Ashleigh Barber, Author at Close Up Foundation

Is It a Crime When Politicians Lie?

Posted on February 5, 2020March 6, 2024 by Ashleigh Barber

“There’s a clear difference between politics and a crime,” Michael Levy told the Supreme Court in January,¹ when he made arguments in a case about New Jersey’s “Bridgegate” scandal. As the justices considered whether or not a public official commits fraud by obfuscating the “real reason”² behind a decision, they asked both sides tough questions and did not split along ideological lines.³ The Court’s decision could narrow or expand corruption prosecutions against politicians. So we explore the questions, do politicians lie? And is it a crime?

The Bridgegate Scandal

The George Washington Bridge is the world’s busiest, carrying 250,000 to 300,000 vehicles daily.⁴ In 2013, after Mark Sokolich, the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., would not endorse the reelection bid of then-Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, officials on Christie’s staff concocted a fake traffic study to shut down all but one bridge lane dedicated to Fort Lee.⁵ Unbeknownst to local officials, closures took effect on the first day of school, resulting in massive traffic backups that included public safety vehicles seeking a missing child and responding to a cardiac arrest.⁶ The Bridgegate scandal lasted four days.⁷ At trial, Bridget Anne Kelly and William E. Baroni Jr. were convicted on the basis of evidence that included Kelly’s now-infamous email announcing it was “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”⁸

Politics or a Crime?

The deceptive study misused $5,400⁹ worth of Port Authority employee resources.¹⁰ Kelly’s attorney thinks prosecutors incorrectly applied fraud statutes¹¹ since the officials reallocated public resources to another public use¹² and did not “receive payments or kickbacks.”¹³ Government lawyers countered that Baroni commandeered resources¹⁴ because he lacked authority to realign lanes.¹⁵

Kelly’s attorney, Jacob Roth, says that if a hidden political lie or motive or lie could send a public official to prison,¹⁶ it “casts a pall over routine political conduct.”¹⁷ Roth offered hypothetical examples, such as a police chief publicly stating concerns about crime to advocate for more officers, while the real goal is to gain favor with a police union.¹⁸ “We don’t want public officials acting for personal … partisan or political reasons,” said Roth. “But … the remedy for that is not the federal property fraud statutes.”¹⁹ Roth’s preferred remedy is political consequences: Bridgegate damaged Christie’s in-state popularity and his 2016 presidential bid.²⁰

Prosecuting Corruption

The Supreme Court seemed to apply this reasoning in 2016 with an 8-0 unanimous vacating of former Governor Bob McDonnell’s (R-Va.) corruption conviction,²¹ limiting bribery laws by deciding that McDonnell’s acceptance of $175,000 in money and luxury items (including a Ferrari)²² was not criminal since, as McDonnell’s lawyers said, he only provided “routine political courtesies,”²³ such as setting up meetings, in exchange for the items. McDonnell’s lawyers argued, “Mere ingratiation and access are not corruption.”²⁴ Responding to the ruling, Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said, “The Supreme Court essentially just told elected officials that they are free to sell access to their office to the highest bidder,”²⁵ and that “if you want the government to listen to you, you had better be prepared to pay up.”²⁶

The McDonnell case reflected many justices’ concerns over “prosecutors’ overly expansive interpretation of federal fraud and corruption laws,”²⁷ concerns echoed in recent decisions that protected “small-time criminal defendants swept up by large-scale prosecutions.”²⁸ Kelly, a single mother of four,²⁹ says she is being scapegoated,³⁰ claiming that Christie (who has called this case politically motivated) knew of the scheme.³¹

Former federal prosecutor Frank O. Bowman III sees this judicial trend as the Supreme Court “taking ‘an unduly protective view of official misconduct.’”³² Bowman adds, “The notion that what is otherwise plainly a crime becomes permissible because it has a political motive strikes me as just daft.”³³Bowman believes prosecutors need reasonable leeway with fraud statues “to keep up with the crooks, particularly the crooks in public office.”³⁴

A decision in Kelly v. United States is expected in June.

Discussion Questions:

Is it acceptable for public officials to hide true political motives and offer alternative public explanations for their actions? Why or why not?
Should a head public official, like a mayor, governor, senator, or president, always be held accountable for the actions of their staff members? Why or why not?
When filing their appeal to the Supreme Court, Kelly’s attorneys warned of how expanded government prosecutorial power might be used in the current partisan environment. They wrote, “If there is one thing this country does not need right now, it is a rule of law allowing a public official to be locked up based on a jury determination that she ‘lied’ by purporting to act in the public interest or by concealing her ‘political’ purposes.”³⁵ Based on that quote, discuss the following questions:
- How large a factor do you think partisanship will be in prosecutors’ decisions over which corruption cases to pursue?
- How concerned are you that prosecutors would pursue corruption cases mostly or entirely for political retribution against their rivals?
- How involved should courts be in trying to curb political corruption issues?
If a government official acts for political or personal reasons, should they be subject to fines and jail time, or should their fate be left to voters in the next election? Read the following statements and quotes and decide which you agree with more and why:
- The best remedy for dishonesty or graft in government is to make the public aware so they can vote on the basis of the potentially offensive actions. From the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ amicus brief: “If state decision makers deprive the electorate of the candid reasons for policy choices, the solution is at the ballot box, not the jury box.”³⁶
- If government officials act dishonestly or in their own personal interest or in that of a friend, the remedy should be criminal fraud or corruption charges with accompanying fines and jail time. From Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-R.I.) amicus brief: “The founders empowered the public to protect the public sphere against corruption, including through the jury box.”³⁷
Respond to the following questions after reading this quote from Whitehouse: “In the same way that a fish may not be aware that it’s swimming in the water, because swimming in water is so much its natural state, I think we have become a little bit desensitized to the extent to which we are now swimming in corruption.”³⁸
- How prevalent are political corruption issues in the U.S.?
- How can citizens best address government corruption?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/477797-supreme-court-to-tackle-corruption-questions-in-bridgegate-cas

