Date: August 5th, 2008

Photo: Ben Manski and his wife, Sarah, pose Monday outside the Statehouse in Montpelier. The couple, partly through Liberty Tree magazine, and in Vermont through state Rep. Michael Fisher, are organizing a national effort to have states boycott sending National Guard Troops to Iraq.

Times Argus Newspaper
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – A bill barring the Vermont National Guard from being sent to Iraq may not have gotten far in the Legislature, but it seems to have spawned a national movement.

More than a half-dozen state legislatures will consider similar bills over the coming months, said Ben Manski, a Wisconsin man who was in Montpelier on Monday as part of his work supporting such initiatives.

The Vermont bill was introduced in January by Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln, who said that the legal authorization for the use of National Guard troops in Iraq had expired. The conditions that were the basis for the war – including United Nations' resolutions and the ousting of Saddam Hussein – no longer exist, Fisher said. Another authorization allowing the overseas use of National Guard troops is needed, or they should return home, supporters of the bill argue.

That bill did not advance in the Vermont Legislature. However, it led state lawmakers from New Jersey to Oregon to introduce or begin considering their own legislation, said Manski, a Madison, Wisc., attorney and director of Liberty Tree Foundation, which supports such legislation.

"The legislators in other states have been quite willing to step forward and follow in Michael Fisher's footsteps," Manski said.

In fact, the bills being considered in some states go further than Fisher's resolution, which asked that National Guard troops from Vermont not be sent to Iraq. The proposed legislation in Oregon, for instance, also talks about National Guard use in Afghanistan under a different federal authorization to use military force, and would, if passed, make changes in the state's statutes governing the use of the Guard.

Such bills may not have become law in Vermont or elsewhere, but they have given a mechanism for anti-war activists to look for changes, Manski said.

"Until Vermont, they did not have model legislation," he said.

Ben Scotch, an attorney and former head of the American Civil Liberties Union in Vermont who has been active in the anti-war movement in the state, said the actions in other states could help Vermont lawmakers, as well.

"It may have started here but it matured outside the state," said Scotch, who met with Manski on Monday.

As for Vermont, Fisher said he expects to re-introduce a version of the bill in its home state if voters return him to Montpelier after this fall's election.

The fact that there will be a new president when the Legislature returns does not mean the questions raised by the bill do not need to be answered, Fisher said.

"They lead to questions that are a lot bigger than the Iraq War," he said. "Whoever wins the presidential election, these issues are going to stay with us."

During a public hearing convened by Sen. Vincent Illuzzi, R-Essex/Orleans, on the issue in February, Harvard law professor David Barron said that congressional spending bills to support the war amount to continued federal authorization of the war.

But Fisher argued that is not enough.

"In a constitutional democracy and in a question as big as whether we go to war, a de facto authorization is not enough," Fisher said. "I continue to bump into Guard families and Guard members who are shaking their heads about how they find themselves in this situation" of extended deployments.

Still, Fisher is not under any illusion about the likelihood of the measure succeeding.

"It will be a challenge to pass the bill, but we will work hard to bring the arguments forward," he said.

More info:
View the original article at: Times Argus

Date: June 9th, 2008

By Pamela M. Prah, Stateline.org Staff Writer
 
First it was the presidential primary calendar that state legislatures across the country upended to give their voters a greater say this year in choosing candidates. Now a few states are orchestrating an overhaul of the way voters select the U.S. president.

Voters this fall will still use the Electoral College to determine the next occupant of the White House, but a movement is bubbling at the state level to bypass the process and instead ensure future presidents are the candidates who get the most votes nationwide — an outcome not always guaranteed under the current system.
 
Maryland last year became the first state to approve a “national popular vote” compact that would allocate all of its 10 electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, rather than to the candidate who garners the most votes in the state, as is the case under the Electoral College.
 
New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois have since followed suit and passed laws that would allot their collective 40 electoral votes the same way. Identical bills are moving in Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island, which have a total of 62 electoral votes.
 
These bills do nothing on their own and would take effect only when states that collectively have at least 270 electoral votes pass identical measures, since a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
 
Those who remembers their history classes knows that American voters don’t directly elect a president — states do through “electors” who typically vote for the candidate who drew the most votes in their state.
 
“Why are all the other elections in this country based on the popular vote except for the most important one, the presidency?” asks Barry F. Fadem, president of the National Popular Vote, a group based in California that aims to persuade state legislatures to implement a nationwide popular election of the president. He called today’s system “flat-out, wrong” and expressed optimism that enough states will pass the legislation in time for the 2012 presidential election.
 
National Popular Vote was launched in 2006 and is largely founded by its chairman, John R. Koza, a scientist best known for inventing the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries and his work in genetic programming at Stanford University. In the 1980s, he and Fadem, an attorney, were active in promoting adoption of lotteries in the states.
 
