Why I Will Never, Ever, Go Back to the United States

Why I Will Never, Ever, Go Back to the United States

Huffington Post / By Niels Gerson Lohman

 

After a year of traveling, I had planned a last, short trip. Border control had other ideas.

October 17, 2013  |  

 I was going to take the train from Montreal to New Orleans. The travels I had been undertaking earlier this year had brought me to places that were meant to form the background of my second novel.
This trip, however, was for my dad. He, a trumpet player, loved New Orleans and had died a year ago. It felt like the first sensible trip I undertook this year. I had been searching for ways to forget about the last hours at his deathbed. He had been ill for 15 years and his body just would not give up. It was a violent sight. I had decided the trip to New Orleans would put an end to those memories.
Usually, I barely plan my trips in advance. But this time I had booked everything: my train tickets, hotels and my flight back to Montreal, from which I would depart back to Amsterdam. In total the trip was supposed to take three weeks. The confirmations and tickets I had printed and tucked away in a brown envelope I had bought especially for the trip. I like things to be neatly arranged. At home, in Amsterdam, my house enjoys a slight version of OCD.
The first part of the trip, from Montreal to New York, is known to be one of the world's prettiest train routes. When we had just passed the sign 'Welcome to the State of New York,' the train pulled over for a border check. I put the brown envelope on my lap. On top of the envelope I filled in my migration form with utmost dedication. I love border crossings. Forms don't lie.
The customs officer walked by and asked everybody on the train a few questions. Where they were from, where they were heading. The usual stuff. Everybody who was not a U.S. or Canadian citizen was to head for the dining car to fill in an additional green form.
In the dining car sat a cheerful looking family from the Middle East and a German man with a mouth in which a small frisbee could easily be inserted. I took the seat across the German, who had already filled in his green paper, and started on my own, dedicated, hoping to impress him. He was not throwing me friendly looks. The customs officer took the German's papers and welcomed him to America. They switched seats. He put his hands on the table and looked at me. We must have been of similar ages. He had a goatee and slid my passport towards him like it was a small gift.
I had not finished my novel yet, but my passport was complete. It was filled with pretty stamps. He did not like the stamps.
First, he saw my Sri Lankan stamp. The customs officer raised his eyebrows.
"Sri Lanka, what were you doing over there?"
"Surfing. Traveling. My best friend lives there. He is an architect."
The officer flipped on, seemingly satisfied. Secondly, he found my stamps from Singapore and Malaysia.
"What were you doing over there? Singapore and Malaysia? Aren't those countries Islamic?"
Looking over my shoulder, his eyes searched for his colleague's confirmation.
"Malaysia, I think so, yeah. But not Singapore. It's a melting pot. A very futuristic city. Airconditioned to the ceiling. To Singapore I went mostly for the food, to be honest."
"Sure."
"I'm sorry?"
"Nothing. And how about Malaysia?"
I explained flights departing from Malaysia were cheaper compared to Singapore. That I only went there for a few days, but also, a little bit, for the food. The customs officer went through some more pages. Then he found my Yemeni visa. He put my passport down and stared at me.
"What the hell were you doing in Yemen?"
"I went to the island Socotra, it's not on mainland Yemen. It's a small island closer to Somalia. A very special place, some call it 'Galapagos of the Middle East.' I think 85 percent of the plants and animals there, are indigenous."
"Weren't you scared?"
"Yeah. I was scared. When I was at the airport in mainland Yemen. That entire area is now taken by al Qaeda, I believe."
The customs officer was looking at my passport no longer. If he would have leafed through, he would have found Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi stamps.
That was the first time I had to open my suitcase. Six customs officers went through my two phones, iPad, laptop and camera. In my wallet they found an SD card I had totally forgotten about. They did not like that. By now I was the only one left in the dining car and the center of attention. I had put a raincoat in my suitcase, because I'd heard New Orleans tends to get hit by thunderstorms in the late summer. An officer held up the coat and barked:
"Who takes a coat to the U.S. in the summer?"
I answered it would keep me dry, in case the New Orleans levees would break again. The officer remained silent. He dropped my coat like a dishcloth.
The raincoat seemed to be the last straw. The customs officers exchanged looks.
"We'd like to ask you some more questions. But the train has to continue, so we're going to take you off here."
I looked out of the window. We weren't at a proper station. Along the tracks were piles of old pallets.
"Will you put me on another train, afterwards?"
"This is the only train. But in case we decide to let you in, we'll put you on a bus. Don't worry."
I started to worry. I packed my suitcase as quickly as possible and was escorted off the train. There were three officers in front of me, and three behind. My suitcase was too wide for the aisle, it kept getting stuck between the seats. I apologized to the train in general. While I struggled, the officers waited patiently and studied the relation between me and my suitcase.
Outside, we stopped in front of a white van. The officers permitted me to put my suitcase in the back and I was about climb into the van, when the they halted me.
"You are not under arrest. There is no need to be scared. But we would like to search you."
"I'm not scared. But it's kind of exciting. It's like I'm in a movie. You're just doing your job. I get that."
To me, that seemed the right attitude. They searched me for the first time then, just like in the movies. Before I climbed into the van, I had to give up my phones. I seemed unable to close my belt by myself, so an officer helped me out. This is when the sweating started.
In a little building made of corrugated tin, I opened my suitcase once more. Behind me, there was a man in tears. An officer was telling him about the prison sentence the man was looking forward to. He had been caught with a trunk full of cocaine. The man kept talking about a woman who seemed to be able to prove his innocence, but he was unable to reach her.
After that they searched me again. Thoroughly.
Just like in the movies.
In the room next to me they tried to take my fingerprints, but my hands were too clammy. It took half an hour. An officer said:
"He's scared."
Another officer confirmed:
"Yeah. He's scared."
I repeated, another attempt to be disarming:
"This is just like in the movies."
But border patrol is not easily disarmed.
In the five hours that followed, I was questioned twice more. During the first round I told, amongst others, my life's story, about my second novel's plot, gave my publisher's name, my bank's name and my real estate agent's name. Together we went through all the photos on my laptop and messages my phones had been receiving for the past months. They wrote down the names of everybody I had been in touch with. In my pirated software and movies they showed no interest.
During the second round of questioning, we talked about religion. I told them my mother was raised a Catholic, and that my dad had an atheist mother and a Jewish dad.
"We don't understand. Why would a Jew go to Yemen?"
"But... I'm not Jewish."
"Yeah, well. We just don't understand why would a Jew go to Yemen."
Again, I showed them the photos I took in Yemen and explained how nice the island's flora and fauna had been. That the dolphins come and hang out, even in the shallow water and how cheap the lobsters were. I showed them the Dragonblood trees and the Bedouin family where I had to eat goat intestines. They did not seem to appreciate it as much as I had.
"You yourself, what do you believe in?"
I thought about it for a second and replied.
"Nothing, really."
Obviously, I should have said:
"Freedom of speech."
When I'm supposed to watch my words, I tend to say the wrong ones.
The last hour was spent on phone calls about me. Now and then an officer came and asked me for a password on my equipment. By then, the cocaine trafficker had been brought to a cell where they did have a toilet. I continued my wait. An officer, who I had not seen before, flung the door open and asked if I was on the Greyhound heading to New York. I shrugged hopefully. He closed the door again, as if he had entered the wrong room.
Finally, two officers came rushing into my waiting room.
"You can pack your bag. And make sure you have everything."
They gave me my phones back. All apps had been opened. I had not used my phones that day, but the batteries were completely drained. Because I was soaked in sweat, I attempted to change shirts while packing my bag. It seemed like I had made it.
"How much time do we have? What time will the bus depart?"
"We don't know."
I was unable to find the entrance to my clean shirt. I held it high with two hands, as if it was a white flag.
"So... what's the verdict?"
"We are under the impression you have more ties with more countries we are not on friendly terms with than your own. We decided to bring you back to the Canadian border."
They brought me back. In the car, no words were said. It was no use. I was defeated. To the Canadian border they said:
"We got another one. This one is from the Netherlands."
The Canadian officer looked at me with pity. She asked if there was anything I needed. I said I could use some coffee and a cigarette. She took my passport to a back room and returned within five minutes, carrying an apologetic smile, a freshly stamped passport, coffee, a cigarette, and a ticket to the next bus back to Montreal.
I have been cursed at a Chinese border. In Dubai, my passport was studied by three veiled women for over an hour and my suitcase completely dismembered. In the Philippines I had to bribe someone in order to get my visa extended for a few days. Borders, they can be tough, especially in countries known for corruption.
But never, ever, will I return to the United States of America.