[1] Northjersey.com: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/14/bridgegate-bridget-kelly-bill-baroni-appear-united-states-supreme-court-arguments/4422233002/

[2] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1059

[3] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-analysis-justices-tackle-convictions-arising-from-bridgegate-scandal/

[4] ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/crosstown-traffic-scotus-considers-bridgegate-prosecutions

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Quartz: https://qz.com/1782309/a-criminal-cover-up-on-the-worlds-busiest-bridge-hits-scotus/

[8] ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/crosstown-traffic-scotus-considers-bridgegate-prosecutions

[9] Quartz: https://qz.com/1782309/a-criminal-cover-up-on-the-worlds-busiest-bridge-hits-scotus/

[10] ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/crosstown-traffic-scotus-considers-bridgegate-prosecutions

[11] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343

[12] ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/crosstown-traffic-scotus-considers-bridgegate-prosecutions

[13] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-analysis-justices-tackle-convictions-arising-from-bridgegate-scandal/

[14] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/a-view-from-the-courtroom-the-bridge-and-tunnel-crowd/

[15] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/news/bridgegate-bridget-kelly-bill-baroni-supreme-court-chris-christie-20200114.html

[16] Crain’s New York Business: https://www.crainsnewyork.com/law/bridgegate-convictions-questioned-us-supreme-court-justices

[17] ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/crosstown-traffic-scotus-considers-bridgegate-prosecutions

[18] Ibid

[19] Crain’s New York Business: https://www.crainsnewyork.com/law/bridgegate-convictions-questioned-us-supreme-court-justices

[20] Northjersey.com: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/14/bridgegate-bridget-kelly-bill-baroni-appear-united-states-supreme-court-arguments/4422233002/

[21] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/bob-mcdonnell-supreme-court/index.html

[22] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-virginia-governor-robert-mcdonnell-spared-prison-sentence-n599506

[23] Ibid

[24] Ibid

[25] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/bob-mcdonnell-supreme-court/index.html

[26] Ibid

[27] SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/argument-analysis-justices-tackle-convictions-arising-from-bridgegate-scandal/

[28] Northjersey.com: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/13/bridgegate-supreme-court-chris-christies-lane-closers/4420543002/

[29] Northjersey.com: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/14/bridgegate-bridget-kelly-bill-baroni-appear-united-states-supreme-court-arguments/4422233002/

[30] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/477797-supreme-court-to-tackle-corruption-questions-in-bridgegate-case

[31] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/20b73a43e891ad63caac459cdc604a0e

[32] ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/crosstown-traffic-scotus-considers-bridgegate-prosecutions

[33] Ibid

[34] Ibid

[35] NJ.com: https://www.nj.com/news/2019/06/bridget-kelly-is-unbelievably-happy-as-us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-bridgegate-case-attorney-says.html

[36] Quartz: https://qz.com/1782309/a-criminal-cover-up-on-the-worlds-busiest-bridge-hits-scotus/

[37] Ibid

[38] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/477797-supreme-court-to-tackle-corruption-questions-in-bridgegate-case

Primary Voting Begins: Iowa and New Hampshire

Posted on January 29, 2020December 9, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

From left: Former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg

What Should You Watch for in the Democratic Primaries?

The next month features four nominating contests: the Iowa caucuses (February 3), the New Hampshire primary (February 11), the Nevada caucuses (February 22), and the South Carolina primary (February 29).¹ A great deal of polling has been done to determine voters’ favorites in these contests, particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, looking at current aggregate polling for those two states, the probable outcome is anything but clear:

Source: Real Clear Politics³

At first glance, the numbers above indicate that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has an edge in both New Hampshire and Iowa primary elections, but there are several potential confounding factors. For one, these rankings have alternated for months, with Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) all having occupied the top spot in each state at least once since primary season began in 2019.^{4, 5}

Second, a number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have not yet decided on a candidate. Recent polling indicates that as many as 60 percent of voters in those states are undecided, and that at the very least, a sizable minority of voters still remain uncommitted.⁶

READ: Close Up In Class examines the presidential nominating process and the early voting status of Iowa and New Hampshire

What about the Republican Party?

As the sitting president, President Donald Trump is all but guaranteed to be the Republican nominee (no sitting president has lost the nomination since President Franklin Pierce in 1852).⁷ Several states have even decided not to have Republican primaries or caucuses at all, despite the fact that several candidates are technically running against President Trump.⁸

How Does 2020 Compare to Other Primary Seasons?

In 2016, polling showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a small but clear lead over Sanders in Iowa; in New Hampshire, Sanders was much further in front of Clinton. When the time came for voting, Clinton barely beat Sanders in Iowa (by 0.25%); in New Hampshire, Sanders handily beat Clinton and even did slightly better than the pre-election polls had suggested.

On the Republican side in 2016, now-President Trump slightly led Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in polling, but Cruz ultimately beat Trump by 3.3%. In New Hampshire just over a week later, Trump had a significant lead in the polls and did slightly better than the polls predicted when votes were cast.

Source: Real Clear Politics ^{9, 10}

In many ways, the 2020 Democratic primary season is more similar to the 2016 Republican primary season. In each, the party had a large field of candidates at first; by the time primary voting began, there were still several viable candidates. Republicans in 2016 also had a clear sense of running against Clinton in the same way that Democrats in 2020 know they will be running against President Trump.

So, Why Does All of This Matter?

