Pricing: Free

ERA Won’t Go Away

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

“Yes Virginia, there is an ERA”

“One State to 38!”

These slogans adorned the banners and signs that ERA supporters brought to the Virginia State Capitol at the beginning of the General Assembly’s legislative session this January. ¹ ERA activists are hoping that this year’s session would include a floor vote on ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, born in 1923, passed by Congress in 1972, but has lingered in ratification limbo ever since.

The history of the ERA is long and winding. After the 19thAmendment guaranteed women’s right to vote, suffrage leaders determined that the next step was full legal and political equality.  Suffrage leader Alice Paul drafted the ERA in 1921 and it was introduced to Congress in December of 1923. Almost 50 years later, in 1972, the amendment was approved by Congress and moved into the ratification phase.  At this point, the process became more complex.  The Amendment was initially given a passage deadline of seven years.  If 38 states did not ratify by 1979, the amendment would die.  In 1978, the amendment was three states short of ratification and supporters pointed out that the deadline was written into the preambleof the amendment, not the amendment itself. This loophole allowed for an additional three years for ratification.  By this point, there was a large political backlash against the women’s rights movement and the three states never materialized. ²

What is the Equal Rights Amendment?: This overview from Washington, DC’s ABC News affiliate helps answer the question.

The ERA seemed lost to time until 1992, when a 203 year old bill outlining restrictions on Congressional pay was passed as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Supporters of the ERA started to build political support for the “Three-State Strategy”, claiming that if three additional states ratify the Amendment, Congress can retroactively remove the deadline on the amendment. In essence, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment gave a precedent for Congress to change or eliminate deadlines to ratification and new hope to ERA supporters. In 2017, Illinois ratified the ERA followed by Nevada in 2018.  The next state to ratify could secure the 38 states needed and bring the question of deadlines right to the feet of Congress.

Back in Virginia, the state Senate approved a floor vote on ratification but the vote was then denied by the House of Delegates Committee on Privileges and Elections.  With this denial, the Virginia General Assembly does not have a way forward to vote on the issue of ratification, and the Amendment is still one state short of passing.³

The debate over the Equal Rights Amendment has brought up a host of complicated questions that both supporters and opponents have trouble grappling with.  Among these questions: Should women be included in Selective Service? What is the court’s role in determining the presence of gender discrimination? How will this affect sex-based labor protections such as protections for pregnant workers?  Among all of these, the questions of the proper process to approve Constitutional Amendments looms the largest. The amendment seems to die, only to be resurrected by new precedents extending the procedural timeline.  Although it has been almost a century since its introduction to Congress, ERA simply won’t go away.

Discussion Questions

  1. Should a timeline be imposed on ratification of constitutional amendments? Should there be any special circumstances for a timeline?
  2. The process of passing constitutional amendments is difficult and time consuming. What is the rationale for this? What is the benefit of passing an amendment instead of federal law?
  3. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, Number 43 “[The Constitution] equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of… as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.” There are two paths for amendments to be proposed: Passed by Congress or submitted by state conventions.  Since the founding of the nation, ALL amendments have been Congress-led instead of state-led.  Why do you think this is? If the three-state strategy is not successful, do you think a state convention would be appropriate?

 

Sources
Featured Image: Politico.com 
[1]Geen, G., & Zernik, A. (2019, January 10). Virginia vote moves Equal Rights Amendment closer to ratification. Retrieved from https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/virginia/2019/01/10/virginia-vote-moves-equal-rights-amendment-closer-ratification/2534584002/
[2]Epps, G. (2019, January 20). The Equal Rights Amendment Strikes Again. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/will-congress-ever-ratify-equal-rights-amendment/580849/
[3]Wilson, P. (2019, January 22). House panel rejects ERA on 4-2 vote after Va. lawmaker spars with longtime activist. Retrieved from https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/general-assembly/house-panel-rejects-era-on—vote-after-va/article_45e46ed7-fc84-5e5a-a68d-4dfabdb487c3.html

 

The Shutdown: It’s Over!…Isn’t It?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

In 1978, Kenny Rogers released “The Gambler,” a song that details the sage advice of an avid poker player. The lyrics famously contain the chorus, “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” Fittingly, the song debuted less than a month after a government shutdown. Now, over 40 years later, President Trump may be wishing he’d added the song to his playlist five weeks ago.

The government shutdown has officially ended after reaching the 35-day mark, becoming the longest in American history. The Trump administration refused to fund the government without at least $5.7 billion being set aside for construction of a wall on the southern border.1 After saying he would “take the mantle” for the shutdown, the president gave a televised address attempting to outline why he felt the wall was essential for border security and why shutting down the government to ensure its funding was necessary.2

During the course of those five weeks, over 800,000 federal workers missed two paychecks, accounting for over $6 billion in delayed wages.3 These workers will eventually be reimbursed, but the numerous businesses who depend on those workers to spend their earnings will not be. Furthermore, an S&P Global Ratings estimate places the total impact on the U.S. economy over the course of the shutdown as at least $6 billion, a full $300 million more than the desired wall funding.4

Worst of all for the Trump administration is that after 35 days of holding out, the shutdown ended without a single dollar allocated for the wall. The funding package passed by Congress and signed by the president is virtually identical to the package President Trump refused to approve, triggering the shutdown.5

However, it may not really be over.

