Center. Now in its third year, the "Federal Trials and Great Debates in U.S. History" summer institute engages teachers in study of landmark trials from the lower federal courts. This year's cases include the Aaron Burr treason trial, In re Debs and the Pullman Strike, and the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial.

The institute has become one of the highlights of our year. It's gratifying to work with teachers who are so dedicated to their profession, and to watch the historians and federal judges who join us throughout the institute embrace the opportunity to interact with the teachers. Both academia and the judiciary are perceived as somewhat cloistered professions, but our experiences with the institute have demonstrated that few things are more pleasing to a professor or a judge than the chance to discuss his or her work with others.

Our colleagues at the Federal Judicial Center have over the past few years produced a fantastic set of resources for anyone interested in learning more about how the federal courts have helped to shape some of our most significant national debates. In addition to the three cases we will be studying this year, the FJC has prepared histories of the Sedition Act trials from the early years of our republic, the Amistad trial's challenge to slavery, Ex parte Merryman and Civil War suspensions of habeas corpus, the trial of Susan B. Anthony for voting in a federal election, Chew Heong and the Chinese Exclusion Acts, and Bush v. Orleans Parish , one of the first efforts to enforce the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education. All these units are available for free download from the FJC's website. Simply follow the links to "Federal Judicial History" and "Teaching Judicial History: Notable Federal Trials."

This will be the Division's final post, as the Talking Justice blog prepares to go offline at the end of this month. It has been a pleasure speaking with you on this site. Although we won't be appearing here anymore, you can find always find us at www.abanet.org/publiced. We look forward to hearing from you.

The Legacy of Lawrence v. Texas

Kevin Cathcart — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:59:00 GMT

Apart from allowing same-sex couples to marry in California — which was itself momentous — the recent California Supreme Court ruling did something else important and notable: It reaffirmed the promise of Lambda Legal’s historic U.S. Supreme Court victory striking down all remaining state sodomy laws five years ago. This news is especially gratifying as we prepare to celebrate the fifth anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas this month.

We always knew that Lawrence was about so much more than sodomy laws — and so much more than sex. True, we began the case challenging Texas’s “homosexual conduct” law on behalf of our clients John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were literally dragged from John’s home one night for having private, consensual sex. But from the beginning, we argued for the fundamental right that all adults have to express private sexual intimacy without interference from the government. For the right that all people in this country have to be treated fairly under the law.

Lawrence overturned an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld Georgia’s criminal sodomy law. At the time, sodomy laws were being used to justify wholesale discrimination against gay men and lesbians — keeping people from job opportunities, adoption and simply living their daily lives with dignity and respect. Bowers left all of this perfectly legal, because it asked the wrong legal question: Did gay people have a constitutional right to sodomy?

If this sounds familiar, it should. Opponents in our marriage cases often try to convince courts that we are seeking a right to “same-sex marriage,” not a right to marry that all people share. In deciding our marriage case (brought with lead counsel NCLR, the ACLU and others), the California Supreme Court did not buy the “same-sex marriage” argument. It found that some rights, like the right to sexual intimacy we secured in Lawrence, are so fundamental that they cannot be taken away from anyone. This, the court said, was true for marriage as well.

Additionally, the California Supreme Court cited Lawrence several times in its decision and used it to reject the notion that history and tradition can justify discrimination, quoting Lawrence’s now-familiar line: “…times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”

“For this reason,” the California Supreme Court added, “the interest in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others — even when the tradition is long-standing and widely shared — does not necessarily represent a compelling state interest….”

The weight of Lawrence in this case — and in other marriage cases — cannot be overstated. At five years old, Lawrence v. Texas is coming of age and informing a range of cases that involve liberty and fairness.

In fact, less than a week after the California marriage win, a federal appeals court panel issued a decision in the ACLU’s case challenging the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that relied heavily on Lawrence, just as we’d urged in our friend-of-the-court brief. In the words of the court: “We hold that when the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence, the government must advance an important governmental interest….”

In other words: based on Lawrence, the military must prove that it has an important reason for enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” against a well-qualified servicemember. The case now returns to the lower court, where the military will attempt to make its case — something that will be harder now that the standards of liberty set in Lawrence have been held to apply. Meanwhile, we continue to put Lawrence to work in the fight for equality — it’s been cited in hundreds of cases addressing employment discrimination, custody rights, criminal law, and, of course, relationship recognition.