A victory in Iowa or New Hampshire does not guarantee a candidate’s victory overall. However, a strong performance or an unexpected result sometimes makes or breaks a campaign. Winning the first contest in Iowa grants legitimacy to a candidate, especially if that candidate has never run in a presidential primary (like Buttigieg or Warren). Winning one or both contests would prove that a candidate could compete with more established candidates, like Biden or Sanders. For example, people cite the relatively unknown Senator Barack Obama’s win over the widely known Clinton in Iowa in 2008 as a turning point in the race between them.¹¹

Alternatively, a win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire for Biden or Sanders could help solidify their positions and signal to other candidates that the time has come to rally around them. On the other hand, losing, or even just barely winning, in Iowa and New Hampshire could have negative consequences for their arguments, especially if they lose out to newcomers like Buttigieg or Warren.

Of course, it’s also possible that the results of Iowa and New Hampshire could have little significance at all. The two remaining contests in February can also reinvigorate a campaign. Governor Bill Clinton (D-Ark.) famously lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, but his large margin of victory in South Carolina less than a month later earned him the nickname “The Comeback Kid” and helped propel him to the nomination.¹²In addition, March sees many more contests dealing with much larger populations, and the results of those primaries and caucuses will likely make a frontrunner clear.

Discussion Questions:

What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of having many candidates to choose from in a primary or caucus?
In February 2020, there will be four contests for Democrats: in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Each of these states is intended to represent a different part of the country. Do you agree with these choices?
Under New Hampshire law, the state is required to hold the first primary in the country; Iowa state law similarly mandates that the Iowa caucuses be held at least eight days before any other nominating contest. Are these good enough reasons for Iowa and New Hampshire to be the first states to cast votes?
Some have suggested that instead of state-by-state/week-to-week contests, all primaries should be held on one date, similar to the general election. Do you agree/disagree with this idea? Why?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://people.com/politics/top-democratic-candidates-2020-list-poll-numbers-names-fundraising/

[1] People: https://people.com/politics/top-democratic-candidates-2020-list-poll-numbers-names-fundraising/

[2] 270toWin.com: https://www.270towin.com/2020-election-calendar/

[3] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

[4] Ibid

[5] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html

[6] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-16/iowa-caucus-nears-undecided-voters-feel-the-pressure

[7] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html

[8] Fortune: https://fortune.com/2019/10/10/trump-2020-republican-primaries-cancelled/

[9] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

[10] Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html

[11] BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7171282.stm

[12] IdeaStream.org: https://www.ideastream.org/news/with-a-month-to-go-before-iowa-and-new-hampshire-anything-can-happen

U.S.-Iranian Relations Following the Death of Qasem Soleimani

Posted on January 13, 2020February 13, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On January 2, 2020, it was announced that an air strike ordered by President Donald Trump had successfully targeted and killed Qasem Soleimani, chief of the Quds Force, at Baghdad International Airport. The Quds Force is regarded as the elite unit of Iran’s military; it handles overseas operations and is classified as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. Soleimani and his troops have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members, as well as the wounding of thousands more.¹

Soleimani’s killing follows an Iranian attack on December 27, 2019, against a U.S. military base in Iraq, and a coordinated assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Both of these attacks were commanded by Soleimani.² In a statement, the Department of Defense explained that the strike was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”³ The day after Soleimani’s death, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that there was an imminent threat of attack, plotted by Soleimani, that would have put many American lives at risk.⁴

The news of President Trump’s order to kill Soleimani has received both praise and criticism from members of Congress. Republican lawmakers have largely applauded the strike, arguing that it brought justice to many American military families; they also insist that the Quds Force would be to blame for any escalation that comes.⁵ Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, has stated that the administration’s action risks provoking further escalation of violence around the world.⁶ Many Democrats fear that the consequences of the strike could lead to another war in the Middle East.⁷ The divided response from Congress on the legality of the attack has also reignited a debate on presidential war powers.

There has been criticism from congressional Republicans as well. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) said that the administration’s effort to explain the attack was “probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.” Senator Lee added, “What I found so distressing about the briefing is one of the messages we received from the briefers was, ‘Do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran,’ and that if you do, ‘You will be emboldening Iran.’”⁸ Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, “I think it’s sad when people have this fake sort of drape of patriotism, and anybody that disagrees with them is not a patriot. … For him to insult and say that somehow we’re not as patriotic as he is—he hasn’t even read the Constitution … he insults the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism.”⁹

Even with those questions and critiques from President Trump’s fellow Republicans, it is unlikely that the Senate will take actions to curb the president’s authority. On January 9, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution to restrict the administration’s authority to strike Iran without congressional approval. The resolution now heads to the Senate, but it is less likely to pass in that chamber. Meanwhile, House leadership is considering further action to reduce the president’s authority to act without the input of Congress.¹⁰

While U.S.-Iran relations have long been tense and unsettled, those relations have become have become increasingly contentious in recent years. With the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions in 2018, and Iran’s recent attacks on U.S. personnel, the hope for improved relations still seems distant.

Discussion Questions

Do you think the United States was right to kill Soleimani? Why or why not?
Was the attack on Soleimani a proper response to the December attacks on Americans? Why or why not?
Why do you think members of Congress are so divided in their response?
How does this impact U.S. troops abroad?
Do you think the killing of Soleimani has lessened or heightened the risk of an Iranian attack against the United States?
What should the balance of power be between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to military action?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200102230543-qassem-soleimani-file-2016-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/asia/soleimani-profile-intl-hnk/index.html

[2] The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/476632-soleimani-is-dead-but-the-enemy-still-stands

[3] Department of Defense: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/

[4] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-target/iranian-commander-soleimani-had-been-in-pompeos-sights-for-years-idUSKBN1Z21UT

[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/us-iran-war.html

[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-killed.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/08/most-disturbing-part-mike-lees-broadside-against-trump-administrations-iran-briefing/

[9] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/09/why-dont-mike-lee-rand-paul-have-support/

[10] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/war-powers-resolution-house-votes-to-limit-trumps-ability-act-against-iran/

The Death Penalty: A Just Punishment?