Bill Maher Sums Up The ‘Problem With Today’s Conservatives’ In 5 Minutes

posted by Omar Rivero November 16, 2013

When it comes to pointing out just how conservatives and the Republican Party are, and have been, wrong on just about every major issue of contention in recent history, nobody does it quite like Bill Maher.
On this week’s edition of HBO’s Real Time, Maher presented a powerful segment join the connection between conservative Supreme Court justices and the influx of corruption in our political system.
While describing this connection, he beautifully summarized the “problem with today’s conservatives”. I would say more, but I probably shouldn’t spoil it for you. Let’s just say that it is a very important message that every American needs to understand.
Please watch the video below and share this and other related articles on social media forums so that everyone will draw the connection between voting Republican and our corrupted political system.

Warrantless search: Supreme Court considers a puzzling case

The Supreme Court decided years ago that when a home's co-occupants disagree over a request for warrantless search, the objector holds sway. But if that person is arrested and led away, then what?

By Warren Richey 18 hours ago

 

 If police show up at the front door of a house occupied by two people and request permission to search the house, what happens if one occupant says no and the other says yes?

Seven years ago, the US Supreme Court answered that question, ruling that in the event of a tie between disagreeing occupants the objecting occupant wins. There would be no consent for a police search.
On Wednesday, the high court took up a similar case, but with an important twist. What happens if one occupant objects to a search, the police then arrest the objecting occupant, and subsequently obtain consent to search from the other occupant?
That’s the question in Fernandez v. California (12-7822), a case involving a police search of an apartment in Los Angeles shared by a suspected street gang member and his girlfriend.
The case is important because it will help define the contours of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police.
More specifically, it will help give clear notice to the police and to judges what the rules are when police seek permission to conduct a warrantless search of a residence.
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials are required to obtain a judicially-authorized warrant before conducting a search of a home. But there is nothing stopping police from simply asking an occupant for permission to search.
If permission is given, no warrant is necessary and any evidence or illegal contraband discovered can be seized and used in a trial.
The high court case stems from a series of events in October 2009 involving Walter Fernandez, a suspected member of the Drifters, a criminal street gang.
The events began with an armed robbery by someone with a gang-related tattoo on his head who matched Mr. Fernandez’s description. Shortly after the robbery, two police officers were positioned near Fernandez’s apartment building, a known hangout of the Drifters.
The officers saw a man run into an apartment. Moments later they heard yelling and the sounds of a fight. After calling for backup, five police officers approached the apartment.
A woman, Roxanne Rojas, answered the door, holding a two-month-old baby. Ms. Rojas’s face was freshly bruised and it appeared she’d been bleeding.
As the police asked Rojas to step outside, Mr. Fernandez appeared in the kitchen wearing only boxer shorts. He was sweating. “You don’t have any right to come in here,” he told the police. “I know my rights.”
The officers entered the home, placed Fernandez under arrest for suspected domestic violence against Rojas, and took him downstairs and away from his girlfriend.
As they were leading Fernandez downstairs, one of the officers noticed the tattoo on the suspect’s head and that it matched the description from the recent robbery. The robbery victim was brought to the apartment building where he identified Fernandez as the person who robbed him.
Roughly an hour after Fernandez was led downstairs, the lead police officer returned to the apartment. He asked Rojas for her consent to search the apartment. According to briefs in the case, Rojas did not want to consent to the search, but she did so anyway.
Police found a sawed-off shotgun, ammunition, and a knife. They also found clothing matching the description given from the robbery scene.
Fernandez was charged with three different crimes, unlawful possession of firearms, domestic violence, and robbery.
Before the trial, his lawyer sought to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the apartment. He argued that the police did not obtain valid consent to conduct the search. They either needed consent from both Rojas and Fernandez or they needed a warrant, he said.
The trial court rejected the argument. Fernandez then pleaded no contest to the gun charges, pending the outcome of his appeal.
In the meantime, he was convicted of the two other charges and sentenced to 14 years in prison.
At issue before the high court is whether Rojas’s consent was enough to justify the police search, or whether the search was improper because Fernandez had clearly stated his objection to a search when police first arrived.
The justices appear to be sharply split on the issue. Several expressed concern Wednesday that if they established a hard and fast rule that the objection of a co-tenant could not be overturned by the other, it might leave women who are domestic violence victims in a precarious position.
“It’s her house, too,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “Can’t she invite people into her house, too, whom she wants, including the policeman?”
Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford Law School professor representing Fernandez, said a domestic violence victim could retrieve a dangerous or illegal item from the house and give it to police at the front door. He added that if there was probable cause to suspect a crime, police could secure the house long enough to obtain a search warrant.
Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed skepticism about Professor Fisher’s position. He said if the court endorsed a rule that would allow a co-tenant’s objection to stand long after the co-tenant had been charged and removed from the scene it would mark a “vast expansion” of the court’s prior legal precedent.
Fisher said the Fernandez case was a rare instance, and that in most cases police would obtain valid consent. He said if the high court upholds the search of Fernandez’s apartment it would give police complete control to conduct warrantless searches by simply removing an objecting occupant whenever the other occupant would allow a search.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked why police did not obtain a warrant.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that police might have been concerned that other gang members would show up and attempt to retrieve any known contraband in the apartment.
Assistant US Solicitor General Joseph Palmore urged the justices to uphold the warrantless search based on the girlfriend’s consent.
In the high court’s 2006 case, he said, the justices ruled that if one of two co-occupants refuses to consent to a police search – when both co-occupants are present at the house – the police must abide by the wishes of the objector.
In contrast, he said, both co-occupants were not present at the time police obtained the agreement of Rojas to allow the search.
“When the objector is absent, there is no tie, and the normal rule applies,” Mr. Palmore said. “The normal rule is that each occupant has the authority in her own right to admit visitors to her own home.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked why police felt a need to search the apartment. Rojas’s statement to police did not include any detail that would suggest there might be illegal items or contraband in the house, she said.
“I think this was just a pure – ‘We want to find something else,’ ” she said.
Palmore said the police officers were in the gang unit and were aware of a possible connection between Fernandez and the earlier robbery.
“They at that point had probable cause to get a warrant,” he said. But he added that they were justified in seeking Rojas’s consent to speed the investigative process.
A decision in the case is expected by next June.