The lesson here, as we celebrate the Lawrence anniversary, is that all aspects of individual liberty and equality relate to each other. And they build upon each other.
As we secure the right to marry in a state like California it gives us added strength to pursue our work on all fronts. We are as much a part of this great nation as anyone else — and that recognition is perhaps the greatest legacy of Lawrence.

Bread and Butter Issues

warnewsradio — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:20:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, we explore the current food crises gripping Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, we talk about the state of agriculture in Iraq and why food production is coming up short. Listen now to Kristin Caspar’s report.

Afghanistan is experiencing a shortage of its most important staple: wheat. Anxieties are rising along with food prices, as Afghans struggle to find solutions. Elise Garrity and Asher Sered report.

Then, we chat with Robin Lodge from the World Food Program in Iraq. As food prices rise around the globe, how and how much is Iraq affected? Listen now to Elizabeth Hipple’s report.

Finally, three Iraqis from Kurdistan tell us about the day-to-day problems they face when buying and selling food. Sonny Sidhu and Elizabeth Hipple report.

These stories this week from War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]

A Newer Deal Revisited

Bryan Fair — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:22:00 GMT

I wrote this 18 months ago. We now have two candidates for the national parties. My hope is that as the blog goes out of circulation, all of us will actively involve ourselves in one party or the other and participate in the democracy. -- Bryan

My name is Bryan Keith Fair. I would like to announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, but, for myriad reasons, I cannot.

First, I cannot afford it. I am not a multi-millionaire. I would need others’ money and, if I took it, they might expect me to carry their views into the White House. I would not sell my principles to anyone for any sum.

Second, despite my lifelong commitment to justice for all and the Democratic Party, I cannot gain my party’s nomination. In fact, I probably could not garner enough petition signatures to appear on any State’s ballot. I am simply one of the millions of Yellow Dog Democrats, the backbone of the Party, that no one really knows. I am also an African American and no one of my ethnic ancestry has ever been elected President.

Third, the national government is broken, its basic system of checks and balances among the branches has been too often ignored, and the winner-take-all Electoral College procedure makes it almost impossible for an outsider candidate to win.

Fourth, the Congress has misplaced its compass, accomplishing very little lately. The Executive has trampled the Constitution, disregarding basic civil liberties. And the Supreme Court has become the most partisan branch. Moreover, national spending and trade imbalances are at record highs. More Americans live in poverty and more children end each day hungry. Too many Americans are without health insurance and essential medicines. Incumbents will not fix these problems and they don’t want an outsider threatening the system by which they were elected.

Fifth, the national government has squandered American lives in an unprovoked war that can never be won, has created more enemies of our people and government, and has increased the likelihood of more attacks on Americans for decades to come. The government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fund a leadership change in a nation full of rival religious factions and zealots that hate each other and that hate us. Because I criticize our current policies, some Americans would consider me unpatriotic and ill-suited for office.

Sixth, the national parties have not done a good job identifying nominees with the personality, diplomacy skills, and the vision necessary to be great world leaders.

Seventh, I would level with the American people and tell them about the economic, political, and social trouble ahead, unless we change course. And most Americans would not believe me or would not want to hear such bad news. My message would not resonate with them and they would vote for someone else. I could go on and on.

It is really unfortunate though because I have a great name for the job, President Fair. Also, no one would work harder and no one cares more about American citizens or global despair and conflict. Plus, I have studied the amazing American Constitution for almost two decades. The President cannot help fix the national government unless the President respects it constitutional commands.

If circumstances were otherwise, I would join Vilsack, Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, Sharpton, among others, to bring a new candor and honesty to the race and to bring simple ideas back into policy debates. The only promise that President Fair would make is to work hard every day on problems of average Americans. I could make many recommendations to the Congress and I could encourage the country to move in certain directions, but unless I completely abuse the power of the office, my greatest power would be to persuade you and your representatives in Congress to support my initiatives.

If I could run, my platform would focus on basic domestic policies. I would recommend A Newer Deal, a series of initiatives designed to help Americans at home to eliminate extreme poverty; to improve reading and math literacy among children ages 3-8; to expand public educational opportunities and aid for all students who maintain passing grades; to upgrade public housing and to expand homeownership among lower and middle income Americans; to ensure all Americans access to adequate health care services and needed medicines; to expand vocational training programs in new technologies so that more Americans can compete for higher paying employment; and, to promote cleaner, alternative energy sources. All of my proposals would seek to create new wealth among average Americans, not simply those in the top income groups. I would try to convince you that if we did these things, our whole nation would rise again.