Posted on December 4, 2019August 8, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On November 15, 2019, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suspended the execution of Rodney Reed and sent his case back to trial, due to new witness testimony that pointed to his innocence and raised concerns about how evidence was handled during the initial trial.¹ Since 1977, at least 166 inmates have been released from death row after new evidence came forward or problems were found in the trial procedures.²

Currently, 29 states have death penalty laws, and the federal government recently announced that it would resume executions after a 16-year hiatus. Attorney General William Barr has scheduled five death sentences to be carried out by the end of the year, all in cases involving horrifying murder (and, in some cases, sexual assault as well). Seven states have carried out 20 executions this year,³ the lowest number since 1976, when the Supreme Court found in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.⁴ Among the factors hindering the pace of federal executions are the difficulty of obtaining the drugs necessary for lethal injection, as well as declining support for the death penalty among the public,⁵ possibly due to lower rates of violent crime and the recent exoneration of some death row inmates.⁶

On November 25, 2019, Gallup released the results of a new survey indicating for the first time that Americans now prefer life in prison with no possibility of parole over the death penalty when a person is convicted of murder. Support for life in prison rose from 45 percent in 2014 to 60 percent in the most recent survey; support for the death penalty dropped from 50 percent to 36 percent. However, 56 percent of Americans still broadly support the death penalty, even if they prefer life in prison as a just punishment for convicted murderers.⁷

Although capital punishment has been a controversial issue for decades, researchers from the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks death penalty statistics, noted that “[t]his year has had an extraordinarily high percentage of cases in which there is very serious evidence that people who did not commit the killing are being subjected to death warrants.”⁸ As such, policymakers are considering and reconsidering whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate way to deliver justice.

Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty are vehemently opposed to any innocent person being put to death. But supporters insist that some crimes are so terrible that death is the only suitable punishment. They also argue that the possibility of a death sentence helps prevent crime from happening in the first place.⁹ In response to Attorney General Barr’s decision to schedule executions for five federal prisoners, victims’ advocates pointed out that some families find it extremely painful to wait years or decades for an execution that they see as closure and justice for their loved one(s).¹⁰ For his part, President Donald Trump supports the death penalty and has called for using capital punishment for mass shooters and drug traffickers.¹¹

Opposing opinions on the death penalty point to inmates like Reed, who was convicted and sentenced to death even though his blood did not match the blood found under the victim’s fingernails and observers have contested the legitimacy of the central evidence in his case.¹² Critics argue that the justice system can be flawed, and that there is always a risk that an innocent person could be executed. Opponents also note that even when guilt is certain—as it was in the case of Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted of murdering a couple and their child—judgments of who receives the death penalty can be arbitrary and unfair. For example, Lee’s co-conspirator, Chevie Kehoe, received a life sentence even though most accounts point to Kehoe as instigating the violence.¹³

For further reading on the death penalty, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

Do you support the death penalty? Why or why not?
What type(s) of crime, if any, should warrant the death penalty?
How should policymakers respond to the problem of potentially innocent people serving on death row?
How should public opinion factor into death penalty decisions made by judges and justices?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Associated Press

[1] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html

[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-idUSKBN1XN046

[4] Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257

[5] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-idUSKBN1XN046

[6] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx

[7] Ibid.

[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html

[9] BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml

[10] The Gazette: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/execution-for-iowa-mass-killer-dustin-honken-on-hold-20191121

[11] WhiteHouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-mass-shootings-texas-ohio/

[12] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html

[13] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-12/rod-reed-ray-cromartie-kardashian-injustice-capital-punishment

Political Ads on Social Media

Posted on November 25, 2019January 30, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On October 30, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that, effective November 22, Twitter would ban all political advertising on its platform. Dorsey justified the decision by explaining that political ads present “entirely new challenges to civic discourse.”¹ Twitter’s sweeping decision was not an arbitrary one; it was the result of a new wave of scrutiny and criticism over the way social media companies manage political advertising, especially when the ads in question are false or misleading.

This past month, President Donald Trump’s campaign ran ads baselessly accusing his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Biden’s son, of a corruption conspiracy in Ukraine. The videos were viewed millions of times and allowed to stay up on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media websites.² When the Biden campaign asked Facebook to remove the ads, the company refused, citing the “newsworthiness” of the political statements, even though they were not supported by evidence.³ Katie Harbath, Facebook’s head of global elections policy, explained, “Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.”⁴

Facebook was previously reluctant to police content back in May, when it allowed a doctored video of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—one that was slowed down and made her appear drunk—to remain on the website. The company has also faced intense criticism for its failure to both prevent and acknowledge the distribution of Russian propaganda during the 2016 election. Russian state agents were able to buy thousands of ads, target specific users, and spread fake news to sow confusion, discord, and division.⁵ Facebook responded with fact-checks to accompany dubious posts and made ad information—such as the purchaser, the amount paid, and the audience reach—publicly accessible. Still, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said that he sees the value of not moderating ad content, noting, “In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for private companies to censor politicians, or the news.”⁶

To criticize Facebook’s ad policies, Senator Elizabeth Warren ran an intentionally false ad on the website, claiming that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had endorsed President Donald Trump.