As it stands, the government is funded only until February 15. Congress must pass a new funding package by then to keep the government running throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2019 (which ends on September 30). President Trump has suggested that the three-week period will give his administration and congressional Republicans time to reach a new deal with Democrats, which may include funding for the wall. Democrats have already signaled that will not be the case.6

President Trump is now left with two options. As he has already suggested, he may initiate another shutdown on February 15 if the requested $5.7 billion for wall funding is not in the new budget. Alternatively, he could declare a state of emergency on the southern border and use his powers as commander-in-chief to order the military to begin construction on the wall to the tune of $7 billion.7

President Trump and members of his administration have already promoted this second option, as a way of ending the first shutdown. Promoters suggest that not only is this the president’s right, but that it offers a way of keeping his campaign promises without bringing the government to a stand-still.8 Detractors argue that a wall is an effective solution for border security, and a majority of Americans do not want it.9

For more on public opinion and understanding of the issue, see How Americans see Illegal Immigration, the Border Wall and Political Compromise from the Pew Research Center

Furthermore, the president’s right to use the military for the wall’s construction is not certain and many have objected to the use of $7 billion in disaster relief funds, which may negatively impact ongoing relief efforts in Puerto Rico, California, and Texas.10

As the next three weeks play out, I know that I’ll be listening to “The Gambler” a least a few times.

Discussion Questions

1) Ask students to conduct a take-a-stand. On side A, “The importance of the wall made a government shutdown necessary,” and on side B, “The wall was not important enough to shut down the government.” Once students have taken their positions, hold a discussion or a brief debate so they can share their perspectives.

2) One of the core principles of the Constitution is the idea of compromise. If the president decides a policy is important, should Congress be expected to incorporate elements of it into their decision-making? Is it reasonable for Congress to reject a presidential policy outright?

3) If no funding for a border wall is allocated by February 15, should the president allow the government to shut down again? Should he declare a state of emergency to build the wall and avoid shutting down the government? Are there other options to consider?

4) Should the president be allowed to declare a state of emergency to accomplish a policy goal that Congress has already rejected? Does the president’s role as commander-in-chief and primary executor of the law give him the right to use the military to enact a security policy? Does the use of the military and the reallocation of disaster relief funding constitute an overreach of executive authority?

Sources
Featured Image: Photo by Pedro Pardo, AFP; source: The Mercury News 

[1] Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18171913/shutdown-trump-speech-wall-funding

[2] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-owns-this-shutdown-debacle/2019/01/15/ca41aac8-18dc-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.f3684b9f50fa

[3] Federal News Network: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-shutdown/2019/01/by-the-numbers-how-much-money-is-the-shutdown-costing-fed-families/

[4] Fox Business: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/heres-how-much-the-government-shutdown-cost-according-to-sp

[5] The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/shutdown-over-trump-relents/581323/

[6] Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/25/18197710/government-shutdown-over-trump-border-wall-deal

[7] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/us/politics/trump-shutdown-deal.html

[8] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/trump-border-wall-emergency-draft/index.html

[9] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/16/most-americans-oppose-wall-and-oppose-ending-shutdown-by-funding-it/

[10] Associated Press: https://www.apnews.com/5c73c196033fb4f48b9588a0901e2556

H.R. 1 – A Bill to Rescue Democracy?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

The first bill introduced in the new Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is H.R. 1, informally known as the For the People Act. (The bill’s full title is H.R. 1: To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.)

Democrats in Congress say the bill is intended to limit corruption, expand access to the ballot, and make the government more responsive to the people. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has called the bill a “power grab” and an attempt to “grow the federal government’s power over Americans’ political speech and elections.”

 

What Does the For the People Act Do?

From Vox:

“The bill covers three main planks: campaign finance reform, strengthening the government’s ethics laws, and expanding voting rights. Here’s the important part of each section.”

Campaign Finance

  • “Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under [Representative John Sarbanes’, D-Md.,] vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over.
  • Support for a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.
  • Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
  • Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Mark Warner (Va.) and introduced by Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) in the House, which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platforms and share how much money was spent.
  • Disclosing any political spending by government contractors and slowing the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell companies.
  • Restructuring the Federal Election Commission to have five commissioners instead of the current four.”

Ethics

  • “Requiring the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must also do the same.
  • Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.
  • Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements. These include more oversight into foreign agents by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
  • Creating a new ethical code for the U.S. Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.”

Voting Rights

  • “Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting, same-day voter registration, and online voter registration would also be promoted.
  • Making Election Day a holiday for federal employees and encouraging private sector businesses to do the same, requiring poll workers to provide a week’s notice if poll sites are changed, and making colleges and universities a voter registration agency (in addition to the DMV, etc.), among other updates.
  • Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging. The bill would stop the use of non-forwardable mail being used as a way to remove voters from rolls.
  • Beefing up elections security, including requiring the director of national intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.
  • Recruiting and training more poll workers ahead of the 2020 election to cut down on long lines at the polls.”