Of course, I would also tell you that my plans would require significant federal cuts elsewhere. President Fair would review every item of the federal budget and ask how the item advances the common interests of the people of the Unites States. I would ask is each item essential and should it be paid for by the national government, by local government, by private commercial interests, or some combination of these parties. I would recommend complete audits of defense, corporate welfare, social security, and the American Space Program spending to determine how each dollar is spent and whether we could accomplish greater personal and national security through new strategies. My goal through these audits would be to spend less, achieve a better quality of life for more Americans, and to make the national government accountable for every dollar it takes from you in taxes.

Foreign policy initiatives would be secondary to domestic ones. President Fair’s foreign policy would have two primary goals: domestic security and international diplomacy tethered to humanitarian aid. Our nation should support the United Nations or work to create a better international organization to help resolve international conflicts.

President Fair would try to persuade you that our nation should apologize to the Iraqi people for attacking and destroying their country, for killing unknown thousands of Iraqi civilians, for torturing prisoners of war, and for worsening the daily violence in their lives. I would apologize to all Americans, especially those families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. I would renounce the alleged justifications for the Iraq war, admit how badly the war was planned, and accept that the war is illegal under existing international law. I would recommend a complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, except for those who might be part of an international U.N. peacekeeping delegation. Moreover, I would recommend deploying American troops only for defensive purposes and only after full efforts through international diplomacy. And, as Commander-in-Chief, I would not send new recruits or weekend reservists into combat zones.

I am sorry I cannot run. Perhaps you have thought about it. If so, I wonder what policies you would promote, if elected?

The Courage to be Neutral and Independent

Virginia Sloan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:53:00 GMT

On May 9^th, Navy Captain Keith Allred, a military judge at the U.S. prison camp in GuantanamoBay, ruled that Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann must remove himself from any involvement in the prosecution of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former body guard and personal driver. The ruling against the Office of Military Commission’s top legal advisor came after another military commission judge, Judge Peter Brownback, heard testimony by Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, that Gen. Hartmann had promoted the politicization of the military tribunal process. Ironically, the order bars Gen. Hartmann, who was previously appointed to provide “neutral, independent” advice to the tribunal, from any further contact with the prosecution in the Hamdan case.

Based largely on testimony from Col. Davis, Captain Allred found that Gen. Hartmann had repeatedly overstepped his authority and engaged in improper conduct. In his 13-page opinion, Captain Allred wrote that Gen. Hartmann told Col. Davis that “certain types of cases would be tried, and that others would not be tried, because of political factors such as whether they would capture the imagination of the American people, be sexy, or involve blood on the hands of the accused.”

Captain Allred also found that Gen. Hartmann compromised his supposedly objective position by “appearing to direct, or attempting to direct” Col. Davis to use tainted evidence that may have been gathered as the result of “torture or coercion.” Contravening his statutory authority, Gen. Hartmann also intended to personally conduct pretrial agreement negotiations without consulting the trial counsel.

Captain Allred concluded that Gen. Hartmann failed to provide “the required independence from the prosecution function to provide fair and objective legal advice to the [court].” As consequence, he removed Gen. Hartmann from the Hamdan case and ordered that a substitute Legal Advisor – excluding any deputies or subordinates to Gen. Hartmann – be appointed for the remainder of the proceedings.

While troubling on their own, Col. Davis’ testimony and Judge Allred’s ruling are only one piece of a much larger maze of political influence and other improper conduct at GuantanamoBay. Shortly after testifying in the Hamdan trial, Col. Davis was denied a service medal routinely awarded to officers who have served in capacities like chief prosecutor because his superiors felt his criticism of the process put “self above service.” Just one week later, Army Col. Peter Brownback, the military judge who had been presiding over the case of Omar Khadr and who had threatened to vacate those proceedings unless Guantanamo officials cooperated in turning required information over to the defense, was removed from his position against his will and without explanation.

These prosecutors and judges are not the only ones to suffer the consequences of standing up for justice at Guantanamo. Lt. Commander Charles Swift, a Navy lawyer who represented Mr. Hamdan in an earlier proceeding that resulted in a landmark victory in the Supreme Court, was told shortly after the Hamdan decision was announced that he would not be promoted. Early in 2007, under the military’s up or out rule, he had to leave the service and his chosen career.