Twitter’s ban on political advertising includes all “ads that refer to an election or a candidate” and “ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance.” However, the site will still allow ads that promote voter registration information.⁷ While Facebook does not require political ads to be accurate, it has removed several ads by the campaigns of President Trump, Biden, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) due to unrelated policy violations, such as the use of profanity, misleading links, and/or fake buttons.⁸ This shows a willingness by Facebook, however small, to regulate and reject ads by using some standardized criteria.

Social media has become an increasingly effective tool for politicians to reach and influence voters. According to Advertising Analytics, about $152 million has been spent on digital ads by the 2020 presidential candidates thus far, with online advertising making up 57.5 percent of their total ad spending.⁹ This isn’t surprising, considering the fact that people increasingly rely on their social media accounts as sources of news and information. Twitter has approximately 126 million daily users, while Facebook has over 1.2 billion daily users worldwide.¹⁰

The decisions of Twitter and Facebook have highlighted the tensions regarding content regulation and the partisan divide that accompanies them. Warren has derided Facebook as a “disinformation-for-profit machine,” and her campaign even created a purposely false Facebook ad to underscore the point.¹¹ Facebook’s inaction concerns those who fear a repeat of what happened in 2016.

Likewise, Twitter has attracted criticism for banning political ads altogether. Brad Parscale, the manager of President Trump’s 2020 campaign, called it “yet another attempt to silence conservatives, since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated online program ever known.”¹² Many lesser-known candidates at the grassroots level are also concerned that they may be inadvertently suppressed, as they often turn to online advertising for its broad reach and relatively small costs.

Discussion Questions

How frequently do you see political ads online?
How pressing of an issue do you believe fake news and disinformation on social media to be?
Should politicians be required to make sure everything they post is accurate?
What action(s) should social media companies take regarding political ads? (Banning them completely like Twitter, allowing them to say anything like Facebook, something in between?)
Should there be laws or campaign regulations that hold candidates’ advertising to a standard of truth?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: WFAE/Twitter

[1] Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634369016586240

[2] Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/9/20906612/trump-campaign-ad-joe-biden-ukraine-facebook

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/technology/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ad.html

[4] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technolog y/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html

[5] House Intelligence Committee: https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/

[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/facebooks-earnings-and-revenue-jump-topping-forecasts.html?module=inline

[7] Twitter: https://twitter.com/vijaya/status/1189664481263046656

[8] BuzzFeed News: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-warren-biden-trump-ads-take-down-profanity

[9] Axios: https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-campaign-advertising-online-tv-8e036c37-68cc-48e4-861e-52ab26b42b6d.html

[10] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/02/07/twitter-reveals-its-daily-active-user-numbers-first-time/

[11] Elizabeth Warren via Twitter: https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1183019880867680256

[12] Trump Campaign via Twitter: https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1189656652250845184

Vaping: Free Market vs. Consumer Safety

Posted on November 19, 2019July 23, 2022 by Ashleigh Barber

On September 11, 2019, President Donald Trump told reporters that his administration was considering a ban on flavored vaping products.¹ This announcement came after a sometimes-fatal, vaping-related illness began appearing across the United States. On November 18, the Trump administration seemed to reverse course under pressure from constituents² and corporate donors,³ announcing that no new regulations would be put in place at this time.

Vaping is the use of electronic cigarettes (often stylized as e-cigarettes). E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that heat a liquid into a vapor that is inhaled.⁴ E-cigarettes can contain an assortment of substances, including nicotine and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active compound in marijuana). E-cigarettes can also come in various flavors that mimic candies, soft drinks, or fruits. The flavoring of e-cigarettes has sparked nationwide discourse about the free market and consumer safety principles.

Opponents of flavored e-cigarettes claim that such products add to the influx of adolescents becoming addicted to nicotine. Prior to the rise of e-cigarettes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported downward trends in tobacco consumption. However, “since 2014, e-cigarettes have been the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. middle and high school students. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, the number of youth who used e-cigarettes went up by 1.5 million. In fact, the U.S. Surgeon General has called e-cigarette use by youth an ‘epidemic,’ and warned that it threatens decades of progress toward making sure fewer young people use tobacco.”⁵

Supporters, on the other hand, view e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to cigarettes—one that has helped many people break their addiction to smoked tobacco products. Proponents of flavored e-cigarettes believe that banning flavors would not discourage people from the risks of vaping; rather, it would make them turn to the black market, where they could come into contact with unregulated, potentially dangerous products.⁶ Advocates of flavored e-cigarettes also argue that over-regulation of flavored tobacco products would hurt small businesses. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative advocacy group, noted, “Eliminating all but one or two of these options [of e-cigarette flavors] for adults would destroy thousands of small businesses, force many adult vapers to return to smoking, and force some to seek out products on the black market.”⁷

However, as a result of the vaping-related hospitalizations and deaths, state governments and some private businesses have begun implementing new restrictions. Juul Labs Inc., one of the largest e-cigarette providers in the United States, announced on October 17, that it would suspend sales of all non-tobacco- and non-menthol-based flavors of its e-cigarette products.⁸ As of October 28, the state governments of Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have issued temporary bans on flavored vaping products, and other states are considering implementing bans. Massachusetts has instituted the most restrictive ban—a four-month ban on the sale of all vaping products, regardless of whether or not products are flavored.⁹

As the conversation about flavored e-cigarettes continues, individuals on both sides of the debate are taking a closer look at this social phenomenon and its impact on American society.