Supreme Conflict

By: Stephen Spaulding

November 13, 2013

Justice Clarence Thomas will headline a black tie fundraising dinner tomorrow evening for The Federalist Society, which describes itself as “a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.” Its purpose includes “reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.” Joining Justice Thomas onstage and as a speaker will be Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
By appearing, Justice Thomas and Judge Sykes will violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges – although the Code of Conduct does not bind the Supreme Court. More on that point later.
Today, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, Common Cause and the Alliance for Justice filed a formal complaint with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals against Judge Sykes and sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts requesting that the Supreme Court adopt a formal Code of Conduct.
At the outset, I should make it clear that there is no ethical lapse when Justices of the Supreme Court appear before legal organizations like the Federalist Society, irrespective of the organization’s ideological bent. If anything, members of the Court should be encouraged to engage with the public and legal organizations of all stripes, rather than remain cloistered and isolated from civil society.
The problem occurs when members of the judiciary – sworn arbiters of impartial justice – are featured as speakers at fundraisers that advance the private interests of their sponsors.
The Code of Conduct covers this concept. Specifically, Commentary to Canon 4(C) states that “[a] judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.”
The Federalist Society’s annual dinner coincides with its annual convention and is clearly a fundraiser. For at least the past two years, the dinner program booklet included a long listing of corporations and law firms that the Federalist Society “gratefully acknowledge[d]” for “their generous support of the annual dinner.” “Gold sponsors” in 2012 and 2011 included Chevron Corporation, Pfizer, and Verizon, while “silver sponsors” included Time Warner, Inc., Facebook and PepsiCo, Inc. While most of the convention takes place at the Mayflower Hotel, the separately ticketed annual dinner occurs at a much larger venue a couple of miles away.  It has been sold out for days. Attendees for the past few years have included more than 1,200 lawyers, lobbyists, Members of Congress and other guests. This year, the price of admission is $200.  Justice Thomas’ and Judge Sykes’ photographs appear on the website selling the tickets.
Justice Thomas has a long history of flouting the Code of Conduct. In 2011, on the very day that the Supreme Court met in conference to decide whether to hear the Affordable Care Act cases, he joined Justice Antonin Scalia in headlining the Federalist Society’s 2011 annual dinner. The event was billed as a “celebration of service” for their time on the bench.
Other justices have been featured guests and speakers at previous annual dinners. The 2012 fundraiser featured Justice Samuel Alito, 2011 featured Justice Thomas and Scalia, 2010 again featured Justice Scalia, and 2009 featured Justice Alito.
Justice Thomas has traveled on the Federalist Society’s dime, too. Four years ago, Justice Thomas disclosed that the Federalist Society reimbursed him for an all-expenses paid trip to Palm Springs, California for a “speech.” As the New York Times reported, Justice Thomas’s visit coincided with “a political retreat for wealthy conservatives” that was “organized by Charles and David Koch,” the billionaire industrialists and benefactors of libertarian causes, and took place over the same span of days. A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court confirmed that Justice Thomas made a “brief drop-by” at the Koch retreat “and had given a talk.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that the Federalist Society had “no meetings of its own at the venue,” and quoted the Society’s President Eugene Meyer as saying that they “‘knew the justices were going to be out there [in Palm Springs],’ and would be interested in hearing what they had to say.”
Common Cause asked the Federalist Society to disclose whether any separate Federalist Society events took place over those four days in 2008 in Palm Springs, but never received a response. (Justice Scalia also disclosed that the Federalist Society paid for his trip to the vicinity in California one year earlier. Think Progress released documents from Koch Industries about previous meetings, which advertised that they had “featured such notable leaders as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas”).
Justice Thomas also failed to disclose more than $680,000 that his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, received in compensation from the Heritage Foundation.  After Common Cause drew attention to this matter, he quickly amended several back-years of disclosure forms, blaming his mistake on a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, joined by 52 fellow Members of Congress, sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States, requesting a referral to the Attorney General for an investigation after it was learned that Ms. Thomas was paid $1.6 million during the years Justice Thomas checked the “none” box for spousal income on his annual forms.
Our highest court should meet the highest ethical standards.  Although the justices are the only judges not bound by a formal, transparent code of ethics, the Supreme Court has publicly agreed to abide by its principles and could formally adopt a transparent code at any time. Chief Justice John Roberts dedicated his 2011 Year-End Report to the topic, stating that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges “plays the same role” for the Supreme Court as it does for the rest of the federal judiciary. He wrote that “Members of the Court do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations” and “are all deeply committed to the common interest in preserving the Court’s vital role as an impartial tribunal governed by the rule of law.” Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer have said this, too.
Clearly, however, nothing has not stopped some members of the Court from repeatedly offending Canon 4(C)’s prohibition on headlining fundraisers for private organizations. And there’s nothing binding. That’s why we filed a formal complaint against Judge Sykes – who is bound by the Code – and a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, urging adoption of the Code.
Common Cause commends Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Senators Murphy, Blumenthal and Whitehouse for their leadership on this issue. They have introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 – bicameral legislation that would require the Court to promulgate a code of ethics that includes the 5 canons of the Code of Conduct, with any amendments the Court determines to be appropriate. This is an important action showing that transparent ethics and accountability matter, and that the Supreme Court should be held to the same ethical standards as everyone else.
Our democracy will be stronger for it.
For more on Common Cause’s work on Supreme Court ethics, you will find more resources here and from the Alliance for Justice here