In the fall of 2007, Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, the Marine Corps chief defense lawyer for the western US, announced that he would resign on May 1, 2008. He was originally fired after he called the military legal system at GuantanamoBay "horrific" and a "sham." While his firing was rescinded after pressure from former Marine Corps lawyers, it was not surprising that Colonel Vokey decided on his own that he was no longer welcome in the Marines.

These events only further confirm the Constitution Project’s concerns that politicization and undue external influence continue to plague the military commissions process. In its September 2002 report, Recommendations for the Use of Military Commissions, the Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Committee warned that the President’s original November 2001 order establishing military commissions created a system that failed to ensure necessary safeguards for “the integrity and impartiality of the commission process.” The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) failed to cure these problems.

The Constitution Project continues to voice its concerns regarding the shortcomings of the MCA and the military commission process and to urge the restoration of the detainees’ habeas corpus rights that were eliminated by the MCA. By the end of the Supreme Court’s current term, we may know whether that MCA provision is constitutional. If the Court does not restore these habeas rights, we will continue to work to repeal the provision.

The military commissions system itself is a disgrace, but we should all applaud these legal and military professionals who have courageously spoken out about the flaws of this failed system. The attorneys who have served at Guantanamo have provided rare, first-hand evidence that the commissions continue to make a mockery of the American justice system.

Ohio Joins the List of States Banning Payday Lending; Who Will Make the Sharks Follow the Law?

F. Paul Bland — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:30:00 GMT

On Monday June 2, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed into law a new statute that bans payday lending and caps the interest rate on loans at 28%. Last Fall, the U.S. Congress passed a statute that capped interest rates at 36% for certain loans for members of the military. (The statute that Congress passed was then gutted to a shocking extent by the Department of Defense. Under heavy pressure from banking industry lobbyists, the Department of Defense wrote regulations purporting to limit the scope...(read more)

A Fishing Lesson of Sorts

Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT

Earlier, I handed a sheet of stamps and a pile of postcards to my five-year old Remy. He was to place the stamps onto the proper corner of the postcards (invitations to his brother’s birthday party). He stared at the tropical fruits stamps. “Is all you have kiwi, Mama?” he asked, peering over to the fruit bowl. He set to work. He affixed a couple of stamps. “Don’t you have any papaya?” he inquired. After a couple more, he realized that he’d switched to the wrong corner “These stamps are making me wish you had star fruit,” he explained, handing me the mostly untouched pile. “I’m too tired and too hungry for watermelon to do any more,” he added. I thanked him for helping, then tucked him under a baby blanket on the couch and handed him a picture book about knights. He is “reading” now. We are listening to the rain. The birthday boy or I will adhere the rest of the stamps to the postcards later.

Helping’s an impulse that must be nurtured. Helping—in daily life—seems to me not only important for happy home but a virtual sowing of seeds towards helping in the world. Helping is a tricky trait to bring along with joy. This morning, it cost me fifty-two cents. Money well spent, I thought to myself as I pried the errant stamps from the top left corner of two postcards. I’d been careful to display neither disappointment in a mistake (perfectionism is already an issue for Remy) nor any frustration that he didn’t actually complete the task, because I wanted to be sure to appreciate his efforts.

In my household, some helping occurs organically. Before coming downstairs, Remy hung out with his baby sister for about ten minutes until she grew cranky, at which point he passed her to me (literally, given that he’d carried her down the stairs). I didn’t ask for his aid; he wanted to be with her, but he knew he was the one taking care of her, which was not only fun but helpful, too. Getting the twelve-year old to place socks in hamper… well, that impulse doesn’t appear to be a natural one. My voice could wear out solely from repeating phrases like clear your plate or unpack your lunch bag or turn off the lights . Gradually, though, he at least completes those tasks more often than not. For the longest time, I cleared the plate and tossed the socks into the hamper each and every time (and too often still do). Ezekiel’s our first. He was our little baby prince (as my stepfather said soon after Ezekiel started crawling, “But why should his feet touch the ground? We can carry him.”). Ha-ha. It seemed easier to do for him than to have him (learn to , that’s the operative concept) do for himself. When Ezekiel was still a toddler, our second baby arrived, a grandfather was very ill, and for me—already in perpetual caretaking mode—I had more energy to keep doing than to slow down and encourage him to learn to do. By the third child, I’d come to understand that those sometimes tedious or frustrating moments reap eventual reward. Better to learn how to gather your stuff for school or put things away or get the stamp on the postcard than to feel uneasy about attempting routine requests like these—or believe someone else can do them all for you.