Fadem and his supporters say that such a system would make every vote matter, not just those in “battleground states,” while critics argue that the approach is an end-run around the U.S. Constitution and wouldn’t necessarily be more fair than today’s arrangement.
 
John Samples, director of Cato’s Center for Representative Government in Washington, D.C., called the National Popular Vote campaign a “novel gimmick” that he said is “asking for a mess” if enacted.
 
Calls to reform or abolish the Electoral College were common after the 2000 presidential election, when former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote, but didn't have enough votes in the right states to carry the electoral vote over Republican George W. Bush. While Bush won the popular vote in 2004, he could have lost the election if John Kerry (D) had won Ohio.
 
Despite the hand-wringing over what many call an obsolete election system, little has happened, largely because dumping the Electoral College means changing the U.S. Constitution, an arduous task that requires two-thirds approval of Congress and three-fourths of the states. The National Popular Vote would keep the Electoral College, but change the way electoral votes are awarded.
 
The way Fadem sees it, a national popular vote would generate the same kind of excitement and enthusiasm seen in the recent primaries because all states — and their voters — would matter.
 
Under the current system, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, Fadem said. For example, presidential nominees have long ignored California because the state is considered a solid “blue” state that will award its 55 electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.
 
Gary Gregg II, director of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville in Kentucky and a fan of the Electoral College, agrees that the National Popular Vote would change the way candidates campaign, but not in a good way. Candidates would go where most of the votes are, namely cities. “Rural areas would never see a presidential candidate. Small states would never see a presidential candidate,” he said.
 
Gregg also predicted chaos if there were a close election and candidates challenged the vote count. “You would have the [2000] Florida recount replayed across the country … It would be a very ugly situation.”
 
Even some supporters of using the popular vote to elect the president have problems with the National Popular Vote’s campaign. “They are trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution,” said Burdett Loomis, a professor of the political science at the University of Kansas, who advocates changing the system but by having Congress and the states debate the issue and amend the U.S. Constitution.
 
Fadem says his group is not thumbing its nose at the Constitution since states still would have their right to decide how to allocate their electoral votes.
 
Supporters also reject critics’ characterization that backers of the National Popular Vote are Democrats who are bitter about the 2000 elections.
 
“It’s not a partisan issue. This isn’t about electing a Democrat president, but electing a president democratically,” said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic state senator in Maryland, reiterating what he said when he introduced the National Popular Vote plan that was signed into law by Gov. Martin O'Malley last April. Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University in Washington, D.C, spoke to Stateline.org from Massachusetts, where he was discussing the measure with state lawmakers there.
 
But two Republican governors vetoed the bill when it landed on their desks. In his veto message, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “It disregards the will of a majority of Californians," pointing out that the state's electoral votes under the new system could be awarded to a candidate most Californians didn't vote for. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle voiced the same concern when she vetoed the bill twice, but this year, lawmakers overrode her objection.
 
Cato’s Samples said he wonders if voters who support the concept of a popular vote really understand how it would operate. “Do people in Maryland know under the National Popular Voter system, that their vote may go to someone who didn’t win their state?”
 
Still, despite the concerns of the National Popular Vote approach, even their critics give the group kudos for bringing the issue to the attention of voters and elected officials. “They are doing a service … We ought to be talking about this,” said Loomis of the University of Kansas.

Date: 10 July 2008

By Bill Fletcher, Blackcommentator.com Executive Editor

I asked a good friend what I should write about for BlackCommentator.com this week. Without missing a beat she said: “Write about what I am working on!” I looked at her and asked what that was. Her response: “Voter protection.”

Elections in the USA have rarely been clean. Electoral theft is not new. Infamous big city machines were known for throwing elections one way or the other. The 1960 Presidential election has always been shrouded in some degree of mystery, particularly with regard to the voting results from Illinois. African Americans, Chicanos and Asians have had plenty of experience with electoral fraud, having been effectively denied the right to vote for most of the period since the end of Reconstruction (1877).

 

Yet, in the period particularly since the passage of the Voting Rights Act (1965) and the Watergate infamy (1973-74), an assumption emerged in Mainstream America that elections were, for the most part, honest and on the up and up.

Then came the November 2000 elections.

There were several things that were striking about the November 2000 elections. One was the audacity on the part of the Bush forces, dramatized in the recent HBO film, Recount. Their arrogance and boldness completely took the Gore campaign, as well as many pro-democracy groups, entirely off guard. While the Bush campaign was prepared to agitate, including through demonstrations, on behalf of their candidate, the Gore forces were paralyzed. Staff and volunteers linked to organized labor mobilized to go to Florida, but found themselves doing little more than taking affidavits from individuals who alleged that they had been deprived of their democratic rights.