Senate Majority Leader McConnell has called the bill “a naked attempt to change the rules of American politics to benefit one party.” He has already said that the bill will not come up for a vote in the Senate, even if it passes in the House (which it probably will). Still, Democrats have said that they will continue to push these ideas by breaking the bill into smaller pieces to pass a few ideas at a time.

 

Questions to Discuss

  1. What have you heard about issues such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter turnout, and government ethics in recent months and years?
  2. Which ideas among those included in the bill do you think are likely to be controversial? Why?
  3. Are there any ideas that you support? Any that you oppose? What is your reasoning?
  4. Why do you think this is a major area of focus for Democrats?

 

Optional Extension Activities

  1. Conduct a short debate after having students read the three opinion articles below.
  2. Place students in groups of 2-3 and assign each group one of the reforms listed above. Have them research the reform and write a one-page memo that gives background about the issue and a short statement in support of and in opposition to the reform. Students can use the memos to teach each other about their reforms; the memos can also be compiled into a packet and circulated online to inform other students and community members about the reforms in the bill.

 

Additional Resources

 

Sources:
Featured Image: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images (Representative John Sarbanes, D-Md., the bill’s author, addresses the media.)

 

 

10 Things to Know About the Government Shutdown

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Why did the American government shut down? As summarized by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: “Every year, Congress must pass and the president must sign budget legislation for the next fiscal year (FY), consisting of 12 appropriations bills, one for each appropriations subcommittee. When the federal government’s fiscal year began October 1, Congress had enacted five of the 12 appropriations bills for FY 2019. Lawmakers have not yet passed full-year appropriations for the departments and agencies covered by the other seven appropriations bills.” The law associated with government shutdowns is the Antideficiency Act, which was enacted in 1870 and extensively amended in 1950 and 1982. The law prevents the use of funds without appropriation, except when the government activity involves “the safety of human life or protection of property” (Source). According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), there have been 19 government shutdowns in the U.S. since 1977. Previous shutdowns have lasted anywhere from one to 21 days. The current shutdown is 24 days long (and counting), having started on December 21, 2018 (the deadline stated in the continuing resolution), making it the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Source: New York Times

 

Why is this considered a partial American government shutdown? Only about 25 percent of the federal government remains unfunded. During a shutdown, any agency or department that has not had their funding appropriated by the deadline will run out of funding and must stop all non-essential activity.Source: CRS with data from the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress.

 

Which appropriations bills are being impacted by the 2019 U.S. government shutdown? Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, State-Foreign Operations, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development. The operations in these sections of the government were being funded until December 21, 2018, through a continuing resolution (CR). A CR is a measure that Congress often passes to avoid a shutdown by extending the current level of funding, giving lawmakers more time to complete appropriations for the new fiscal year.

 

What’s all the fighting about? There is disagreement in the government about one thing in particular: funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. President Donald Trump is pushing for $5.7 billion in funding for the wall and is being met with extreme resistance in Congress (particularly in the Democrat-held House of Representatives). Democrats have conceded to supporting $1.6 billion for border security (obviously lower than President Trump’s request) and would allocate those funds for “general” border security rather than for a wall.

 

Have any solutions been introduced? Some attempts have been made in Congress, but no bill has succeeded thus far. The House passed a bill (H.R. 264) that included a 1.9 percent civilian pay raise for federal employees, but no funding for the border wall. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not address the bill on the floor of the Senate and blocked it from a vote (Source).Senate Majority Leader McConnell said,  “The Senate will not waste its time considering a Democratic bill which cannot pass this chamber and which the president will not sign.” He went on to say that the legislation presented by the House was not brought up for a vote in the Senate because, “It isn’t comprehensive. It ignores the needs of border security. It is exactly the kind of proposal you would expect if the incoming House Democrats were choosing to stage a political sideshow rather than doing the hard work of helping to govern the country; in other words, it is a total nonstarter.”President Trump has said that he doesn’t see the shutdown lasting that long, but he is prepared to let it “go on for months or even a year or longer” (Source). As for the Senate, it technically has the power to override a presidential veto, allowing for the government to reopen if two-thirds of each chamber were to pass the bill.

 

What about federal employees—are they working? Are they being paid? There are about 380,000 federal workers currently furloughed and an additional 420,000 who are considered “essential.” Furloughed employees are required to stay home from work without pay (but will receive back pay once the government re-opens). Essential employees are required to report to work as usual, but they will not be paid (until they receive back pay when the U.S. shutdown ends). There is no guarantee that furloughed employees will receive back pay (Congress must pass a bill that does this), but it has been the practice in previous shutdowns. Luckily for impacted federal workers, Congress passed the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (S. 24) on January 11. The bill will secure back pay for workers impacted by this American government shutdown—it addresses both pay that has already been missed and any future missed pay that comes as a result of the shutdown.