All isn’t lost with Ezekiel. He does help with the siblings; he is enthusiastic about saving the earth (along with his middle brother Lucien, they have a Save the Earth club); he volunteers at the school library and co-edited the school’s literary magazine. Although his room’s a disaster (oh, and his locker could more aptly be called the receptacle for lost socks —and even a lost shoe ) he is trying to hone his helpful instincts. He does care for others. The more I encourage him to be empathic and competent, the more these traits emerge. Even if I missed some (okay, many ) teachable moments earlier, I’ve begun guiding him to place feet on ground. While his head remains in the clouds, I think that he likes using his feet.

War News Radio Best of the Class of 2008

warnewsradio — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:15:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, we salute this year’s alums with our “Best of 2008 Grads” show.

First, we hear from Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan, and take a look at how their lives are changing as their resources dwindle. Listen now to Haley Loram’s report.

Then, U.S. service members aren’t the only American forces in Iraq. Thousands of private military contractors are performing jobs once reserved for enlisted forces. But, are they doing a good job? Listen now to Alex Marlowe Ginsberg’s report.

Then, we hear how U.S. service members in Iraq are using Facebook to keep in touch. Listen now to Anne Kolker’s report.

Finally, an Iraqi couple tells us how the war has changed Iraq’s singles scene and how the Internet has helped them stay connected. Listen now to Wren Elhai’s report.

These stories this week from War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]

Beginning to solve the race problem

Ward Connerly — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:52:00 GMT

Have you ever gone on a family vacation – husband, wife and maybe two kids – with everyone excited about the trip except for one of the kids? A suggestion is made to stop at McDonalds, but the disgruntled one wants to go to Wendy’s. How about a movie? All think it’s a great idea, except for the one who is pouting. Why don’t we see a comedy? “I want to see a thriller.” Let’s go to breakfast at 8:00 a.m. “That’s too early; I want to go at 9:00.” No matter what is done to make him happy, he continues to pout and spoil the trip for everyone else.

This analogy, I believe, describes the attitude of a significant segment of black people with respect to the rest of American society. No matter what is done to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no tolerance for racial discrimination, this segment just won’t take accept that premise. They mope, pout and complain that no one likes them, and that everyone is out to get them. Some believe that a return to slavery is just around the corner, assuming you can convince them that it ended at all.

In all of the discussion about Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his relationship to Senator Barack Obama, the political implications of the discussion about their relationship have caused us to ignore a far more important question: How much of the racial garbage that Wright delivered in his sermons is embraced by “the black community?”

Reverend Wright peddles a philosophy that is anti-America and anti-white and represents the most hardcore view of race in American life. His views about race are dangerous and terrifying, and evidence a level of racial paranoia that is deeply troubling, especially when paraded out in public for the consumption of young children and others who are equally vulnerable. But, our focus should not be on Jeremiah Wright; it should be on “the black community.”

When Reverend Wright urged God to damn America, his congregation responded with excitement. When he was introduced at a recent convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, he was greeted with a thunderous standing ovation. Were Wright running against Obama for president of black America, with only blacks voting and based on the professed views of each of them about race and about America, I believe the smart money would have to be on Wright. If this assessment is accurate, then that says as much about a significant segment of black as it does about Wright himself. And, that is the issue that needs to be confronted by the American people, especially by blacks.

I frequently appear on college campuses throughout the nation to discuss the issue of race-based affirmative action. It is fair to say that, perhaps, 90 % of the black students at these events express strong opposition to my belief that race preferences are wrong-headed and ought to be abandoned. When asked to explain the basis of their opposition to my view, the general response is that America is the land of the Ku Klux Klan, that our nation is “institutionally racist,” that white males are in control of every lever of American life, and that they cannot be trusted to be fair to women and racial “minorities.”

No matter what I say or how much evidence I produce to substantiate that considerable racial progress has been made over the past twenty years or so, the typical collection of black students at these events will respond by calling me a “sellout,” “naïve,” and a “tool of the oppressor.” The views expressed by black students at these events are Jeremiah Wright writ large. These students are typically very negative about their country and don’t want to hear anyone say positive things about the American people.

During his well-publicized March 18 speech in Philadelphia, Senator Obama artfully identified life in America from the relative perspectives of blacks and whites; and clearly, as he noted, there is a decided difference between those two perspectives. Obama stopped short, however, of taking any position with regard to those two perspectives. For the sake of our nation, however, it is not prudent for the rest of us to ignore the issues that haunt us about race.

