A threat to democracy, fighting back against voter suppression and intimidation

SNS - The right to vote is legally protected from intimidation and harassment. Federal law makes it a crime to intimidate, harass, or deceive voters at home or at the polls.

Voter suppression is any attempt to prevent or discourage certain Americans from registering to vote or casting their ballot. It is any act that deliberately restricts or discourages certain groups from voting, undermining electoral fairness. You may not be threatened, coerced, frightened, assaulted, compelled, or discouraged to vote one way or another, or not to vote at all. The right to vote necessarily includes the right to be free from intimidation and harassment.

“A true democracy is where every person has the desire, the right, the knowledge, and the confidence to participate,” said Becky Simon, president of the League of Women Voters of Illinois. “We encourage you to join the League of Women Voters of Illinois in our fight to support everyone’s freedom to vote.”

After the Civil War, African Americans in the former Confederacy were able to exercise their newly won rights to vote; to run for local, state, and federal offices; and to serve on juries. These rights were given and protected by federal laws and the 14th and 15th Amendments. The laws, adopted to curtail white supremacist violence, specifically criminalized the terrorist activities of white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and authorized the use of federal troops to protect polling stations and suppress white supremacist violence.

Over time, white supremacists found other ways to control voting in their towns, counties, and states without direct physical violence. Political parties have used five key methods to suppress voting by targeted groups: voter ID laws, gerrymandering, voter purges, felony disenfranchisement, and criminalizing voting through the arbitrary enforcement of oppressive, unfair laws.

Today, experts warn that voter suppression and intimidation trends are moving to the digital spaces, becoming embedded in technology.

"It might include robocalls and social media posts that provide incorrect information about where to vote or promote the false idea that voters' personal information or ballot choices will be shared with the government, the public, or law enforcement," wrote the League of Women Voters of Illinois in a recent statement.

The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVI) is fighting voter suppression and intimidation by mailing thousands of Get Out the Vote postcards, deploying nonpartisan poll watchers throughout the state, observing public testing of voting equipment, and actively fighting misinformation and disinformation.

According to the ACLU, "More than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states. These bills erect unnecessary barriers for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person."

What should you do if you witness voter suppression or intimidation? Document incidents thoroughly using your phone (outside the polling place) or by taking notes. If your voter registration is denied at your polling place, you may ask a poll worker to double-check your registration, and you may still cast a provisional ballot.

The LWVI recommends that you avoid engaging with groups or individuals who are actively trying to intimidation fellow voters and immediately reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections at 217-782-4141 or the Election Protection Hotline:

English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
Spanish: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
Asian Languages: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
Arabic: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)

---

Commentary |Mass deportations would be a nightmare for America

by Alliyah Lusuegro
OtherWords.org

There’s an image that’s stayed with me for weeks: A sea of people holding up “Mass Deportation Now” signs at the Republican National Convention.

Since then, I’ve been plagued with nightmares of mass raids by the military and police across the country. I see millions of families being torn apart, including families with citizen children. And I see DACA recipients — like me — carried away from the only life we’ve ever known.

Mass deportation wasn’t just a rallying cry at the GOP convention. It’s a key plank of Project 2025, a radical document written by white nationalists listing conservative policy priorities for the next administration.

And it would be a disaster — not just for immigrants, but for our whole country.

I moved to the United States when I was six. Until my teenage years, I didn’t know I was undocumented — I only knew I was from the Philippines. I grew up in Chicago with my twin brother. Our parents worked hard, volunteered at my elementary school, and ensured we always had food on the table. They raised us to do well and be good people.

But when my twin and I learned that we were undocumented, we realized that living our dreams was going to be complicated — on top of the lasting fear of being deported.

Everything changed right before I entered high school in 2012: The Obama administration announced the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA. The program was designed to protect young people like my twin and me who arrived in the U.S. at a young age with limited or no knowledge of our life before. We’re two of the 600,000 DACA recipients today.

DACA opened many doors for us. It’s allowed us to drive, attend college, and have jobs. And we’re temporarily exempt from deportation, a status we have to renew every two years.

DACA helped me set my sights high on my studies and career. Although I couldn’t apply for federal aid, with DACA I became eligible for a program called QuestBridge that granted me a full-ride scholarship to college. Today I work in public policy in the nation’s capital, with dreams of furthering my career through graduate school.

But if hardliners eliminate DACA and carry out their mass deportations, those dreams could be swept away. And it would be ugly — mass deportation would be a logistical disaster, taking decades and costing billions.

Imagine your friends, neighbors, colleagues, peers, and caretakers being dragged away from their homes. For me, it would mean being forced back to the Philippines, a place I haven’t seen in two decades. My partner, my friends, my work — all I’ve ever known is here, in the country I call home.