 

Is this such a bad thing? Doesn’t it save taxpayers money when a government shutdown in the U.S. occurs? It is understandable to think that, but it actually costs us money when the government shuts down. Using data from past shutdowns, CRS compiled a report on the potential and likely costs of a government shutdown. The costs associated with the U.S. shutdown were broken down by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) into five broad categories:

  • Effects on the economy
  • Federal employee furloughs
  • Impacts on programs and services
  • Other budgetary costs
  • Impacts on the federal workforce

OMB has said that paying back pay to furloughed employees is historically the largest direct cost of an American government shutdown, as taxpayers will pay furloughed employees for work not performed. OMB estimated that costs of back pay to furloughed employees in the FY 2014 shutdown came to about $2 billion, plus an additional $500 million in benefits.

The CRS report also outlined some of the effects of the two government shutdowns in the U.S. in FY 1996:

    • The closure of more than 368 parks, museums, and monuments. The closure of these sites meant a loss of seven million visitors who would have been providing tourism revenue for the site itself and for the local community around the site. (In the current 2019 U.S. government shutdown, approximately one-third of national park sites are closed; at others, few if any staff are on hand.)
    • Visas, passports, and travel. Tens of thousands of visa and passport applications went unprocessed, and various U.S. tourism sectors, such as aviation, reportedly incurred millions of dollars in losses. (In the current shutdown, the State Department is continuing to offer passport services.)

 

What is the impact of this American government shutdown? Another fact about the government shutdown is that it has had a wide-ranging impact across the government and in various aspects of American life.

Government-sponsored social programs have varying levels of funding left. The Department of Agriculture, for example, announced on January 8 that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits will be extended into February and school lunch programs will be given an additional two months of funding to take coverage into March.

Without protection in national parks, trash and debris are piling up and some people are using the lack of supervision to break rules and misuse park resources. For example, people have been found illegally driving off-road in Joshua Tree National Park; some even cut down protected Joshua trees in order to create roads into the forest.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that around 1,150 housing contracts are on the verge of default because the shutdown is preventing people from receiving their federal housing assistance. The agency has written to landlords requesting that they use surplus funds to avoid eviction of tenants as long as they can (or until the shutdown ends). The Federal Housing Administration released a statement requesting that lenders be understanding of federal workers who are going without pay and sent a letter to lenders about the U.S. shutdown.

According to economists at the financial services company S&P Global, a government shutdown is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $1.2 billion a week.

 

Can I take a flight? Is it safe? While the airports are understaffed, you can still take a flight. According to the Wall Street Journal, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers are part of the 420,000 essential employees across government agencies who are required to work without pay during the shutdown. On January 11, TSA employees and air traffic controllers missed their first paycheck.

For TSA employees, there has been an increase in unplanned call-outs for things like illness and weather over the last week or so. For the weeks prior to the first missed paycheck, TSA had an absentee rate of about 5 percent; that rate is up to 7.6 percent as of January 14.

Air traffic controllers have gone a step further: on Friday, they filed a lawsuit in federal court. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association alleges that the government “unlawfully deprived” thousands of members of pay “without due process” and are suing the Trump administration.

While airports and the TSA are assuring passengers that staffing shortages have not decreased airport security and will not affect travel, certain groups in the aviation industry do not believe this will last for long. A group of 34 trade groups, associations, and unions that represent various aviation industry employees (like pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics) got together and wrote a letter to President Trump, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell. The letter laid out in detail the negative impacts that the shutdown is having on the industry and its employees. “This partial shutdown has already inflicted real damage to our nation’s aviation system and the impacts will only worsen over time,” they wrote. “We urge you to act quickly to resolve these issues.”

 

Does our military still protect us if the government is shut down? The military is almost completely unaffected by government shutdowns in the US, as the Department of Defense’s budget was passed separately in September. However, because the Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security, that branch has been impacted by furloughs and lack of pay.

 

Discussion Questions:

  • Do you think Congress should fund a border wall? Why or why not?
  • Do you agree with President Trump’s decision to keep the government shut down until a border wall is written into the budget? Why or why not?
  • How, if at all, do you think this government shutdown might impact the way the world views the United States?
  • How, if at all, might bias impact the way that various news outlets discuss the ongoing shutdown?
  • How might the shutdown impact the lives of citizens if it continues for many months? At what point, if any, is the cost to citizens too great to justify the shutdown?

 

More information from CRS can be found here:

 

Sources:
Featured image: ABC News

 

The New Congress and the Government Shutdown

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber
Source: USA TODAY research

On January 3, the 116th Congress was sworn in as directed by the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. The incoming Congress will be the most diverse in history. Here are some facts about the makeup of the new Congress:

  • In the House of Representatives, Democrats will now be in the majority with 235 members. Republicans will have 199 members.
  • There are 100 new members of the House, comprising 23 percent of the chamber.
  • In the Senate, Republicans increased their majority by one. There are now 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents (who caucus with Democrats). Ten of these senators are new to the chamber.
  • The 116th Congress will include 106 female members of the House (24 percent of the chamber) and 25 women in the Senate (25 percent of the chamber). Both are the highest levels of female representation in history.
  • Among the House freshman class are the first Native American congresswomen and the first Muslim congresswomen.
  • For the first time, more than ten percent of Congress is African-American.