GOP’s unparalleled radicalism: Time for Democrats to go nuclear on judges!

Republicans are nullifying vacancies on a key law-making court so they can subvert the law. They must be stopped

Brian Beutler

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
on Capitol Hill in Washington,
Monday, May 20, 2013. (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

When last we checked in, Senate Republicans were vowing to effectively nullify three vacant seats on the ultra-powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by denying confirmation to all of President Obama’s nominees — to prevent Obama from giving the court a more liberal balance.
These filibuster threats were disconnected from all juridical merits. They were instead the tactical core of a subversive plan to preserve the conservative status quo on a court that will settle a tremendous amount of administrative law between now and the end of Obama’s presidency. Put another way, Republicans were threatening to use the Senate’s filibuster rules to improve the statistical odds that the court will upend Obama administration regulations — to unilaterally change law from their minority position in the Senate.
Democrats were obviously unhappy about this, and began threatening — once again — to nuke the supermajority cloture rule, this time as it pertains to judicial nominees.
A week and a half later, Republicans have successfully filibustered two D.C. Circuit Court nominees, and are promising a hat trick. They seem inclined to call the Democrats’ bluff, and are using political psy-ops as a kind of deterrent against the threat that Dems will go nuclear.
But the nullification strategy is radical, and entirely new. It transgresses the semi-stable norms — regarding professional qualification and ideological temperament — that had previously governed which nominees were subject to rejection by the minority. And so the persuasive power of GOP threats are self-limiting.
“Be careful what you wish for,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “[I]f the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases out there that we’d love to put on the bench. The nominees we would nominate and confirm with 51 votes will interpret the Constitution as it was written. They are not the type who would invent constitutional law right out of thin air.”
This is a bizarre warning. If Democrats change the rules, then future Republican presidents will flood the judiciary with … precisely the kind of conservative jurists they’ve been nominating and getting confirmed for years and years.

When Clarence Thomas was confirmed, Democrats held the majority in the Senate. It’s not just that there was no filibuster. Democrats controlled the chamber and allowed the minority to confirm him with an up or down vote. Most Dems voted no, but he was confirmed 52-48. On Tuesday, Cornelia Pillard got 56 votes in the Senate, more than Thomas but four short of the 60 required to overcome a filibuster.
Republicans controlled the Senate when Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia, but not only did Democrats decline to filibuster him, he was confirmed unanimously.
Things had become significantly more polarized and contentious by the time George W. Bush became president, but his two Supreme Court nominees (not counting Harriet Miers, an outlier whom Republicans sank on their own) were both confirmed pretty easily. John Roberts on a 78-22 vote, facing no filibuster; Sam Alito by a vote of 58-42 after a bunch of Democrats helped the GOP break a symbolic filibuster. At no point in George W. Bush’s presidency did Democrats try to moot court vacancies by refusing to confirm a category of nominees, or accuse Bush of court packing simply by trying to fill those vacancies.
But that’s where we are today.
It’s true that the elimination of the judicial filibuster would allow a future Republican president to fill vacancies more expeditiously. But it would give Obama the same power.
For Grassley’s threat to have any teeth, he’d need to warn Democrats that Republicans will confirm hyper-radicals whom they’ve been too timid to nominate in the past, or would unilaterally add seats to appellate courts and pack them with right-wing judges. But that would be crazy.
Alternatively, Republicans could just agree to confirm some of Obama’s judges. I think Democrats would probably drop the nuclear threat if Republicans cleared two of Obama’s three D.C. circuit nominees. Maybe Republicans could secure the confirmation of a third, more conservative judge, or get the remaining seat on the court eliminated legislatively.
But their current position — daring Dems to go all the way nuclear or cave completely — gives Dems almost no choice but to pull the trigger. If Republicans had meritorious objections to any of these nominees, the nuclear threat would be a disproportional escalation. Obama could find other judges. What they’re doing instead is a judicial replay of their unacceptable bid to unilaterally gut Wall Street’s consumer watchdog office and void the National Labor Relations Board. Democrats didn’t stand for that, and won. Republicans caved and confirmed several waylaid executive branch nominees over the course of just a few days. They should run the same play again. And if Republicans don’t fold, they should go nuclear.
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is on the same page.
“I think we’re at the point where there will have to be a rules change.”

Brian Beutler is Salon's political writer. Email him at bbeutler@salon.com and follow him on Twitter at @brianbeutler.