This country would suffer, too.

An estimated 11 million undocumented people live here. We’re doctors, chefs, librarians, construction workers, lawyers, drivers, scientists, and business owners. We fill labor shortages and help keep inflation down. We contribute nearly $100 billion each year to federal, state, and local taxes.

Fear-mongering politicians want you to believe we’re criminals, or that we’re voting illegally. But again and again, studies find that immigrants commit many fewer crimes than U.S.-born Americans. And though some of us have been long-time residents of this country, we cannot vote in state or federal elections.

Despite all the divisive rhetoric, the American people agree with immigration advocates: Our country needs to offer immigrants a path to legalization and citizenship. According to a Gallup poll last year, 68 percent of Americans support this.

My dark dreams of mass deportations are, thankfully, just nightmares for now. And my dreams of a secure future for my family and all people in this country outweigh my fears. We must do everything possible to keep all families together.

---

Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

---

League of Women's Voters to discuss recent SCOTUS decision on Social Media Censorship

CHICAGO - Does the First Amendment allow U.S. government officials to intervene and prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media?

Jill Wine-Banks, a distinguished attorney and MSNBC Legal Analyst known for her prominence in political and legal discourse, is scheduled to speak about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent action on social media censorship. This virtual event will take place on Tuesday, August 20, at 7 p.m. via Zoom. The program is free and is presented by the League of Women Voters of Illinois’ Mis/Disinformation Task Force.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to rule on this question. Instead, they declined to issue decisions in two cases, punting them back to officials in Texas and Florida.

Among her many accomplishments, Wine-Banks was named General Counsel of the U.S. Army by President Carter, where she supervised what was, in essence, the world's largest law firm.

She started her legal career as the first woman to serve as an organized crime prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Four years later, she was selected to be one of the three Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutors in the obstruction of justice trial against President Nixon's top aides. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, but the evidence presented led to Nixon’s resignation.

In 2014, she was named by the Secretary of Defense to the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s Subcommittee on Sexual Assault in the military, where she served until 2017. She was also the first woman to serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Bar Association.

Those who wish to join the online talk can register for the event here.

To tackle the concerning increase in misinformation and disinformation, particularly its impact on our elections, the League of Women Voters of Illinois established the Mis/Disinformation Task Force in January 2024. The goal of the task force is to educate the public about misinformation and disinformation. For more information, please visit lwvil.org/misdis-info.

Commentary |State-Level marijuana legalization has been a stunning success

---

Contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.

by Paul Armentano

---

---

It’s been over a decade since Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize marijuana for adults. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s fair to ask: Has this policy been successful?

Absolutely. A policy of legalization, regulation, and education is preferable to a policy of criminalization, stigmatization, and incarceration.

Let’s be clear. Legalization didn’t create or normalize the marijuana market in the United States. The market was already here.

Illustration by Gordon Johnson/Pixabay

But under a policy of prohibition, this market flourished underground — and those involved in it remained largely unaccountable. They didn’t pay taxes, they didn’t check IDs, and they didn’t test the purity of their products. Disputes that arose in the illicit marketplace were not adjudicated in courts of law.

By contrast, under regulation, cannabis products in many states are now available from licensed manufacturers at retail stores.

Cannabis is cultivated, and products are manufactured, in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Products are lab tested and labeled accordingly. And sales are taxed, with revenues being reinvested in the community. Since 2014, retail sales of adult-use cannabis products have generated more than $15 billion in tax revenue.

Most importantly, millions of Americans — many of them young adults — are no longer being arrested for possessing a substance that is objectively safer than either tobacco or alcohol.

According to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the annual number of marijuana-related arrests in the United States fell from 750,000 in 2012 to 227,000 in 2022, the last year for which data is available.

In short, these state-level policy changes have resulted in countless Americans being spared criminal records — and the lost opportunities that accompany them — in the past decade.

Teen use of cannabis has not grown with legalization. A CDC report says use has actually dropped among high school students.

Photo: Dimitri Bong/Unsplash

---

And contrary to opponents’ fears, cannabis use by teens has not risen in parallel with legalization.

According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of high schoolers who use marijuana actually fell 30 percent over the past decade. Compliance check data from California, Colorado, Nevada, and other legal marijuana states show that licensed marijuana retailers do not sell products to underage patrons.

Also contrary to some critics’ claims, legalization states have not experienced any spike in either psychosis or mental illnesses.

According to findings published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, rates of psychosis-related health care claims are no higher in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal than in those where it’s not. Stanford University researchers similarly reported last year that residents of states where cannabis is legal exhibit no higher levels of psychosis than those in non-legal states.