The tactics that were used in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections by Bush-aligned forces were quite amazing. Black voters, for instance, found themselves eliminated from the voting rolls. As reported by the journalist Greg Palast, letters were sent to the home addresses of Black active duty military service personnel who, if they did not respond, had their votes challenged. This last point is remarkable since it was the votes of those who were literally in the line of fire who were being denied their right to have their votes counted.

Added to this has been the introduction of computer screen voting. Described as making the system more efficient, the lack of hardcopy proof of voting along with numerous examples of computer glitches (and possible computer tampering) raises further questions as to whether the right to vote is being eroded.

Thus, the irony is that we have witnessed a Presidential administration that has heralded the right to democratic elections overseas (even if all they have been concerned with is that there is more than one party in the race rather than whether there has been genuine democracy), yet tactics have been implemented which they have not challenged (if not outright encouraged), that deprive entire sections of the US population of their right to vote.

The awareness of the shenanigans of the 2000 and 2004 elections has led to a very broad-based mobilization around what is being called “Voter Protection.” Unions, community-based organizations, and other non-profits have enlisted in this battle, one which starts with increasing public awareness of the dangers of voter disenfranchisement. Further involvement in this work is of great importance, and is often missed when the focus of our electoral discussions are on the candidates alone. The political Right, fearing a loss by McCain, will do all that it can to suppress the Black vote, the Latino vote (except among Cuban Americans), older citizen vote and the youth vote. It will more than likely do this through a shrewd combination of propaganda aimed at defaming Senator Obama and encouraging fear as to who he actually is (i.e., the false allegations that he is a Muslim; does not do the Pledge of Allegiance; is actually not a US citizen), as well as through the tried and true tactics of the 2000 and 2004 elections. With regard to outright voter suppression, for example, volunteers will be needed at all poll sites to ensure that there is no voter intimidation or misinformation. This is a lot more than traditional voter registration/education and Get Out The Vote (GOTV). It is really a democracy mobilization.

In November 2000 I was deployed by the AFL-CIO to Florida for several days following the election. I watched and listened as reports came in regarding spontaneous demonstrations taking place in various parts of the state by disenfranchised voters; voters who WANTED their votes counted. I watched and listened as affidavits were completed. I watched and listened as the Bush forces made it appear that they were the righteous and that Gore was the spoiler. I watched and listened as the Gore campaign and its allies completely caved in.

I am not going through that again. We must provide the support for voters to ensure that their votes are counted, but if there is further theft it is not permissible to accept that the election was stolen fair and square. The tables will need to be turned.

 

Date: 28 June 2008

A little-noticed federal appeals court ruling this week could lead to the disenfrachisement of thousands of Floridians at the ballot box this November. Sound familiar?

 

Florida's 2008 Elections Landscape Looking More Like 2000

More info:

You can access the article online here.

 

Date: 6/12/08

Citizens of Arcata, California, this week declared success in collecting sufficient signatures to place the following measure on their upcoming municipal ballot:

The People of Arcata Ordain as Follows:
 
No person who is employed by or
an agent of the United States government shall,
within the City of Arcata,
in the execution of his or her job duties,
recruit,
initiate contact with for the purpose of recruiting, or
promote the future enlistment of
any person under the age of eighteen
into any branch of the United States Armed Forces.

More info:
For a full text of the ordinance, called the Youth Protection Act, see http://www.stoprecruitingkids.org/?q=node/3

For more information on the Arcata and Eureka, California campaign, see http://www.stoprecruitingkids.org/

Date: 06/11/08

This week, Dane County, Wisconsin, established a sister county relationship with Andres Eloy Blanco, Venezuela.  This comes at the heels of last week's overwhelming vote of support by the Dane County Board of Supervisors for the "Resolution to Accept the Invitation to Establish a Sister Relationship with the People of Andres Eloy Blanco Municipality, Venezuela" was a response to a visit by Venezuela's Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez to Dane County, last year. In that Liberty Tree-sponsored visit, Alvarez met with Dane County supervisors in an effort to establish a sister relationship between Dane County and a municipality in Venezuela.

Martin Sanchez, the Venezuelan Consulate General from Chicago, emphasized the groundbreaking nature of the agreement, "This agreement is the first between a U.S. city, county, or state in the last decade since Hugo Chavez was elected.  It will surely contribute to improved relations between the American and the Venezuela people. Venezuela will now get to see aspects of American culture, traditions and everyday life that they haven't seen outside the trivial portrayal of the U.S. by Hollywood. Also, Dane county residents will get to see positive aspects of Venezuelan society that are not covered by corporate media."
 
County Supervisors, community organizers, and officials in Andres Eloy Blanco worked together to formulate the resolution and relationship. Matt Earley, co-owner of Madison-based cooperative Just Coffee, who recently returned from visiting Sanare, the capital of Andres Eloy Blanco, said; "This agreement will help us develop people-to-people relationships as well as the trading of goods and services. We are very excited at the prospect of supplying coffee from Sanare to residents in the US which will be made infinitely easier with the passage of the sister-county relationship."