There is one vacancy in the House, as the election in North Carolina’s Ninth District is unresolved. The Republican nominee, Mark Harris, received 905 more counted votes than his opponent, but there is evidence of illegal election activities performed on his behalf. The North Carolina Board of Elections has dissolved without certifying a winner in the race; thus, nobody will be seated from this district for the foreseeable future. There may be a new election, but there will be 434 members of the House for the time being.

 

What Will be the Impact of Democrats Taking Over the House?

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is the new speaker of the House. The speaker runs the House, controls the agenda, and influences the shape and content of legislation. It is very difficult for a proposal to receive a floor vote without the support of the speaker; at the same time, if the speaker supports a particular piece of legislation, she can easily make sure there is a floor vote.

Democrats will also control House committees, as they will hold committee chairmanships and more seats on each committee than Republicans. Chairpersons control committee agendas and determine which bills go to the entire chamber. With more votes, Democrats will be able to get more bills and amendments passed through committees.

Of course, Republicans still control both the Senate and the White House, and enacting legislation in a divided government is difficult. Each party has its own priorities and it is hard to find compromise in an era of intense partisanship. This will be especially true for the present government shutdown.

 

What Is a Government Shutdown?

Every year, the new Congress must pass, and the president must sign, the budget for the federal government. The budget consists of 12 appropriations bills that must be passed alone or together in order to fund the government. The fiscal year for the federal government runs from October 1 through September 30; theoretically, the budget should be passed before October 1, but this almost never happens.

If appropriations bills are not passed by October 1, Congress usually sends a continuing resolution (CR) to the president to fund the government at previous levels until a certain date.

 

Why Is There Currently a Government Shutdown?

The last CR passed by Congress expired on December 21. President Donald Trump has refused to sign any additional CRs or appropriations bills unless they contain $5 billion to construct a wall on the southern border. As Democrats take over the House, they are expected to pass appropriations bills and CRs and send them to the Senate, but the Senate is unlikely to bring them to a vote unless there is an agreement with President Trump. Without funding, federal departments and agencies that get their funding through the budget process do not fully function.

NOTE: Appropriations bills for the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Energy have been passed and signed, so those departments are not affected by the shutdown. Departments affected by the shutdown include Homeland Security, Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Interior, State, and Transportation. Technically, this is a “partial” government shutdown.

 

What Does a Government Shutdown Impact?

Activities and services that have been deemed essential will continue, but those who work in those jobs are not paid as they continue to work (traditionally, workers receive back pay when the dispute ends). Approximately 800,000 federal employees will neither report to work nor draw a paycheck (similarly, Congress can pass legislation to pay furloughed workers after the shutdown ends). The longer the shutdown goes, some of these public servants will have trouble paying bills, including mortgages.

Activities that will cease during the shutdown include:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency will stop site inspections, including those of hazardous waste, drinking water, and chemical facilities.
  • The Social Security Administration will continue to issue checks, but benefit verification and the issuing of new cards will stop.
  • National parks will either be open on a limited basis or closed. Smithsonian museums will close.
  • On many Native American reservations, police are not being paid, roads are not being plowed, and food pantries are closing.
  • Food stamps are still being funded through emergency appropriations, but those will not cover all of February’s obligations.

 

How Will the Shutdown End?

Both chambers of Congress need to pass, and the president must sign, a CR or the rest of the remaining appropriations bills (or a combination of both). This process takes some time, so even if an agreement is negotiated it will take another couple of days to end the shutdown.

In an address to the nation tonight, President Trump will make his case for funding the border wall before ending the government shutdown. Democrats, meanwhile, have made their own plans to address the shutdown during their first days in power.

 

Who is Right?

President Trump is arguing that $5 billion in border security, whether it funds a wall or something like a wall, is essential for protecting the country and ending the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. He insists that he was elected on the promise of building a wall on the southern border, and it is time for Congress to act.

Democrats in Congress argue that $5 billion is too much to spend, that the public does not support building a wall, and that a wall is a stale attempt at security at a time when newer technologies are cheaper and more effective.

 

Student Activity:

Here is a statement by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. And here is the view of Representative Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz.

  • Have students read the statements and find the different points being made. Which arguments are the strongest? Which arguments are the weakest? Why?
  • Have students fact-check the arguments.
  • Have students explain which side they agree with more.
  • Have students explain if they believe the government should be shut down over the issue of building the wall.
  • If students agree, ask them why this issue (the border wall) is so important that it merits a government shutdown. If students disagree, ask them if there are issues that do merit a government shutdown.
  • Here is a compromise suggested by former Representative Steve Israel, D-N.Y. Have students explain the main points of this solution, and whether or not they would support this solution. Why or why not?

 

Sources:
Featured image: CBSNews.com

 

Criminal Justice Reform: The First Step Act

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

On December 21st, President Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 into law. In addition to being a notable act of bipartisanship, the act will have far reaching implications for the nation’s criminal justice system and will have meaningful impacts on the lives of incarcerated people.