Legalization is also successfully disrupting the illicit marketplace. According to a 2023 survey, 52 percent of consumers residing in legal states said that they primarily sourced their cannabis products from brick-and-mortar establishments. By contrast, only 6 percent of respondents said that they primarily purchased cannabis from a “dealer.”

Many consumers in non-legal states also reported that they frequently traveled to neighboring legal states to purchase cannabis products rather than buying from illicit dealers in their own state.

Twelve years into states’ marijuana legalization experiment, public support for making marijuana legal nationwide has never been higher. To date, 24 states have legalized the adult-use market.

None of these states have ever repealed their legalization laws. That’s because these policies are working largely as voters and politicians intended — and because they’re preferable to cannabis criminalization.

After a century of failed policies and “canna-bigotry,” the verdict is in. Legalization is a success, and the end of cannabis prohibition can’t come soon enough.

---

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. This op-ed was adapted from an earlier version published at The Hill and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.

---

Commentary |Appeals court rules against Trump, deciding presidents are not immune from prosecution

by Claire Wofford
Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston

---

---

In a 57-page opinion issued on Feb. 6, 2024, a federal appeals court ruled against former President Donald Trump, deciding that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while in office.

The decision allows the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to undermine the 2020 election to continue.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – two appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican – affirmed the Dec. 1, 2023, ruling of District Court Judge Tonya Chutkan, in which she said that a former president does not enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

The Hill reported that Trump spokesman Steven Cheung responded to the appeals court ruling by saying, “President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.” The decision, Cheung said, “threatens the bedrock of our Republic.”

The appeals court panel rejected Trump’s argument that the structure of U.S. government and the demands of the presidency necessitated immunity, instead stating that his claims of “unbounded authority to commit crimes” would “collapse our system of separated powers.” In their words, “President Trump has become citizen Trump,” and therefore had only the defenses available to any criminal defendant, not a special immunity privilege unavailable to anyone else.

As a scholar of judicial behavior and American politics, I have been closely watching this case. The court’s decision, particularly if the Supreme Court allows it to stand, is likely to have ramifications across the U.S. legal and political systems for decades.

‘Divine right of kings’

Trump is the subject of multiple civil and criminal cases in both state and federal courts. He is currently appealing several of them, including one relating to his appearance on the Colorado ballot, which the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear.

In mid-December 2023, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the immunity dispute as well, but the court declined to do so, at least until the appeal was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

This particular case involves the prosecution of Trump by special counsel Jack Smith. On Aug. 1, 2023, Smith indicted Trump on four counts of violating federal law for his conduct relating to the 2020 election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. The proceeding in the appeals court was not about whether Trump committed these crimes but whether he could be prosecuted for them at all.

Trump’s argument centered on a claim of presidential immunity – the notion that a president cannot be subjected to legal action for official conduct or actions taken as part of the job. While there is no explicit language in the U.S. Constitution about such immunity, the Supreme Court had previously ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents can be protected from civil lawsuits for their “official acts.”

The Nixon decision did not control the outcome here, however, because that case involved a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution. As highlighted during the oral argument in Trump’s appeal, that distinction – of whether it’s a civil or criminal case – makes a world of difference.

Protecting the president from the hassles of civil litigation is one thing; permitting the president, charged in Article 2 of the Constitution with faithful execution of the laws, to be able to break those same laws with impunity is quite another.

That sort of upside-down world is precisely what led District Court Judge Chutkan to issue her sweeping ruling on Dec. 1, 2023, that presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. As she put it, Trump did not have the “divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability.” The court today agreed with that sentiment.

High stakes

The oral argument before the appeals court on Jan. 9, 2024, was similarly dramatic.

The three judges spent over an hour rigorously questioning both sides, and the language was often sweeping.

Trump’s lawyer spoke of a president’s need to take “bold and fearless” executive action, to not have to constantly “look over their shoulder” for fear of prosecution and of the “republic shattering” consequences of ruling against the former president. Judge Florence Y. Pan raised striking hypotheticals about presidents assassinating political opponents or selling national security secrets to foreign governments. The lawyer for the federal government noted the “frightening future” if presidents were free to violate the law while in office.

The court’s opinion addressed Trump’s argument that future presidents would be unable to take decisive action for fear of prosecution. The judges ruled that the risk of “chilling … Presidential action appears to be low” and was outweighed by the public’s interest in accountability.

The appeals court judges included a passage from a Supreme Court opinion in their decision:

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

That principle, the appeals court panel wrote, “applies, of course, to a President.”

The court’s Feb. 6, 2024, decision will have a substantial impact, at least until any final ruling is issued by the Supreme Court.

Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election. Whether the case makes it to trial or results in a conviction, what happens to all the other pending cases involving Trump, and whether the former president is returned to the White House, are unanswered questions so far.

The Supreme Court will surely be asked to provide some of those answers.

---

Claire Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.