Disciples of Jeremiah Wright are to be found all across the land. Some are white and liberal, while most are blacks from all walks of life. They are not typically radical, in a political sense. In fact, most are “mainstream” people who just have no confidence in their country’s capacity for fairness.

I don’t suggest for one second that all racism has ended. It has not (although no group has a monopoly on prejudice and discrimination). But, if the political success of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us anything at all, it should confirm the character of the majority of the American people and their willingness to judge others not by the color of their skin but by “the content of their character.” We are not a perfect nation by any means, when it comes to our “racial” differences, but we will never get beyond the issue of race if we can’t start trusting our fellow Americans to be fair. I just wish more black people would abandon their anger and paranoia and enjoy the trip with the rest of the family.

Diplomacy and the Candidates

The Capitol Steps — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT

McCain says Obama is the candidate favored by Hamas, while President Bush has suggested that he's "delusional" for being willing to talk with Iran's president. And the guy even takes his flag pin off sometimes. So just where does Barack Hussein Obama stand when it comes to defending America against terrorists? We bring you this Capitol Steps exclusive:

Obama Meets Osama

From the album Campaign and Suffering.

Faiths and Fears

warnewsradio — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:24:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, we explore the impact the war in Iraq has had on the country’s religious communities, both inside Iraq and elsewhere.

First, we learn about the history of one of Iraq’s most threatened religious minorities - the Mandaens. Listen now to Hansi Lo Wang’s report.

Then, we talk with an Iraqi Mandaen now living in the US to hear what the future may hold for his community. Listen now to Elizabeth Threlkeld’s report.

We take a closer look at Iraq’s Sunni-Shi’a divide and at the different beliefs and practices that separate the two groups. Listen now to Alan Smith’s report.

Finally, in our series, A Day in the Life, we hear about the frustrations of an Iraqi Imam as he struggles to guide the faithful in times of fear. Listen now to this report.

These stories this week from War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]

Chipping Away at the VRA One Court Decision at a Time

Janai Nelson — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:30:00 GMT

Against the backdrop of a high stakes, history-making, mega-media election cycle, the United States Supreme Court has been deciding important and noteworthy election law cases in areas as wide-ranging as voter identification requirements, judicial elections, and the regulation of political parties. The long-term impact of these decisions on the shape of American democracy has received relatively little popular attention in light of the immediate focus on the presidential elections. One election law opinion issued just this week, Riley v. Kennedy, underscores this point.

Despite its highly technical facts and likely narrow application, Riley is significant because it limits the reach of an integral provision of one of the most transformative civil rights statutes and bodies of American election law—the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). By chipping away at the expansive reach of Section 5 of the VRA, the Court may be signaling a waning appreciation for this anchor provision of the Act, as well as for the broader statute itself which has safeguarded voting rights throughout the country for over four decades. More important, the Riley decision comes at a precarious time for Section 5 of the VRA as Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Mukasey (NAMUDNO), a Texas case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 5 as a whole, will soon be poised for Supreme Court review.

Section 5 of the VRA was originally enacted to serve as an aggressive antidote to the pervasive and persistent voting discrimination against African Americans by state actors in the South and was later expanded to include jurisdictions in other regions of the country. In short, Section 5 requires that all new election practices and laws be pre-approved or “pre-cleared” by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. or the Department of Justice before going into effect. The underlying notion is that federal oversight of state voting decisions is needed in light of the pernicious history of discrimination in the jurisdictions covered under Section 5. Whether a proposed voting change is ultimately precleared depends on whether the proposed voting law or practice will put minority voters in a worse position than their present status or, in other words, whether the voting change is “retrogressive.”

Riley narrows the pool of voting changes subject to Section 5’s protections. Specifically, Riley holds that, if a state’s highest court overturns a voting law, even one that had been precleared and enforced temporarily, the earlier law can go back into effect without any federal inquiry as to whether minority voters are now in a worse position than when the overturned law was in place. While this scenario may not be common, the practical consequences of this holding in the Riley case and the broader implications concerning the Section 5 of the VRA are more readily apparent when you consider Riley’s specific facts.