The bill, whose title is an acronym for Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person, is intended to somewhat reduce prison sentences for non-violent offenders, and to promote programs aimed at reducing recidivism rates. (Recidivism is the tendency to again commit the same or related crimes after being released from prison.)

For a brief history of the Act and of related efforts, see this article in The New Yorker: The Improbable Success of a Criminal-Justice-Reform Bill Under Trump

Summary of the Act:

  • Sentencing Reduction: Reduces the mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes and for repeat offenders. Reduces the federal sentencing guidelines (which are considered during sentencing, but which do not determine sentence length).
  • Change in mandatory minimum policy: In addition to reducing mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, the bill also establishes mandatory minimums for violent offenses.
  • Recidivism reduction: The bill expands the amount of credits that inmates can receive for successfully participating in recidivism reduction programs such as counseling and education.
  • Prisoner Treatment: The bill includes provisions that address how inmates are treated in federal prisons; for example, the bill prohibits the use of restraints on pregnant inmates except in certain situations.

Read the full text of S. 756, the FIRST STEP Act of 2018.

Since the passage of the bill, most public opinion has been positive. Much media coverage focused on the process and the fact that something passed with bipartisan support. It has been taken as evidence that there is still the possibility of compromise and cooperation between Republicans and Democrats. Less attention has been paid, at least so far, to the effects of the bill and to the question of whether or not this was a good bill. Some questions to discuss with your students include:

  • Do you support reducing prison sentences for drug offenders? Why or why not?
  • What do you think are the most important goals of placing criminals in prison?: To protect the public? To punish the criminal? To convince others not to commit crime? To rehabilitate people so that they can reenter society? Something else?
  • Do you think that this bill went far enough? Why or why not?
  • To what extent do you think racial disparities and racial bias in the criminal justice system is an important issue?

Some resources to help students and teachers discuss these and other pressing questions include:

 

Sources:
Featured Image: Southern Coalition for Social Justice

 

New Year, New Congress

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Congress is adjourning for the holiday break and when it comes back in January, the new congressional class will be the most diverse in history. The November elections saw historic wins for women and minority groups that have lacked representatives of their demographics.

The 116th Congress will include several notable members:

  • There will be a record 125 women in Congress
  • Twenty-one percent of members will be black, Hispanic, or Native American
  • Sharice Davids (KS-03) and Debra Haaland (NM-01) are the first two Native American women elected to Congress
  • Davids is also the first openly LGBTQ person elected to Congress from Kansas
  • Veronica Escobar (TX-16) and Sylvia Garcia (TX-29) are the first two Latinas elected to Congress from Texas
  • Marsha Blackburn is the first female elected senator from Tennessee
  • At 29, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) is the youngest woman elected to Congress
  • Ilhan Omar (MN-05) and Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) are the first two Muslim American women elected to Congress
  • Omar is also the first woman of color elected from Minnesota¹

A great infographic can be found here.

Although some new members of Congress have garnered quite a bit of news coverage (namely Ocasio-Cortez and her Twitter exchanges), the overall story of a more diverse Congress is yet to be written. The gains by Democrats in the House of Representatives, along with the increase in women and minorities, is already being dissected in terms of the next presidential election. Is the increase of women’s engagement in politics a response to Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016? Will Democrats reconsider the mostly white, male candidates that are moving into the forefront for 2020? How will Republicans respond in terms of their engagement of women in their party?

Source: Roll Call

Political pundits have been continuously discussing “identity politics” since the last presidential election, but one new member of Congress has commented on the issue very succinctly. As reported in the Washington Post, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma stated, “I’m very excited to be part of this new class that looks a lot more like our communities.”²

Is this then the essence of identity politics? For a representative body to “look” like the citizens they are representing? Or does this simply reduce politicians to their demographic data? Most of the newly elected members of Congress campaigned on identity issues and embrace their diversity. During the next congressional session, we will see how this translates to the world of policymaking.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How important are a candidate’s demographics to you? How important is it that a candidate has the same sex as you? Race? Religion? Social background? (A Take-A-Stand exercise would work well here.)
  2. Do you think it is the role of government to promote or advance diversity and inclusion in elected office?
  3. Some nations have national quotas for women and certain minority groups in elected office. Would this be appropriate in the United States? On a federal level? On the state level?

 

Sources:
Featured image: Freshman class of the 116th Congress, NBCNews.com; Mandel Ngan, AFP
[1] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/interactive_116th-congress-freshman-younger-bluer-diverse/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diversity-on-stark-display-as-houses-incoming-freshmen-gather-in-washington/2018/11/13/87ef9a5c-e783-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa63b7597154

 

Don’t Like the Election Results? Change Them!

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Just when you thought it was safe to declare the 2018 midterm elections over…

Historically, the results of elections have always been honored, even when the fairness of a given contest is debatable. In recent history, for example, some people questioned to what extent the elections of John F. Kennedy1, Richard Nixon2, Ronald Reagan3, George W. Bush4, and Donald Trump5 were influenced by domestic and/or foreign interference. Nevertheless, these men were sworn in as president with the full rights and privileges afforded to that office.

However, in the 2018 midterms, some have begun to question whether the line that protects the results of elections has been crossed.