Supreme Court to weigh employer-union organizing deals

By Amanda Becker 8 hours ago

 

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court will hear a case on Wednesday that could have a major impact on the U.S. labor movement as it questions whether agreements often made between unions and private-sector employers over unionization campaigns violate an anti-corruption law.
The court is examining deals known as "neutrality agreements" in which employers agree not to campaign against unionization. The agreements have been in use for decades and the case could change how unions go about organizing.
If the justices find the pacts are a "thing of value," prohibiting employers and unions from entering into them, it would be a major blow to organized labor as it struggles to bolster membership, said those familiar with the practice.
"The stakes could not be higher for the union movement," Harvard University Law School Professor Benjamin Sachs said.
"Almost all of the successful unionizing efforts in the private sector in the last couple of decades have come through the type of private organizing agreements that are at issue in this case," he said.
The case, Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, was brought by an employee of Mardi Gras Gaming, a casino and dog track in Hollywood, Florida.
Martin Mulhall, the employee, said his employer violated the Labor Management Relations Act when it agreed to allow the union Unite Here onto its property to organize workers, and when the company agreed to give the union contact information for employees in exchange for the union's support on a ballot initiative.
"THINGS OF VALUE"
The labor relations statute bars employers from providing "thing of value" to unions and union officials. Mulhall argued that the access Mardi Gras Gaming gave Unite Here was valuable during the union's unionization drive.
A federal trial court dismissed Mulhall's case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals departed from precedent in two other circuits and reversed, saying that "it seems apparent that organizing assistance can be a thing of value."
If the Supreme Court agrees, employers and unions that enter into agreements with such terms could be committing felonies, legal experts told Reuters.
Arthur Smith, a Chicago-based attorney at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart who represents employers, said that the agreements between unions and employers today are very different than those used in the 1980s.
Smith said that in the beginning, neutrality agreements were very simple and stated an employer would remain neutral while a union attempted to organize a workforce.
Today, he said, popular add-ons include allowing the union to access the workplace, providing it with contact information and recognizing its position as a bargaining representative if the majority of employees sign commitment cards.
SECRET BALLOT WINS DIFFICULT
Unions have used the press and public demonstrations to wage "corporate campaigns" to convince employers to agree to these provisions in an environment where union density in the private sector has declined and it is increasingly difficult to win secret-ballot elections, Smith said.
Smith filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Mulhall on behalf of the Council on Labor Law Equality, a trade group that represents employers in labor disputes in federal courts.
Craig Becker, the general counsel of the AFL-CIO, the country's largest federation of labor unions, said that in Mulhall one section of the labor relations statute is taken out of context. Congress intended to criminalize the exchange of money and straightforward bribery, Becker said.
"This is about everyday accommodations between employers and unions that take place all the time," Becker said. The AFL-CIO filed a brief supporting the position of Unite Here.
Harvard's Sachs said the Supreme Court could decide that it should not have taken the case for procedural reasons, leaving for another day the issue of neutrality agreements.
(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Bill Trott)

Everything That’s Happened Since Supreme Court Ruled on Voting Rights Act 

by Kara Brandeisky and Mike Tigas
ProPublica, Nov. 1, 2013, 11:24 a.m.

Last year, we wrote extensively about photo ID laws and the Supreme Court’s decision to strike a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, with gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and the debt ceiling and healthcare debates already shaping the 2014 midterms, we’re revisiting voting policies to see which states have enacted tougher restrictions since the Supreme Court ruling in June.
Remind me – what is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

Under the Voting Rights Act, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed to get permission from the federal government to enact any changes to their voting laws, in a process called “preclearance.” As of June 2013, nine states, mostly in the South – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia – needed to get any new voting laws pre-approved. Some counties and townships in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota and Michigan were also subject to preclearance.
Section 5 first applied to states that imposed literacy tests or other unfair devices, and had low voter registration or turnout. Congress later expanded the law to add jurisdictions with sizable minority populations and English-only election materials.
States and localities could “bailout,” or get off the preclearance list, after 10 years of elections without any problems. Several smaller jurisdictions bailed out over the years, including parts of Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Colorado.
Of course, some of the biggest voting law battles of the 2012 election were in states not covered by Section 5 at all, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What did the Supreme Court strike down in Shelby County v. Holder?
The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that the preclearance formula was unconstitutional under the 10^th  Amendment, which gives states the power to regulate elections. The Court ruled that the coverage formula was “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.”
From the decision:

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

3

Syllabus
cial discrimination in voting" that had "infected the electoral process
in parts of our country for nearly a century," Katzenbach, 383 U. S.,
at 308. At the time, the coverage formula--the means of linking the
exercise of the unprecedented authority with the problem that warranted 

it--made sense. The Act was limited to areas where Congress
found "evidence of actual voting discrimination," and the covered 

jurisdictions shared two characteristics: "the use of tests and devices
for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential 

election at least 12 points below the national average." Id., at 330. The
Court explained that "[t]ests and devices are relevant to voting 

discrimination because of their long history as a tool for perpetrating
the evil; a low voting rate is pertinent for the obvious reason that
widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the number of
actual voters." Ibid. The Court therefore concluded that "the coverage 

formula [was] rational in both practice and theory." Ibid.
Pp. 12-13.
(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.
Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, "[v]oter turnout and 

registration rates" in covered jurisdictions "now approach parity. 

Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority
candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." Northwest Austin,
supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have
been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not
eased ?5's restrictions or narrowed the scope of ?4's coverage formula
along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have 

been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they
have grown even stronger. Because ?5 applies only to those jurisdictions 

singled out by ?4, the Court turns to consider that provision.
Pp. 13-17.
(b) Section 4's formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions. 

Pp. 17-25.
(1) In 1966, the coverage formula was "rational in both practice
and theory." Katzenbach, supra, at 330. It looked to cause 

(discriminatory tests) and effect (low voter registration and turnout), 

and tailored the remedy (preclearance) to those jurisdictions exhibiting both.
By 2009, however, the "coverage formula raise[d] serious constitutional questions." 

Northwest Austin, supra, at 204. Coverage today
is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. The formula
captures States by reference to literacy tests and low voter registration and 

turnout in the 1960s and early 1970s. But such tests have
been banned for over 40 years. And voter registration and turnout
numbers in covered States have risen dramatically. In 1965, the
States could be divided into those with a recent history of voting tests
and low voter registration and turnout and those without those char-

 

One important technical point: the Supreme Court actually left Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – the part of the law that describes how preclearance works – intact. Instead, the Court struck down Section 4, which explains which states and localities are subject to preclearance. If Congress amends Section 4, the Justice Department can start enforcing Section 5 again.
Why does this matter?

Takeaways

• Seven preclearance states have announced new restrictions since the Supreme Court rolled back the Voting Rights Act.
• Last year, a federal court called Texas's photo ID law "most stringent in the country.” Now, it's in effect.
• Two months after the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, North Carolinacut early voting and eliminated same-day registration.
• Are you registered to vote? Virginia has purged 38,000 voters, and Kansas has suspended registration for 17,500.