Riley originated in Mobile County, Alabama, which is covered under Section 5 of the VRA, as is the entire State of Alabama. In 1985 the Alabama State Legislature enacted (and the Department of Justice precleared) a law providing that mid-term vacancies on the commission must be filled by special election and not by gubernatorial appointment as had been the practice since the passage of the VRA. This new law was challenged in Alabama state courts in 1987 and again when a vacancy arose in 2005 in District 1 of the three-member Mobile County Commission. That same year, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the law providing for special elections violated the Alabama State Constitution. As a result, a vacancy was created in District 1 and Governor Bob Riley appointed fellow Republican Juan Chastang to the commission to fill it. District 1 is overwhelmingly Democratic and over 62% African American.

The Alabama State Legislature subsequently enacted a new law providing that midterm vacancies be filled by special election. Merceria Ludgood, an African-American female lawyer and Democrat, handily defeated Chastang with 80% of the votes in the special election that followed the state court decision. Ludgood’s term expires in November of this year; however, there is already talk of Chastang’s immediate reinstatement to the commission in light of the Riley decision. Considering the overwhelming lack of support for Chastang in District 1, this result that would seem to mock the ideals of the VRA and Section 5 in particular. The return to gubernatorial appointment would clearly place minority voters in District 1 in a worse position than they had been under the overturned law by forcing District 1 voters to be represented by someone who received a disproportionately low number of votes.

Justice Ginsburg, who authored the Court’s 7-2 decision in Riley, went to significant lengths to suggest that the opinion is limited to its facts. However, by elevating a state court’s decision above the longstanding, congressionally endorsed limitations on state’s rights that give the VRA its force, the Court seems not only to be indicating decreased support for the VRA, but seems to be exhibiting deference to more conservative concerns of the Court. Indeed, while Riley may seem like a strict case of statutory interpretation on its face, statutory interpretation is rarely, if ever, conducted in a vacuum where the VRA is concerned. Rather, the gradual weakening of Section 5 that was set in motion by the Rehnquist court in earlier decisions like Georgia v. Ashcroftand Bossier Parish School Board v. Reno, and later reversed through congressional reauthorization of the special provisions of the VRA in 2006, seems to have found a second wind and a new direction in the Roberts court.

Even some of the more faithful gatekeepers on the Court have expressed doubt as to the propriety of the VRA’s current scope in light of the impressive reform that has been achieved by its enforcement. Justice Stevens wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Souter, that “it may well be true that today the statute is maintaining strict federal controls that are not as necessary or appropriate as they once were.” Moreover, if Chief Justice Roberts’s acknowledged fixation during the Riley oral argument on the statutory language linking Section 5 to practices “in force or effect on November 1, 1964” is any indication of his position, it is conceivable that he would opt to limit Section 5’s reach to benchmarks set in 1964 when the VRA was first enacted. Thankfully, the Court did not take this up in the Riley opinion.

Riley’s deference to state courts in derogation of the congressional intent underlying the VRA seems even more misplaced when you consider the recognized role that certain state courts, like those in Alabama, have played historically in perpetuating discrimination in voting. Notably, prior to 1985 when a voting rights challenge was brought successfully under another provision of the VRA, no African American had ever been elected to the Mobile County Commission. Justice Stevens points to the history of discrimination in Alabama in the last few pages of his dissenting opinion in Riley, which is the only part of the entire opinion that provides historical context for the enactment and continued enforcement of Section 5.

As noted above, these issues are most concerning in light the NAMUDNO case, which raises a direct challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5. Inasmuch as Riley is based on a narrow set of facts, the NAMUDNO case has broad and sweeping potential. Both cases indicate a growing skepticism in federal courts toward the role the VRA plays in the present-day electoral arena and, to the extent that the Court’s opinion in Riley is a bellwether, there should be growing concern by those who share an appreciation for the continued relevance of the VRA and one of its most powerful tools.

Voter Fraud by Nuns and Students?

Leslie Griffin — Sat, 24 May 2008 22:39:00 GMT

“ I would think they would pass legislation that would help them vote, rather than not vote .” (Saint Mary's College freshman Lauren McCallick)

I can’t stop thinking about the twelve Sisters of Holy Cross , all in their 80s and 90s, many in wheelchairs or walkers or electric carts, who were not allowed to vote in the recent Indiana primary because they lacked valid Indiana drivers’ licenses or current passports. Indiana now has the most restrictive voter ID requirements in the country. Only a currently valid, government-issued photo ID will do, not the forms of identification (such as leases, utilities bills, signatures, or other identification cards) traditionally permitted in Indiana and the other states. Because the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the Indiana law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , other states may soon pass similarly restrictive laws. The nuns’ experience should give them pause.