For further reading on e-cigarette bans, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

How much have you heard about the addictiveness of nicotine and other stimulants?
Should companies be allowed to knowingly cause addiction in consumers? Why or why not?
Do you think vaping is a health crisis? Why or why not?
Who should be responsible for managing the risks of using e-cigarettes: government or consumers?
Is limiting access to flavors a legitimate way to discourage vaping? Why or why not?
When do government regulations begin to encroach on individual liberties?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters via theatlantic.com

[1] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/donald-trump-vape-e-cigarette-flavors/index.html

[2] Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/trump-reversal-flavored-e-cigarette-vape-ban.html

[3] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/health/trump-vaping-ban.html

[4] National Institutes of Health: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2019/02/vaping-rises-among-teens

[5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/features/back-to-school/e-cigarettes-talk-to-youth-about-risks/index.html

[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2019/09/30/dont-make-the-vaping-crisis-worse-with-hasty-new-regulations/#1fca1e53169f

[7] Forbes: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/464470-trump-takes-heat-from-right-over-vaping-crackdown

[8] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/17/771098368/juul-suspends-sales-of-flavored-vapes-and-signs-settlement-to-stop-marketing-to-

[9] Associated Press: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/washington-joins-other-states-in-flavored-vaping-ban.html#targetText=New%20York%2C%20Michigan%20and%20Rhode,vaping%20products%20%E2%80%94%20flavored%20or%20not.

How the Supreme Court Could Reshape Discrimination Lawsuits

Posted on November 15, 2019February 13, 2023 by Ashleigh Barber

On November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media.¹ The Court’s decision will determine how difficult it will be to bring future cases regarding possible discrimination and racial bias to trial.²

Facts of the Case

Byron Allen, an African American, owns Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which operates channels including JusticeCentral.TV and Pets.TV.³ Cable provider Comcast declined to carry ESN channels, citing capacity constraints and lack of demand.⁴ Allen alleges discrimination, claiming that Comcast offered untruthful excuses and added white-owned networks instead of his.⁵ Comcast calls the case frivolous, pointing out that a Carter-appointed district judge dismissed the case three times.⁶ The Supreme Court will decide if Allen’s case merits discovery and trial.⁷

Legal Arguments and Ramifications

Allen cites one of the first U.S. civil rights laws,⁸ the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866,⁹ which was intended to help former slaves overcome discriminatory “Black Codes” by guaranteeing them equal rights to make and enforce contracts.¹⁰ Allen calls it “an economic pathway for former slaves”¹¹that should ensure “equal access for economic opportunity for all Americans.”¹²

But does the law require Allen to prove that race was one motivating factor or the only factor in Comcast’s decision-making?¹³ Allen claims that the higher threshold would encode discrimination.¹⁴ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce asserts that the lower threshold would force businesses to settle costly nuisance suits¹⁵ rather than risk negative publicity and an onerous discovery process.¹⁶

Civil rights lawyers call¹⁷ the stricter test a “near-impossible”¹⁸ standard that would block victims’ suits¹⁹ and deter lawyers from taking their cases²⁰by precluding tactics like depositions.²¹ Drexel University law professor David S. Cohen summarizes, “Today very few people are openly racist, so they hide behind other reasons. A law that requires someone to say that race is the only reason for discrimination will be very hard to prove.”²²

Comcast states that it isn’t advocating a major legal change,²³ just a narrow ruling²⁴ that won’t have far-reaching effects.²⁵ Comcast touts its progressive diversity record²⁶ in programming and in developing African-American ownership²⁷ (which Allen disputes²⁸). Comcast calls the discrimination allegations a “preposterous”²⁹ business tactic.³⁰

Political Involvement

The Department of Justice took Comcast’s side (despite President Trump’s derision of Comcast-owned channels),³¹ advocating the higher standard³² with 10 minutes of Comcast’s argument time.³³ Some congressional Democrats have called for Comcast to be broken up,³⁴ while others have joined some 2020 Democratic presidential candidates³⁵ and over 20 civil rights organizations³⁶ (including the NAACP³⁷) in siding with Allen’s legal interpretation.

Some analysts see the conservative-leaning Supreme Court as unfriendly to civil rights plaintiffs³⁸ and guarding of higher pleading standards.³⁹ Though the justices appeared to favor Comcast during the hearing, Allen still expressed hope.⁴⁰ The Supreme Court decision is expected in June 2020.

Suggested Further Reading

READ: Explanation of the “But-for” legal test that will decide this case (from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute)

READ: Text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with historical context and study questions (from TeachingAmericanHistory.org, a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University)

READ: Analysis of the hearing from SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe

VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?

Discussion Questions:

Is it important to have diverse actors and characters on screen? Why or why not?
Is it important to have diversity among writers, directors, and producers of shows and movies? Why or why not?
Is it important to have diversity among owners of media companies? Why or why not?
Is the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still relevant over 150 years later? Why or why not?
In a discrimination trial, should Allen win if he can prove that Comcast was partially motivated by racial bias, or should he have to prove that bias is the only reason Comcast didn’t do business with him?
Respond to this quote from Allen’s lawyer (in a Washington Post article): “Imagine somebody goes to a hotel to rent a room and the clerk says, ‘We’re not renting a room to you because we don’t have rooms available and we don’t rent rooms to black people,’” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California’s Berkeley School of Law, who will argue on Allen’s behalf. “Under Comcast’s theory, that wouldn’t be enough to prove discrimination.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals thinks that if Comcast is partially motivated by racial bias, it doesn’t matter if the company also has legitimate business reasons not to carry Allen’s channels. The Ninth Circuit says that Allen should get a chance to gather more evidence by looking at Comcast documents and interviewing their employees, and then there should be a trial. Do you agree or disagree with the Ninth Circuit? Why?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Steve Helber, Associated Press, via https://images.wsj.net/im-123817?width=1260&size=1.5

[1] Oyez Project: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-1171

[2] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/supreme-court-race-discrimination-comcast/index.html