Sanare is an urban area surrounded by small rural towns located in the Midwest of Venezuela. The main engine of the municipality's economy is agriculture and coffee production.  According to Mayor Alfredo Orozco, during many decades this area has been the epicenter of many struggles for social justice and is also considered to be the birthplace of the Venezuelan peasant cooperative movement, as well as home of poets, musicians and revolutionary leaders. All these characteristics make Andres Eloy Blanco a place with a unique social and progressive environment, as well as a place whose inhabitants have great adherence to participatory democracy and to community life.  "After receiving the visit of several Wisconsin residents in our state we are very excited at officially establishing a Sister County relationship with Dane County," said the Mayor.                                               

Beyond official recognition of the sister-county relationship, the resolution would also establish a revenue and expense account for donations, and form a taskforce to foster trade, enhance intercultural understanding, and encourage communication, friendship, and goodwill between communities in Venezuela and the United States.

Liberty Tree Fellow, former Dane County Supervisor, and lead sponsor of the resolution, Ashok Kumar, thanked the County Board and the County Executive for their support, stating, "The sister-county resolution passed unanimously in both the Personal and Finance Committee and the Executive Committee and on the floor last Thursday.  This is a testament to the open-minded nature of Dane County residents and elected officials and it will undoubtedly assist social movements of both Dane County and Andres Eloy Blanco."

More info:
For audio from Ambassador Bernardo Alzarez' talk, see http://www.libertytreefdr.org/democracyNews.php?page=5#news43

Date: 6/9/2008

On June 5, 2008, roughly one hundred democracy and voting reform activists gathered for the daytime portion of Democracy Day, a project of Liberty Tree, Common Cause, FairVote MN, Center for Election Integrity MN, and FairVote. Democracy Day took place as a kickoff to frame this year's National Conference for Media Reform, reminding participants of the connections between media reform efforts and other pro-democracy campaigns.

Liberty Tree kicked off the day with workshops urging attendees to look beyond voting towards building a true democracy movement. The day continued with workshops covering a wide range of topics from election integrity to instant runoff voting and proportional representation as tools for developing a broader voting rights agenda. Liberty Tree Fellows David Cobb and George Friday roused the audience with their passionate orations. Taylour Johnson, Ashok Kumar, Patrick Barrett, and Brandon Lacy Campos also shined during the day.

The evening portion of Democracy Day was standing-room only. Over 500 individuals piled into the ballroom to hear Amy Goodman, John Nichols, Bob Edgar, and Joel Bleifuss speak. Welcomes were given by Rob Richie of FairVote, Solange Bitol Hansen from Public Campaign, and Liberty Tree’s own Brandon Lacy Campos.

Fellows David Cobb and Brandon Lacy Campos also attended the National Conference on Media Reform where, again, the Liberty Tree message of building a democracy movement, delivered by David Cobb, was received with an energy that was overwhelming and powerfully motivating.

More info:
You can see footage of Democracy Day, and of a talk by David Cobb at the National Conference for Media Reform, at http://www.fairvote.org/claimdemocracy/conferencevideos.php

Date: May 16, 2007

Hold Department of Homeland Security Accountable!

 

On June 19th, thousands of people from across the country will gather in homes, offices, coffee shops, and places of worship to discuss how the overreach of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is undermining the civil liberties and human rights of people living in America.

The Problem
In the name of national security, DHS has adopted practices that routinely violate basic rights of immigrants in this country, including legal residents and citizens.

The Solution
Organized by the Rights Working Group, Night of 1,000 Conversations will promote awareness and mobilize our communities. People all over the country will engage each other in discussions about actions to help restore accountability to DHS' practices. The Night of 1,000 Conversations will be the critical first step to launch a larger Rights Working Group campaign to hold DHS accountable.

The campaign to hold Department of Homeland Security accountable will ask DHS to:

• End immigration raids that lock up people without due process.
• Stop inhumane detention conditions and arbitrary jailing without trial.
• Provide fair and efficient mechanisms to end the backlog in processing citizenship applications by September 2008.

What You Can Do

Host a Conversation on June 19, 2008.

How It Works—Simple, Effective and Fun!

1. Host a Conversation—Invite your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, softball team, PTA, poker partners and religious community to a coffeehouse, your church, your home or any other meeting place.
2. Break the ice—Use a fun and interactive tool to introduce the topic of discussion.
3. Get them talking—Engage your guests in a hour-long discussion about what matters most to them on this topic.
4. Take Action—Actions can be as simple as signing a petition, registering to vote or more involved like committing to a letter writing campaign.

More info:
To learn more and get involved, sign up at Rights Working Group or contact the RWG Regional Coordinators.