No one has suggested that these sisters were not law-abiding citizens who were intent on voting fraudulently. Indeed it was a fellow Holy Cross sister, Sister Julie McGuire , who enforced the law against her recognizable, elderly sisters by stopping them from voting at their polling place, St. Mary’s Convent in South Bend, Indiana, where 220 voters cast ballots in the May 6 primary. St. Mary’s College freshman Lauren McCallick was also not permitted to vote; although she had registered to vote in Indiana, her St. Mary’s ID and California driver’s license were unacceptable forms of identification . The same fate befell another St. Mary’s student. There was never any controversy, however, about the actual identify of the nuns or the students, who were clearly the people they said they were and had no intention of voting in multiple jurisdictions.

The absence of any voter fraud at the convent is important to the broader argument about photo identification laws. As Justice John Paul Stevens made clear in his flawed opinion upholding the law:

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 [the Indiana statute] addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.

Yes, you read that sentence correctly, there was no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history! There was evidence that fraud occurs in the casting of absentee ballots, but the statute did not address absentee ballots, targeting in-person identification only. There is evidence that voter participation is decreasing , and, since Bush v. Gore, the fear that all votes may not be counted, but the statute did not address those problems either. Indeed the law would cause more delay and longer lines in casting a ballot in Indiana as voter IDs were checked.

In other words, the Indiana voting act solved a problem that does not exist (in-person voter fraud); avoided a similar problem that does exist (absentee ballot fraud); and ignored the biggest elephant in the voting rights room, namely laws and policies that limit access to the polls or keep ballots from being counted.

In our legal system, courts are expected to exercise judicial review over the legislatures’ actions to make sure that they behave reasonably. Most of the time, they exercise so-called rational basis scrutiny, making sure that the state has some basis for action, and that the state’s means are reasonably related to its ends. Because voting is a fundamental right, however, the courts usually employ more exacting scrutiny over any law that restricts voter participation. As Justice David Souter wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Indiana law:

a State may not burden the right to vote merely by invoking abstract interests, be they legitimate, or even compelling, but must make a particular, factual showing that threats to its interests outweigh the particular impediments it has imposed.

A voting law that solves a non-existent problem while avoiding real ones should not be able to withstand any kind of court scrutiny, whether rational or strict.

As the nuns’ experience confirms, the challengers to the Indiana law accurately predicted that its burden would fall upon the elderly . Judge Terence Evans, who dissented from the Seventh Circuit’s opinion upholding the law, addressed the law’s problem more directly:

Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.

The Indiana law passed along strictly partisan lines , with Indiana Republicans in the legislature voting for and Democrats against the bill; a Republican governor signed the bill into law; the Indiana Democratic party challenged it in the courts; the law was upheld by a Republican-appointed district court judge ; upheld again by a vote of two Republican to one Democratic appointees in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals; and by six Republican appointees in the United States Supreme Court, with the only two Democrats in dissent. Only Justice Souter voted out of party alignment, and so I pay the most attention to his conclusion about the law’s unconstitutionality:

the onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise…….the law imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old.

And apparently on young students too, who are likely to live and vote in one state while holding drivers’ licenses from another. As the St. Mary’s student rightly pointed out, you would think the goal of the legislature would be to increase voter participation rather than to deter voting by young, old and nuns.

The Memorial Day Economics of John McCain -- Can the Average American Afford Him?

Doug Kmiec — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:03:00 GMT

John McCain's economic policies this memorial day are definitely high-end. Are they out of reach for the average American?...(read more)

Art at War

warnewsradio — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:02:00 GMT

This week on War News Radio, we take a look at how war in Iraq has affected local artists and their work.

We meet Mohamed al-Daradji, an Iraqi filmmaker who dared to shoot a movie on the streets of Baghdad. Listen now to Hansi Lo Wang’s report.

Then, we hear from struggling musicians, trying to keep the music alive in the war zone. Listen now to Dan Symond’s report.

Next, we take a look at how American television shows like Oprah and Dr. Phil have changed Iraqis’ perception of the US. Listen now to Emanne Desjardin’s report.

And we learn about the effects that the war has had on Iraq’s once-bustling book markets. Listen now to Elise Garrity’s report.

Finally, in our series, A Day in the Life, we hear from a chef who works the grill in Baghdad. Listen now to this report.

These stories this week from War News Radio.

[Download mp3] [Streaming audio]