The powerful union lobbies in the US have cornered their lapdogs in the Democrat Party and succeeded in killing the free trade agreement that we had brokered with Columbia. The main reason that unions twisted the arms of their Dem representatives is supposed to be because of Columbia’s admittedly horrid history of violence against unions [...]
Happy Tax Feedom Day! The national celebration was last week, but the good folks in Oregon got to celebrate it on April 16, almost two weeks ago. Of course, there is no sales tax down there. People in Washington get to start keeping their own money 5th latest in the nation because of things like high sales taxes, high gas taxes, high property taxes and other high taxes.
Are food prices high? Sure they are. But you work one-third of the year to pay federal, state and local taxes. The average American works about 35 days to pay for food. Which one is more important to you?
Written by The Official Weblog of EFF · Filed Under State Blogs
Charles Black, a former lobbyist for BKSH & Associates who now works as an unpaid volunteer for John McCain, is now saying that earmarks promote bad government and are totally “out of control.”
One of Washington’s most powerful critics of earmarks as wasteful and irresponsible use of taxpayer funds is Sen. John McCain.
Black, who has given up his lobbying practice to work as an unpaid volunteer for McCain, agrees.
“I believe that his philosophy is correct, that we shouldn’t have earmarks, and that it would be better government not to,” Black
said. “But when I was in the lobbying business, I played by the rules as they were. … There’s no doubt that earmarks have completely gotten out of control.”
Amazing how one’s tune changes when things like “career” and “money” are removed from the equation, no?
The main problem with earmarks is not so much that the federal government spends money at the local level (though that does present problems from the federalist perspective) but rather that they represent the perfect vehicle for quid pro quo arrangements among politicians.
Local kingmakers get politicians to fund special projects for them in exchange for supporting the politicians, and the politicians vote for one another’s pork as favors for each other. Ending earmarks wouldn’t end political corruption, but it would put a cork in one particularly virulent outlet for it.
The 4th episode of the Get Free Podcast is now live. This week we sit down and discuss individual liberties and how they affect the young adults in the US. Plus why are less young adults making their voices heard?
Click here to go to our RSS Feed.
Click here to download the MP3.
Remember to visit us on Facebook and to leave us comments.
Also register with us on Itunes and give us a review.
Written by The Official Weblog of EFF · Filed Under State Blogs
After an initial read-through of the Indiana photo ID decision, I think this decision will make it much more difficult for certain liberal groups to continue their legal attacks on legitimate election security laws. The court did leave open a door for more specific post-election challenges, however, so I certainly don't foresee election litigation coming to a standstill. Justice Stevens wrote the controlling decision, joined by Kennedy and C.J. Roberts. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion joined by Thomas and Alito. Justice Souter filed a dissent joined by Ginsberg, and Breyer filed his own dissent.
Washington state received quite a bit of attention in the court opinions, both because of our 2004 governor's race and our recent top-two primary decision. And while EFF's brief wasn't specifically mentioned in the opinions (amicus briefs rarely are), the majority clearly accepted our argument that Indiana's interest in preventing voter fraud and improving voter confidence was substantial and persuasive.
Stevens: Indiana's interests strong enough to reject facial challenge
Justice Stevens found those two state interests, along with the interest of improving election procedures, to be valid and justifiable. On the other hand, the very thin evidence of disenfranchisement presented by the challengers wasn't enough to "conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."
This case was a "facial challenge" just like the case against Washington's top-two primary. It was brought prior to the law being put into effect, and therefore was not based on actual problems encountered by voters, but on the supposition that the law "on its face" was unconstitutional. To win, the challengers had to show that the law as written would severely burden voters. The justices relied on their decision in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party as we predicted they would, and came to a similar conclusion. The law's impact on voters is unclear, there wasn't evidence of a severe burden on voters as a whole, and so the facial challenge was denied.
But as in the Grange case, that ruling leaves open the possibility of future lawsuits once the law is in effect and the its full impact can be determined.
Scalia: Law is a generally applicable and neutral voting regulation
Justice Scalia agreed with Stevens but went a step further. He looked at the merits of the case irrespective of the facial challenge aspect, and flatly rejected the Democrats view that if a law severely burdens even one voter it must be struck down. Instead, he looked at the law's burden on voters as a whole, and found it to be ordinary, requiring merely "nominal effort" of everyone. And he found the state's interests in preventing fraud and improving confidence were sufficient to justify that minimal burden on voters.
In supporting this "overall burden" standard Scalia said he was trying to help states avoid election litigation:
Weighing the burden of a nondiscriminatory voting law upon each voter and concomitantly requiring exceptions for vulnerable voters would effectively turn back decades of equal protection jurisprudence...Very few new election regulations improve everyone's lot, so the potential allegations of severe burdens are endless...It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class.
Impact on Washington?
While Washington doesn't have a photo ID requirement, and doesn't really need one in a poll-less environment, this decision still has great impact on our state. As with all states, we have been working to improve election integrity, but some of the most needed reforms (like requiring proof of citizenship) have been hindered because of a well-founded fear of litigation. You may remember the case Washington lost in 2006 over a voter registration security law challenged by the liberal Brennan Center--that case may have gone the other way if it had been litigated after today's decision. And right now there's a case pending in Arizona about that state's proof of citizenship requirement. With today's decision Arizona's chances of success improve remarkably, and that's the case Secretary of State Reed has cited as his reason for waiting to push a similar law in Washington.
Written by The Official Weblog of EFF · Filed Under State Blogs
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Indiana's photo ID requirement for voters is constitutional. EFF had filed an amicus brief urging the court to come to that conclusion. A huge victory for election security, this decision will make it easier for all states to enact laws protecting the integrity of the ballot box.
An AP story is here. We'll post more details on the decision soon.
Written by The Official Weblog of EFF · Filed Under State Blogs
At last YOU can have a say in Illinois!
The Illinois Constitution has an interesting provision in Article 14. It’s a rule where every 20 years a Constitutional Convention can be called to consider alterations and amendments to the state Constitution. The Convention itself isn’t called automatically, though. Only the question of calling or not [...]
« Previous Page — Next Page »