While literacy tests are a thing of the past, voting rights advocates say that statutes that limit early voting and registration, require voters to show photo ID, and purge voter rolls still disproportionately affect poor and minority voters.
The Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision also effectively shifted the burden from states to citizens. Before, a state subject to preclearance had to demonstrate that a new voting law was not discriminatory and let voting law experts in the Justice Department evaluate it before it could be implemented. Now it is up to voters to challenge voting laws by filing lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination.

But most court cases involving Section 2 have been limited to redistricting, not other controversial voting measures, says Yale University law professor Heather Gerken.
“With redistricting, there’s always one very wealthy political party or another who can hire some very good lawyers and go into court and challenge it,” Gerken said. “But a lot of the types of things that were challenged under Section 5 were smaller questions, like, ‘Can you change a polling place? Can you shut down early voting hours in ways that might affect the black community?’ There are things smaller than redistricting that can fall through the cracks.”
What have preclearance states done since the Supreme Court ruling?
a NORTH CAROLINA: Two months after the Supreme Court decision, North Carolina passed a number of measures, including strict new photo ID requirements. The law also eliminates same-day voter registration, shortens the early voting period by seven days, and specifies that ballots cast at the wrong polling station will be thrown out. Some changes will be phased in starting in 2014, and the photo ID provision goes into effect in 2016.
The North Carolina NAACP and a civil rights group called the Advancement Project have filed a lawsuit challenging the changes. The Justice Department also filed a suit of its own. But the suits venture into some new legal territory.
“What North Carolina did was definitely at the extreme of practices in this country,” Gerken said. “So if anything is vulnerable to a suit, it’s likely to be the North Carolina law. But again, the case law was built around redistricting cases. It wasn’t built around this kind of work.”
q TEXAS: Last year, a federal court rejected Texas’ voter ID law, calling it “the most stringent in the country.” The panel also rejected the state’s redistricting maps, finding that they protected white incumbents while altering districts with minority incumbents.
But on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would “immediately” enact both measures.
The photo ID law requires voters to present an approved form of photo identification, where before they could present mail, utility bills or other proof of voter registration. The Justice Department had refused to approve the law based on the state’s findings that Hispanic registered voters were far less likely to have the approved photo IDs. The new law also requires the photo ID presented on voting day to match the state’s voter rolls — complicating voting for some married women and others with name changes.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the newly enacted photo ID requirements and joined an ongoing lawsuit against the disputed redistricting maps.
I FLORIDA: After the Supreme Court ruling, Florida resumed its plans to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. The Department of Homeland Security database helps government agencies check the immigration statuses of people applying for government benefits like drivers’ licenses, housing assistance, or Medicaid.
But opponents of Florida’s measure say that SAVE data is faulty and not meant for elections, and that using the database to verify voter rolls will disenfranchise eligible voters. (Colorado legislators rejected a bill to purge rolls based on SAVE data for this very reason, but that didn’t stop Secretary of State Scott Gessler from moving ahead with the plan.) The Miami Herald found that Florida voters flagged for verification were disproportionately Hispanic, and most turned out to be citizens. The Department of Justice has also said that SAVE is not meant to be “a comprehensive and definitive listing of U.S. citizens,” especially since it doesn’t include data about people born in the United States.
A nonprofit group has challenged the law, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit after the Supreme Court ruled that Florida was no longer subject to preclearance. Another group has appealed a similar case to the 11^th Circuit.
s VIRGINIA: Virginia passed a number of voting laws this spring that seem likely to go into effect in wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Virginia legislature passed a photo ID law last year (which the Justice Department approved), but the more recent measure goes further to limit what kinds of voter identification are acceptable. Voters can no longer show utility bills, bank statements, government checks or paychecks before they vote, but they can get an ID for freeif they don’t already have one.
The new laws also require the Virginia State Board of Elections to remove ineligible voters by comparing state voter rolls with the SAVE database and other states.The Democratic Party of Virginia has sued the state over the interstate crosschecks, contending that the database has erroneous information and the law will disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters, but a federal judge rejected the suit for lack of evidence. As of Oct. 17, the Board of Elections had already purged more than 38,000 voters.
n SOUTH CAROLINA: In October 2012, a federal court blocked the implementation of South Carolina’s photo ID law until 2013. The court found that although the law was not discriminatory, there was not enough time to implement changes before the 2012 election. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said the Supreme Court ruling now allows states to “implement reasonable election reforms, such as voter ID laws similar to South Carolina’s.”
Y MISSISSIPI: Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Mississippi will enact a strict photo ID law by 2014. The state says it will provide free transportation to government offices where voters will be able to obtain free photo IDs.
B ALABAMA: Secretary of State Beth Chapman said Alabama would also enact changes to its photo ID law by 2014. Like Virginia, Alabama used to accept other kinds of non-photo identification, such as utility bills and Social Security cards. But the new law requires voters to present photo IDs (the state will also provide free voter IDs to those who don’t have them). Legislators passed the measure in 2011, but Alabama stalled in submitting the law for preclearance.
D ARIZONA: The Supreme Court issued another significant ruling on voting laws this summer: In Arizona et al. v Intertribal Council of Arizona, Inc. et al., the Court ruled that Arizona, formerly a preclearance state, could not unilaterally require voters to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote in a federal election. But the Court said Arizona could sue the Election Assistance Commission to get the federal voter registration form amended to require proof of citizenship. Now, both Arizona and Kansas have sued the commission.
In case their legal challenges are unsuccessful, the states are setting up two-tiered systems of voter registration, requiring proof of citizenship for state and local races but not federal ones. So far, Kansas has suspended registration for about 17,500 voters until those they submit proof of citizenship.
o SOUTH DAKOTA: Four Directions Inc., a Native American voting rights group, has asked the Justice Department to investigate why Secretary of State Jason Grant has so far refused to use federal money to fund satellite voting centers for registration and early voting on some Native American reservations.
What about non-preclearance states?
The 35 states that were not subject to any kind of preclearance were unaffected by the Supreme Court decision. But several of those states have also moved to tighten voting rules this year.
C ARKANSAS: This spring, Republican legislators overrode the governor’s veto to pass a law requiring voters to show photo IDs. If voters don’t have them, they can cast provisional ballots and return with IDs by the Monday after the election. The state will also provide free IDs to people who do not already have them.
L IOWA: In late March, Iowa implemented an administrative rule allowing Secretary of State Matt Schultz to begin a voter roll purge using the SAVE database. Activists have sued Schultz in an attempt to stop the purge.
O INDIANA: In May, Indiana enacted a law requiring officials to check voter rolls for individuals registered to vote in other states. The advocacy group Project Vote worries that the measure could lead to voter purges.
Z MONTANA: After Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed a measure that would have eliminated same-day voter registration, the legislature decided to let the people decide. In 2014, Montana citizens will vote in a referendum on whether to keep same-day registration. Backers of the measure say it will cut down on lines at the polls.
c NEBRASKA: This spring, Nebraska shortened early voting by 10 days. Voters will still be able to vote in the 25 days leading up to an election.
b NORTH DAKOTA: North Dakota is the only state without voter registration. In April, the state strengthened its voter ID law to no longer allow people without photo ID to vote by affidavit.
p TENNESSEE: This spring, Tennessee passed a bill restricting the kinds of IDs that can be used to vote. Previously, voters could show student IDs, out-of-state IDs, library cards, or any other IDs issued by counties or municipalities. Now only photo IDs issued by the state of Tennessee or the federal government are acceptable. The Green Party of Tennessee has sued the state over the law.
So, where does all of this leave the Voting Rights Act?
The Supreme Court left it up to Congress to write new preclearance criteria. In a July hearing, House Republicans showed little interest in rewriting Section 4. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says there’s actually quiet Republican support for the issue. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made headlines when he publicly supported restoring the law.
“There is at least one Republican, and you’ll find out in the future a lot more, that is committing to putting life in this most important civil rights act that got a stab in the back from the Supreme Court,” Sensenbrenner said.
Gerken, the law professor, isn’t optimistic that Congress will come up with a new Section 4 formula. But she said there are other actions Congress could take. For example, she has advocated that Congress adopt an “opt-in” approach and allow civil rights groups to file simple complaints for the Justice Department to investigate. Then the agency could halt the implementation of discriminatory laws as necessary.
Yale law professor Travis Crum has also suggested a “bail-in” measure, by which Congress could instead strengthen Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, letting courts put states under preclearance if their voting laws violate the 14^th or 15^th amendments.
As part of the Justice Department’s lawsuits against Texas and North Carolina, the federal agency has asked the courts to put those states back under preclearance.
This post will be kept up-to-date. Has your state or local government restricted voting rights since June 2013? Tweet at me, email me at kara.brandeisky@propublica.org or leave a comment below.