[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-comcast/supreme-court-to-hear-comcast-appeal-in-byron-allen-racial-bias-suit-idUSKCN1TB1QR

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Fox Business: https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/byron-allen-case-supreme-court-civil-rights

[7] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[8] U.S. House of Representatives History, Art, and Archives: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-Civil-Rights-Bill-of-1866/

[9] Federal Judicial Center: https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/civil-rights-act-1866

[10] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[11] American Bar Association ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/web/article/scotus-considers-whether-comcast-discriminated-against-entertainment-mogul-in-denying-cable-tv-slots

[12] Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byron-allen-comcast-supreme-court-case-135904187.html

[13] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/c2f708547aa04b65b68ecf571a0236b1

[14] NewsOne: https://newsone.com/3891953/everything-to-know-about-bryon-allens-20-billion-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-against-comcast/

[15] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[16] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[17] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/13/race-discrimination-standards-hang-balance-supreme-court-takes-up-comcast-suit/

[18] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcast-naacp-supreme-court-discrimination-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

[19] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/comcast/comcast-byron-allen-lawsuit-naacp-civil-rights-laws-20191002.html

[20] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[21] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/09/comcast-naacp-supreme-court-discrimination-battle-byron-allen-urban-league-1202747067/

[25] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447704-supreme-court-to-hear-racial-discrimination-case-against-comcast

[26] Ibid.

[27] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/11/comcast-breakup-threat-congressman-letter-byron-allen-lawsuit-1202781178/

[28] The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/447704-supreme-court-to-hear-racial-discrimination-case-against-comcast

[29] Associated Press: https://apnews.com/c2f708547aa04b65b68ecf571a0236b1

[30] Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byron-allen-comcast-supreme-court-case-135904187.html

[31] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[32] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/08/byron-allen-comcast-civil-rights-lawsuit-supreme-court-filing-reaction-doj-donald-trump-1202671369/

[33] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/11/comcast-breakup-threat-congressman-letter-byron-allen-lawsuit-1202781178/

[34] Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-11/comcast-faces-call-for-breakup-in-legal-fight-with-byron-allen

[35] Deadline: https://deadline.com/2019/10/kamala-harris-cory-booker-civil-rights-donald-trump-comcast-lawsuit-byron-allen-supreme-cout-1202751831/

[36] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/comcast/comcast-byron-allen-lawsuit-naacp-civil-rights-laws-20191002.html

[37] NAACP: https://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-statement-comcast-corporations-partnership-trump-administration-eviscerate-civil-rights-protections/

[38] Philadelphia Inquirer: https://www.inquirer.com/business/trump-comcast-civil-rights-byron-allen-race-hollywood-cable-20190907.html

[39] The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/byron-allen-v-comcast-supreme-court-race-case-could-reshape-bias-lawsuits-1245950

[40] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/13/comcast-poised-to-beat-20-billion-discrimination-case-at-supreme-court.html

What We Can Learn From the 2019 Elections

Posted on November 12, 2019October 5, 2020 by Ashleigh Barber

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, voters in eight states went to the polls to vote in local and statewide elections. Competitive gubernatorial and state legislative races were held in Kentucky, Mississippi, and Virginia.¹ These were the last elections before the 2020 census, which could result in the redrawing of political boundaries in each state. Furthermore, the results of these elections could be potential indicators of voter behavior and turnout in the 2020 election.

What Was at Stake in These Races?

In Kentucky, Republican Governor Matt Bevin, a strong supporter of President Trump and conservative policies, faced a strong challenge from state Attorney General Andy Beshear, a Democrat. Despite the fact that Kentucky is considered to be a strong Republican state (President Trump won the state by over 30 percentage points in 2016, and it’s the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), Democrats have found success in gubernatorial races there.² The unpopularity of Governor Bevin allowed the race to become highly competitive, giving Attorney General Beshear a jump in the polls.³ Many Democrats were hoping that seeing one of their own win in a state like Kentucky, which overwhelmingly votes Republican in national elections, would indicate the state’s voting behavior for 2020.

Ultimately, the gubernatorial race in Kentucky has been ruled too close to call, and Governor Bevin has formally asked for a recanvassing of the election. The recanvassing is currently scheduled for November 14.⁴ All other elections in the state were won by Republicans.⁵

In Virginia, which has become more of a purple state in recent years, the scandals among the top three officials (all Democrats) that unfolded earlier in 2019 had Republicans hoping that they would gain momentum in this year’s election, and allow them to hold onto control of the state Senate and House of Delegates.⁶ Despite the scandals, Democrats seized full control of the state legislature, marking the first time that Democrats have controlled the entire state government in over two decades.⁷

Mississippi’s gubernatorial election, although more competitive than elections in years past, saw Republican Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves defeat Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat. The heavy turnout from both parties shows how engaged voters are in the political scene, both locally and in anticipation of the 2020 election.⁸ However, even with this heightened sense of engagement from both sides, Democrats did not claim any statewide office or function of government in Mississippi last Tuesday.⁹

The 2019 elections reflected a higher sense of political engagement across both parties, but the effects of voter turnout and engagement moving towards the 2020 election remain unknown. In the coming weeks, strategists from both major political parties will attempt to find patterns in last week’s elections as they look ahead to the presidential race.