On November 6, 2018, Wisconsin voters chose to replace incumbent Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, with Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers, a Democrat. The same night, Wisconsinites elected a new attorney general, Democrat Josh Kaul. Despite Democrats’ electoral victories, Republicans retained control of both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature. And this week, in the lame-duck session, the Legislature passed several bills that would limit the powers of the governor and the attorney general. These bills will go into effect in the new legislative session, unless outgoing Governor Walker vetoes them (which is unlikely).

Among their provisions, the bills limit the governor’s ability to overturn current work requirements for health care recipients under the Affordable Care Act, restrict the governor’s ability to ban guns on Wisconsin State Capitol grounds, and prevent the governor from appointing a new head of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation until September, giving the Legislature the ability to make lower appointments in the meantime.

In the wake of these actions, some observers have strongly criticized Wisconsin Republicans. Governor-elect Evers will still be inaugurated in January, but some critics suggest that with the changes being pursued by the Legislature, he is essentially assuming a different office, one with fewer powers than the office he ran for. These critics argue that the Republican-controlled Legislature has figured out a way to legally change the results of the election: don’t replace the candidate, just replace the job.6

Republicans tell a different story. They argue that what they are doing is perfectly legal. The only thing that prevents lawmakers from making changes like this in a lame-duck session is timing and tradition. As long as they can organize themselves before the end of the session, they are perfectly within their constitutional authority to pass any and all legislation. Republicans also argue that these three limits are fairly small in scale when compared to the powers the new governor will retain. They aren’t voting to do away with the governor’s veto, for example; they are imposing limits that they deem necessary as a check against executive power.

Finally, Republicans insist that these limits reflect what the Wisconsin electorate really wants. Despite Democrats’ victories in the races for governor and attorney general, the Wisconsin State Legislature will remain under Republican control for the 2019-2021 term. Clearly, Republicans argue, the people of Wisconsin prefer a more conservative state government; these changes help protect the interests of Wisconsinites. (Although it is worth noting that a majority of Wisconsin voters preferred the Democratic candidates for governor and attorney general.)

Discussion Questions

  • Is it appropriate for a state legislature to introduce and pass new laws in a lame-duck session (after an election has taken place)?
  • Is it fair to change the powers of a political office before a new candidate is inaugurated? Does the fact that something is legal always make it something that should be allowed?
  • Is it appropriate for a legislature to act in what it believes to be the best interests of the electorate? Should legislators act only on what they know to be the will of their constituents? Or do they have a responsibility to make decisions that may be unpopular?

 

Sources:
Image credit: Mark Hoffman, Associated Press
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/08/heres-a-voter-fraud-myth-richard-daley-stole-illinois-for-john-kennedy-in-the-1960-election/?utm_term=.6ae7c4bb6442
[2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980-reagan-campaign-tried-to-delay-hostage-release.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/25/donald-trump-rigged-election-bush-gore-florida-voter-fraud
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html
[6] https://www.apnews.com/3f97de11f4404893936bfb49ce7f3bda

 

Mueller and the Lame Duck

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Congress is back in session after Thanksgiving break, but the newly elected senators and representatives have not yet taken their seats. For the next month and a half, the outgoing Republican majority will continue to call the shots in the House of Representatives, meaning that these are the last few weeks of single-party control of Congress.

Lame duck congressional sessions often hold the possibility of cooperation between the parties, because the recent elections are over and the next elections are a long way off. But at the same time, when a party loses control of Congress, that party often has a desire to accomplish unfinished business. In this post, we will take a look at one of the issues likely to be addressed before the new Congress is inaugurated: whether or not Congress should act to protect special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

This short video from PBS Newshour can provide a roundup of expectations—including other issues Congress may address—during the lame duck session ahead.

 

Protecting the Mueller Probe

One of the most pressing issues during the lame duck session will be whether or not Congress should act to protect the special counsel’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia and into any efforts made to obstruct justice or mislead federal investigators.

In the aftermath of Republicans’ losses in the midterm elections, President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who he had long criticized for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and allowing for the appointment of Mueller as special counsel. President Trump’s pick to be the new acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker, is seen by some as a threat to the independence of the Mueller investigation because he has been critical of the probe in the past. This MSNBC article details the concerns that some people—especially Democrats—have about Whitaker.

Source: CBS News, November 20, 2018

At the end of November, most Senate Republicans decided not to join Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in working with Democrats to protect the probe. Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, argued that a special counsel should not be made an unaccountable “fourth branch of government,” effectively blocking the legislation from moving forward. (See this Salt Lake Tribune article for more detail.)

However, it is still possible for the Senate to act. This editorial in the Denver Post makes the case to Colorado readers that Senator Cory Gardner, R-Colo., should join Senator Flake and Democrats in protecting the probe.

After sharing these resources with your students, ask them to consider the arguments made by those who support and those who oppose congressional action. Writing in National Review, Jonathan Tobin makes the case against Senate action and urges legislators to be cautious about setting precedent. In the Washington Post, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck makes the case for legislation to protect the investigation, arguing that the president cannot be trusted to allow the probe to continue.