MAP METHODOLOGY: This map tracks state voting laws before and after Shelby County v. Holder on four key issues: photo ID, early voting, same-day registration and voter roll purging. States with the most restrictive voting measures involving these four issues are the darkest; each state earned one point per restrictive policy. So a state with restrictive policies in all four areas would have a score of four and appear the darkest. The “before” map reflects policies in place on June 24, 2013, the day before the Shelby County v. Holder ruling. The “after” map reflects policies in place as of Oct. 31, 2013, even if the changes are pending implementation. Details on scoring per issue follow.

Photo ID: States received a point if they will require photo ID in upcoming elections (even 2014 or 2016) as of Oct. 31, 2013. States that require ID but also accept non-photo IDs, such as paychecks or utility bills, didn’t receive a point. Likewise, states that have passed photo ID legislation but have been unable to enact the law because of a court order (such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), didn’t get a point.
Early voting: States received a point if they don’t allow in-person voting before Election Day, or require an excuse for absentee early voting. States that have shortened early voting didn’t get a point as long as they still allow some early voting.
Same-day registration: States received a point if they don’t allow registration on Election Day.
Voter roll purging: States received a point if they have asked for access to, or support using, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE)database to maintain state voter rolls. Not all states that have requested access have actively begun purging voter rolls.

 

Is Ginni Thomas' Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

Her fierce political advocacy with Groundswell revives conflict of interest questions surrounding her husband.

—By Stephanie Mencimer

| Fri Jul. 26, 2013 9:03 AM PDT

Rex Curry/ZumaPress and Chris Zumma/ZumaPress

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Her role in Groundswell, the coalition of conservatives waging a "30 front war" against progressives and the GOP establishment that was revealed by Mother Jones on Thursday, revives questions about the propriety of Thomas' activism on issues that have or could become the subject of Supreme Court cases.
Conflict of interest issues were first aired during Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when critics argued that Ginni Thomas' political work might compromise her husband's objectivity. At that time, her political resume included stints as a Capitol Hill aide to a Republican congressman; a staffer at the US Chamber of Commerce, where she fought the Family and Medical Leave Act; and as a political appointee at the Labor Department during the first Bush administration. Thomas didn't leave politics after her husband was confirmed. "I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court," she has said in the past. She would later return to the Hill as a staffer to House majority leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) and work for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank. But in those jobs, Thomas kept a relatively low profile.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