Discussion Questions:

Do any of these election results surprise you? Why or why not?
What do you think these results might tell us about voter behavior in the upcoming 2020 election?
Do you think elections before a census year are more important? Why or why not?
How might voter turnout in local elections be different than turnout in national elections?
Do you believe these elections received more national attention than usual? If so, why do you think that might be?
How closely linked do you think local and state elections are to national elections?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Steve Helber, Associated Press, via https://images.wsj.net/im-123817?width=1260&size=1.5

[1] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776208910/its-election-day-2019-here-s-what-to-watch

[2] Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/polls-open-in-states-facing-tests-of-party-control-11572951600

[3] Fivethirtyeight.com: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-2019-elections/

[4] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776937037/kentucky-gop-gov-bevin-officially-requests-recanvass-of-election-results

[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/05/us/elections/results-kentucky-governor-general-election.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/virginia-election-democrats-control/index.html

[8] Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tate-reeves-mississippi-governor-race

[9] Mississippi Today: https://mississippitoday.org/2019/11/07/tuesdays-results-leave-democrats-controlling-nothing-in-state-government/

Eliminate Illegal Immigration; Make Immigration Work for the Economy

Posted on October 9, 2019August 16, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

Immigration policy and enforcement continues to be a major area of conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Currently, Congress is considering many bills related to immigration, asylum, migrant detention, and family separation. This week, we will look at two proposals that Republicans are advancing; two weeks ago, we examined two bills that Democrats are advancing.

Republicans have two main goals for immigration policy: to drastically reduce illegal immigration and to ensure that immigration is good for the U.S. economy.

In May, President Trump proposed sweeping changes to the U.S. immigration system. In addition to boosting border security and securing funding for a wall on the southern border, President Trump aims to reduce the number of poor or unskilled immigrants in favor of immigrants with education or expertise that will contribute to the U.S. economy.¹

Border security, and especially the proposal for a border wall, has received ample attention and is a central focus in two of our earlier posts (see: The Shutdown: It’s Over! … Isn’t It? and State of Uncertainty: Emergency Declaration on the Border). In this post, we will take up two proposals to change legal immigration in ways that Republicans believe will help the U.S. economy.

Secure and Protect Act of 2019

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced this bill in May; it reached the full Senate in August. The bill addresses many aspects of immigration related to seeking asylum or refugee status and to the treatment of undocumented migrants. The bill would make several key changes to the system, including:

Lengthening the amount of time the government is permitted to hold children away from their families, from 20 days to 100 days;
Making immigration officers the sole authority on whether or not a minor is capable of making their own decisions in the immigration process;
Establishing refugee processing centers in certain countries (designated by the secretary of Homeland Security), especially in Central America; and
Barring people from countries with those processing centers from seeking asylum.²

These changes would allow the Trump administration to automatically reject asylum claims made by migrants from Central America; their only paths to entry would be legal immigration or the refugee process.

LISTEN: What is the difference between refugees and asylum seekers?

Deny Visas to Immigrants Who Cannot Afford Health Insurance

The Trump administration has plans to implement a policy of rejecting visa applications from immigrants who cannot prove that they could afford health insurance or other health-related costs.³ President Trump signed a proclamation on October 4 stating that the new practice will begin in November 2019.

Explaining the shift in policy, Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute said, “The administration is on-the-record wanting to cut legal immigration, and particularly wanting to cut legal immigration of lower-skilled, lower-paid immigrants who are probably less likely to have health insurance coverage.”⁴

Supporting his proclamation, President Trump said, “Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our health care system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.”⁵

Summary

These two proposals, and the two Democratic proposals examined two weeks ago, show the different priorities of the two major political parties on the issue of immigration. While Republicans want to limit both legal and illegal immigration, Democrats are attempting to check the president’s power and to ensure humane treatment of undocumented migrants.

Discussion Questions

When you think of immigration, what do you see as the most serious issue?
Should the United States take steps to reduce numbers of legal immigrants? Why or why not?
When you compare the four proposals (two from Democrats and two from Republicans), whose vision for immigration do you most support?
What do you think the United States’ big-picture immigration goals should be?

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Handout/Reuters, via the Washington Post

[1] PBS Newshour: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/whats-in-trumps-immigration-proposal

[2] Library of Congress’ Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1494

[3] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-immigrants-who-cant-prove-they-can-pay-for-health-care/

[4] Ibid.

[5] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767453276/trump-bars-immigrants-who-cannot-pay-for-health-care

The Global Climate Strike

Posted on September 25, 2019July 9, 2021 by Ashleigh Barber

To help students explore the climate change debate, please see our resource on climate change policy here.

Over one million workers, students, and others engaged in the global climate strike on Friday, September 20, in an effort to call for more significant action to combat climate change.¹ This was the third in a series of worldwide strikes organized by students; the rally was planned to coincide with the United Nations Climate Action Summit.²

What are the students’ demands?

The organizers of the strike state their demands as follows:

“The climate crisis is an emergency – we want everyone to start acting like it. We demand climate justice for everyone. Our hotter planet is already hurting millions of people. If we don’t act now to transition fairly and swiftly away from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy for all, the injustice of the climate crisis will only get worse. We need to act right now to stop burning fossil fuels and ensure a rapid energy revolution with equity, reparations, and climate justice at its heart.”³

At the New York City rally, marchers chanted, “You had a future, and so should we.”⁴

Why strike?

Many young people in the United States and many people the world over are upset that policymakers are not seriously addressing climate change. Recent reports from the UN and the U.S. government, among others, have called attention to the dire challenges of climate change. The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment declares, “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.”⁵ The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that “[f]uture climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak, and duration of warming,” and that it is too late to avoid some, but not all, of the impacts of climate change.⁶

Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish activist, spoke for many young people when she said, “You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you. … You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”⁷

WATCH: Greta Thunberg speaks at the Climate Action Summit

What else is being done?

In the United States, there is a court case, Juliana v. United States, that argues that there is a fundamental right to a stable, livable climate and that the U.S. government is denying young people that right.⁸ The case began in 2015, with the most recent action taking place in June 2019. There will likely be continued climate efforts in the courts, as many are frustrated with elected officials’ lack of progress.