Hold a discussion with your students about whether or not they think Congress should protect the investigation. Why or why not? How has what we have learned so far from the investigation shaped the way your students view the president?

 

Sources:
Cartoon Credit: Ann Telnaes, Washington Post

 

Congressional Term Limits: A Balance on a Check?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

In this week’s blog post, we will explore an idea that is gaining some traction in the United States: term limits for members of Congress.

New Kids on The Very, Very Old Block

After attending orientation classes (yes, those are a thing) and being sworn in, freshman representatives and senators will take their seats next to members that include Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Representative Don Young, R-Alaska, who have served in Congress for 44 and 46 years, respectively. For those doing the math, Senator Leahy is currently serving his eighth term in the Senate and Representative Young just won his 23rd term [1]. Yet neither member touches retired Representative John Dingell’s, D-Mich., record 59 years and 21 days in the House, standing for election no less than 30 times.

Since 1964, incumbent senators typically have an 80 percent chance of being reelected; representatives average closer to 95 percent [2]. There are a number of factors that account for the incumbent advantage. Incumbents usually have more name recognition, more campaign money, and a congressional record to point to. With those factors in place, the most likely reason a member of Congress is not reelected is either retirement or death (although that isn’t always a deal-breaker; see Mel Carnahan in 2000 [3]).

The prevalence of career legislators has led some to question whether or not the absence of term limits in the House and Senate is at odds with Congress’ role as a truly representative body. Besides, we’ve limited the terms of presidents, so why not do the same for members of Congress?

The biggest obstacle to implementing Congressional term limits is the Constitution itself. The only term limit that has been imposed has been on the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. Therefore, a precedent has been established that another amendment would be required to impose term limits on representatives and/or senators. The process of passing a constitutional amendment is arduous to say the least, but the most fundamental obstacle would be that Congress itself has to approve it. In a legislature dominated by career legislators, it is unlikely they would vote to limit themselves.

Amendments Aside, What Are the Arguments?

Those in favor of term limits argue that we should impose them on members of Congress for the very same reason we impose them on the president: to create a check on power. Congresspeople wield tremendous power and influence. They are the only 535 citizens (out of 320 million) who actually get to vote on our laws. They shape government policy, create budgets, confirm presidential appointments, and declare war. Yet holding power for lengthy periods makes members of Congress less like elected representatives and more like a political aristocracy—one that is secluded in a “Washington Bubble.” Some Americans feel that by spending so much time in Congress, members become detached from their constituents. And when they can take their reelection for granted, members are less inclined to represent their constituents’ interests. Some also argue that when a member of Congress has been in office longer than most of his or her constituents have been alive, that member is out of touch with the needs and changing sensibilities of his or her district.

So the logic seems pretty sound there. Are there any arguments for keeping things as they are? Well, yes.

Others believe that the absence of term limits protects the power of the legislative branch as a check on the executive branch. Take Representative Young and Senator Leahy, for example. Both have been in power since Watergate and have seen eight presidents come and go during their tenure. Without term limits, they are able to legislate beyond the scope of one administration. Furthermore, the responsibilities of a member can be enormously complicated. It can take years to forge relationships and master the rules that govern Congress.

Others caution against the creation of a lame-duck Congress. A “lame-duck” describes an elected official who has not been reelected but is serving out the remainder of his or her term. This period is sometimes seen as problematic, as those who will remain in power beyond the lame-duck period are less likely to work with lame-ducks on new policies since they’ll soon be dealing with replacements who may want different things. As it stands, there are 30 lame-duck representatives and a handful of lame-duck senators for the next two months. With term limits, there could be hundreds of lame-duck members for years at a time.

Discussion Questions

  1. Should members of Congress be subject to term limits? How many terms should they be allowed to run for?
  2. Do you think the incumbent advantage presents a problem for true representation in Congress? Would term limits solve this problem? What other changes might make races more competitive?
  3. Currently, the Constitution requires representatives to be at least 25 years old and senators to be at least 30. Rather than enacting term limits, some have suggested imposing a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress or a maximum age of election. Do you agree with this? Does this idea present problems of its own?
  4. The 22nd Amendment prohibits the president from serving more than two full four-year terms, even non-consecutively. Some have argued that the absence of a limit on consecutive terms for members of Congress is the true problem with the system. They suggest that members of Congress be allowed to serve unlimited terms, but that after a number of consecutive terms, they be required to stand down for at least one term. For example, a senator could run for two consecutive six-year terms, be required to stand down, and then run again six years later. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages to this suggestion?

 

Sources:
Image credit: Political Cartoon by Gary Varvel, IndyStar.com
[1] Estepa, Jessica. “Alaska’s Don Young to Become Most Senior Member of Congress After Conyers’ Retirement.” USA Today. 5 Dec. 2017. Web. 26 Nov. 2018.
[2] OpenSecrets.org. “Reelection Rates Over the Years.” Web. 26 Nov. 2018.
[3] Balz, Dan, and Mike Allen. “Mo. Gov. Killed in Plane Crash.” Washington Post. 17 Oct. 2000. Web. 26 Nov. 2018.