That changed around the same time that the tea party exploded in American politics, and Thomas became an outspoken member of the movement. In late 2009, Thomas founded the political advocacy group Liberty Central, which would later become a fierce player in the opposition to health care form. Detractors pointed out that Liberty Central was a potential vehicle for people with interests before the Supreme Court to make anonymous donations that might influence her husband.
The group was formed with a $500,000 anonymous donation that came as the Supreme Court was considering Citizens United, a case that ultimately resulted in loosening the restrictions on corporate giving to political campaigns. The anonymous donor was later revealed to be Harlan Crow, the Texas real estate developer. Crow was also a friend of Clarence Thomas', and he was later linked to a scandal involving the justice's failure to publicly disclose gifts from the developer and trips aboard his private jet. (It didn't help that Justice Thomas had also failed to include his wife's $150,000 annual salary from Liberty Central on his financial disclosure forms, which he later had to amend.) In January 2011, the good-government group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from Citizens United based on his wife's role at Liberty Central. (Common Cause also asked the IRS to revoke Liberty Central's nonprofit status. Nothing came of either request.)
Thomas ultimately stepped down from Liberty Central, and the group merged with the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a nonprofit started by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich (who's best known for writing a book claiming that Bill and Hillary Clinton hung sex toys on the White House Christmas tree while Clinton was president). But she continued to be deeply involved with the opposition to Obamacare. She formed Liberty Consulting, which focused on health care issues, and, while never registering as a lobbyist, she began visiting members of Congress as an "ambassador" from the tea party movement. Due to her outspoken anti-Obamacare advocacy, and the fact that she was earning a living in connection with it, liberal activists called on Justice Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on matters related to Obamacare. He declined to do so and later joined the minority in voting to overturn the health care law, as he was widely expected to do.
The recent revelations about Thomas' role in Groundswell will no doubt resurrect the debate over whether her advocacy causes conflicts for her husband. Gun safety, immigration, voting rights and voter ID, environmental concerns—all of these issues have been covered by Groundswell, and all of them are subjects that regularly come before the Supreme Court. (Ginni Thomas did not respond to a request for comment.)
Arn Pearson, vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause, says that Thomas' work with Groundswell raises "important questions about appearances of conflict, especially if the things she works on end up coming before the Supreme Court, and especially if [the members of Groundswell] end up getting involved in elections." The work she's doing now, he says, doesn't pose quite the same conflicts as her anti-Obamacare advocacy, in which she was directly attacking a specific law whose future rested with the Supreme Court her husband sits on.
The broader problem, Pearson says, is that the Supreme Court has no real mechanism for dealing with possible conflicts of interest, because the high court has refused to subject itself to the same code of conduct that applies to the rest of the federal court system. That code spells out the rules judges must follow to avoid conflicts—rules that include not making speaking appearances at politically tinged fundraisers, as Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito have done in the past. Another rule requires federal judges to recuse themselves from cases in which a spouse has a financial interest, a provision that would seem to be relevant to the Thomases.
Democratic members of Congress, including Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), are trying to remedy the situation with two bills that would bind the Supreme Court to the same ethics rules as lower court judges. The bills could be introduced as early as next week, but they don't have a single Republican co-sponsor, making their future fairly dim.
One thing that may insulate Justice Thomas from potential conflicts over his wife's work, in the near-term at least, is congressional gridlock. "I don't know how we're going to get any more conflicts out of Congress because they don't pass anything," Pearson says.

Voting Rights At Risk in Georgia

After the Supreme Court's controversial decision, civil rights advocates say voting in the state is under attack

 

By Spencer Woodman

November 4, 2013 11:10 AM ET

 

Local authorities throughout
Georgia are changing voting
rules in the wake of a recent
Supreme Court ruling.
VANO SHLAMOV/AFP/GettyImages

In June, the Supreme Court's Shelby v. Holder decision disarmed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, freeing nine states – mostly in the South – from having to submit election procedure changes for the Justice Department's approval. The vast majority of voting laws that the department objected to as discriminatory came from towns and counties, rather than the state level. Since the ruling, such localities have seen both quiet changes to election code and also deep uncertainties among civil rights advocates who long relied on this key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
The state of Georgia alone offers many examples. The city of Athens, for instance, is considering a proposal to eliminate nearly half of its 24 polling sites in favor of creating two early voting centers – both located inside police stations. Madelyn Clare Powell, a longtime civil rights activist in Athens, worries that some voters cannot regard police stations as neutral territory. "There is a major intimidation factor here – these police stations are seen by some in the community as hostile territory," says Powell, citing historical tension between white police forces and minority communities in the region. Local activists also fear that the poll closures disproportionally impact neighborhoods with higher shares of minorities and college students, requiring three-hour bus rides for some public-transit dependent voters.
See the Five Most Outrageous Facts About Our Broken Voting System
"With the popularity of advance voting, election day lines have subsided and we can serve voters with fewer election day polling places," says Gail Schrader, Athens' Supervisor of Elections and Voter Registration. Schrader also notes that police stations are among the few spaces that could accommodate early voting sites for weeks at a time, and that the proposal could annually save taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
Several miles from Athens, heavily rural Greene County implemented a redistricting plan directly following the Shelby ruling. The Justice Department, which blocked another redistricting plan in the same county just last year, had been reviewing the new plan before the Supreme Court ruling, and the ACLU had strongly denounced the plan as discriminatory. In August, the new districts stirred a small demonstration in the town of Greensboro.
Adjacent to Greene County is Morgan County, which in July considered a proposal to eliminate over half of its polling sites. City Councilman Michael Naples believed the plan could disenfranchise low-income, minority voters who lack access to automobiles. "Although [Section 5] preclearance is no longer a requisite, you gentlemen and ladies are still required to have a clear conscience relative to any decisions you make relative to voting," Naples told the Board of Elections in a July meeting. The county ultimately voted to eliminate just over a third of polling sites.
Outside Atlanta, in the suburban community of Druid Hills, Henry Carey – a political science professor at Georgia State University, who has worked observing elections in Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere – voted in a special charter school election in August. He was appalled at what he saw: The poll workers were overtly partisan, wearing t-shirts supporting the charter effort up for vote. The polling site was open for only four hours and was in a heavily white neighborhood, although the school district is majority black. "Nowhere on earth have I ever seen such an utterly illegal election," says Carey.
Last month, the NAACP implored Baker County, located in Georgia's southwest corner, to explain the rationale behind a proposal to eliminate four out of five of its polling places. The civil rights group argued the move could hinder voting access across the county – especially for poorer residents who are disproportionately black. Baker County responded with a brief letter simply stating that the plan was still under consideration.
Just days after the Shelby decision, a newspaper in the town of Augusta reported that local officials are considering reintroducing a plan – struck down as discriminatory by federal authorities last year – to shift the city's elections from November to the summertime, when the city's black turnout is typically lower. In 2012, the Justice Department asserted that state officials had not provided a convincing explanation for the date change beyond voter suppression.
Augusta has a long, fraught history with voting. "It's is one of these cities that has continually come up with new strategies to suppress turnout," says Leah Aden, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which is scrambling to establish a network to discover and challenge problematic voting proposals in the Justice Department's absence. Although the Supreme Court argued that the formula determining Section 5's jurisdiction was outdated, Aden contends that the provision still broadly targeted regions with uniquely recurrent voting issues, enabling authorities to swat down discriminatory proposals before they became law (and thus far harder to challenge).
"It's very hard to keep up with this through case-by-case litigation," says Aden. "But we're going to try."

Related

• The GOP War on Voting

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/voting-rights-at-risk-in-georgia-20131104#ixzz2kAr64G3j
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook