OUR CRUCIAL SPRING CAMPAIGN IS NOW UNDERWAY
Please donate now to keep the mission and independent journalism of Common Dreams strong.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Tim Rusch, Demos, (212) 389-1407, trusch@demos.org Stacie B. Miller, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, (202) 662-8317 Michael McDunnah, Project Vote, (202) 905-1397
According to a unanimous federal appeals court decision,
the state of Ohio may no longer shirk its responsibility to ensure that
low-income citizens are offered the opportunity to register to vote, as
required by federal law. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA),
more commonly known for its "Motor Voter" component, requires that
states provide voter registration services in conjunction with the
provision of public assistance benefits. Low-income citizens are less
likely to own a car and are among the least likely to register to vote
at motor vehicle departments, making the public assistance requirement
crucial in reaching these citizens.
"The decision today means
that state officials can no longer watch passively as local offices
fail to provide voter registration to the state's low income citizens,"
said Lisa Danetz, Senior
Counsel at Demos, one of the election policy organizations involved in
the litigation. "They will be held accountable if they let the problem
fester and leave thousands of low income citizens outside the political
process."
"We are thrilled that the court recognized that the
state itself must ensure voter registration is offered as required by
federal law," said Neil Steiner of Dechert LLP, who argued the case
before the court.
"The court unanimously rejected the
arguments of Secretary of State Brunner and Director Jones-Kelley that
they are not responsible for ensuring that Ohio lives up to its
federally-mandated obligation to offer voter registration at public
assistance agencies, a ruling we wholeheartedly agree with," said Jon
Greenbaum, director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "We hope that this will lead to many thousands of new registrations from Ohio's poorest citizens."
In response to the lawsuit and extensive evidence of the state's noncompliance with the federal law, Ohio
had tried to deflect responsibility for its widespread and systemic
failure to provide such voter registration services onto individual
counties.
Today, however, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
sitting in Cincinnati, rebuffed that attempt by holding that both
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Director Helen E. Jones-Kelley
of the Department of Job and Family Services (DJFS) have responsibility
to ensure that the local offices where low-income citizens apply for
and receive food stamps, cash assistance, and Medicaid are providing
the opportunity to register to vote, assistance in registering, and
that they are submitting completed forms to the Secretary of State's
office.
"We're excited about the court's decision. If the
result in this case is anything like the recent case in Missouri, tens
of thousands of new Ohioans will be registered to vote for the next
election" said Brian Mellor of Project Vote.
The
lawsuit was originally brought in September 2006 against former
Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and then-DJFS Director Barbara Riley
by Carrie Harkless, Tameca Mardis and the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). It alleges that offices of the
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services failed to provide Ms.
Harkless, Ms. Mardis and thousands of other low-income Ohioans with the
opportunity to register to vote or change their voter registration
address during visits to DJFS offices to apply for or recertify their
eligibility for public assistance benefits. Plaintiffs are represented
by Demos, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Dechert
LLP, and Project Vote.
In addition to the first-hand experience of Ms. Harkless and Ms. Mardis, the lawsuit cites extensive evidence of Ohio's noncompliance with the NVRA:
--A
report provided to the Secretary of State in February 2006 documented
an investigation of six counties, showing lack of compliance in all
six. DJFS offices in five of the six counties did not have any voter
registration forms. The sole office that had the forms had relegated
them to an unused corner of the office, without any signs advising
public assistance applicants of the right to register to vote; the
clerk did not even know the forms were there, much less provide the
requisite assistance in completing them.
--Interviews that Ohio ACORN conducted outside public assistance agencies in Ohio's three largest counties revealed that virtually no individuals were offered the opportunity to register.
--Ohio's own statistics for the period 2002-2004 indicate that all of Ohio's
DJFS offices collectively registered less than one-half of 1 percent of
the number of persons applying for or seeking recertification of Food
Stamps benefits. Four of the most populous counties in the state--Franklin, Hamilton, Summit and Montgomery--registered fewer persons at their DJFS offices than either Athens or Marion,
two small counties with only a fraction of the population of the four
larger counties. DJFS office in ten counties did not register a single
person from 2002 to 2004, and another 17 counties registered fewer than
ten persons.
Today's
Sixth Circuit opinion reverses the lower court's August 2007 dismissal
of the case. The case will now go back to the district court, allowing
the plaintiffs the opportunity to ensure that Ohio institutes procedures to provide voter registration services at public assistance offices.
For more information or to schedule an interview contact Tim Rusch at (212) 389-1407 or trusch@demos.org
The court's full decision is available for download at www.demos.org.
Demos is a think tank that powers the movement for a just, inclusive, multiracial democracy. Through cutting-edge policy research, inspiring litigation, and deep relationships with grassroots organizations, Demos champions solutions that will create a democracy and economy rooted in racial equity.
The treasury secretary's warning came as a Biden administration official said the president won't invoke the 14th Amendment in order to avoid a first-ever U.S. default.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Friday warned Congress that the United States government will run out of money to pay its bills on June 5 if lawmakers don't reach an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
"Based on the most recent available data, we now estimate that Treasury will have insufficient resources to satisfy the government's obligations if Congress has not raised or suspended the debt limit by June 5," Yellen wrote in a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
"We have learned from past debt limit impasses that waiting until the last minute to suspend or increase the debt limit can cause serious harm to business and consumer confidence, raise short-term borrowing costs for taxpayers, and negatively impact the credit rating of the United States," Yellen noted. "In fact, we have already seen Treasury's borrowing costs increase substantially for securities maturing in early June."
Earlier this month, Yellen said that the so-called "X-date"—the day on which the first-ever U.S. default will occur—could come as early as June 1.
"If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, it would cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position, and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests," she stressed in Friday's letter.
\u201cJanet Yellen updates the X date\u2026 it is now next Monday, June 5.\n\nLetter to Congress:\u201d— Julie Tsirkin (@Julie Tsirkin) 1685132574
As The New York Timesnotes:
Ms. Yellen's letter comes as the White House and House Republicans have been racing to agree on a deal that would lift the nation's $31.4 trillion borrowing cap and prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt. The Treasury Department hit the debt limit on January 19 and has since been employing accounting maneuvers to ensure the United States can continue paying its bills on time...
On Friday, she detailed that the federal government is due to make more than $130 billion in scheduled payments during the first two days of June—including payments to veterans and Social Security and Medicare recipients—leaving the Treasury Department with "an extremely low level of resources"...
While negotiators have been in round-the-clock talks, no deal has been announced. Still, the contours of an agreement between the White House and Republicans are taking shape. That deal would raise the debt limit for two years while imposing strict caps on discretionary spending not related to the military or veterans for the same period.
Biden administration officials and congressional Democrats have accused Republicans of "hostage-taking" during the debt limit standoff, an allegation embraced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) earlier this week.
Scores of Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocates have called on President Joe Biden to exercise his constitutional authority and invoke the 14th Amendment—which states in part that "the validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned."
However, Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said Friday that Biden will not invoke the 14th Amendment.
"The 14th Amendment can't solve our challenges," Adeyemo asserted on CNN. "Now, ultimately, the only thing that can do that is Congress doing what it's done 78 other times, raising the debt limit."
"We don't have a Plan B that allows us to meet the commitments that we've made to our creditors, to our seniors, to our veterans, to the American people," Adeyemo added ominously.
"Banning buying homes based on citizenship and registering your property did not bode well in history," said one lawmaker. "This is the Republicans rewriting the Chinese Exclusion Act."
Days after a group of Chinese citizens sued Florida's government over its new law restricting Chinese citizens from purchasing property in the state, U.S. Rep. Al Green this week warned of a "proliferation" of such bans and unveiled federal legislation to prohibit them.
The proposal would affirm that federal law, such as the Fair Housing Act, takes precedence over state bans restricting who can and cannot legally purchase real estate or farmland. It would also allow people to sue in federal court and have a right to court-ordered relief including an injunction if they've been harmed by bans like the one approved by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The Fair Housing Act explicitly prohibits discrimination in housing based on national origin, race, sex, gender identity, religion, and disability.
Despite the long-standing law, Florida this month became the latest state to pass restrictions on property ownership, targeting Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Cuban, Venezuelan, and North Korean citizens. DeSantis claimed Chinese people have been "gobbling up" land in the state and said the law is intended to stop the Chinese Communist Party from gaining influence and spying in the state.
"That is not in the best interests of Florida to have the Chinese Communist Party owning farmland, owning land close to military bases," said the governor, who announced his 2024 presidential campaign this week.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, also a Republican, signed a ban on Chinese companies buying property in March, and the Texas Legislature had advanced a similar bill targeting companies and government entities headquartered in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
According to the National Agricultural Law Center, 21 states have laws restricting foreign ownership of farmland. More than 30 states have drafted or advanced legislation to either tighten those restrictions or introduce new ones.
"I don't think we ought to allow 50 states to have the opportunity to pass laws that can impact foreign affairs, which really is the province of the executive branch of the federal government," Green told HuffPost on Thursday. "I don't think we should wait until we get 30, 50, whatever number of different laws to act."
The measures have drawn comparisons to the so-called "alien land laws" that were in place in the early 20th century before being struck down by courts and state legislatures. The laws prohibited Chinese and Japanese immigrants from owning land and "severely exacerbated violence and discrimination against Asian communities," according to the ACLU, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in Florida this week.
"Banning buying homes based on citizenship and registering your property did not bode well in history... This is the Republicans rewriting the Chinese Exclusion Act," said Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) this week, referring to the 1882 law that banned Chinese workers from immigrating to the United States.
\u201c\u2026when you ask me why we worry about anti-China rhetoric\u2026 many people can\u2019t differentiate between someone who works for the CCP from an average Chinese American. These laws will increase anti Asian suspicion & hate. https://t.co/z7j9TuyfA3\u201d— Grace Meng (@Grace Meng) 1684285341
Contrary to DeSantis' claim that Chinese citizens are buying large amounts of property across Florida, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency, foreigners owned only 3.1% of farmland at the end of 2021, and about a third of that land was owned by Canadians. Less than 1% of the land—0.03% of all farmland in the U.S.—was owned by Chinese citizens or entities.
"Hey, hey! What we knew would happen: Make the wealthiest pay their fair share and it finances investments in education, transportation, and more," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Proponents of progressive taxation on Friday pointed to data showing Washington state stands poised to reap $849 million in revenue during the first year of its capital gains tax as proof that taxing the rich works—and could serve as a template for federal legislation.
The Seattle Timesreports that when Washington state lawmakers passed this fiscal year's budget, they anticipated collecting $248 million in revenue from the 7% tax on the sale or exchange of stocks, bonds, and certain other assets above $250,000.
However, the legislators were pleasantly surprised when figures showed the state has collected over $600 million more than that.
While the amount collected could change after around 2,500 taxpayers who applied for extensions file their returns, progressives welcomed the windfall that will fund public schools, early childhood education, and building and repairing schools across the state.
"Hey, hey! What we knew would happen: Make the wealthiest pay their fair share and it finances investments in education, transportation, and more," tweeted Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
\u201cTurns out taxing the rich is a really good idea and can help fund our public schools https://t.co/HX2dPp63UX\u201d— Robert Cruickshank (@Robert Cruickshank) 1685113329
Jayapal touted federal legislation she introduced with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in 2021—the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act—that would levy a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts above $50 million, plus a 1% annual surtax on billionaires.
An analysis by University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that the legislation would bring in at least $3 trillion in revenue over 10 years without raising taxes on 99.95% of American households worth less than $50 million.
Last month, Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) introduced the For the 99.5% Act, which would impose a 45% tax on estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million, a 50% tax on estates worth between $10 million and $50 million, a 55% tax on estates worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and a 65% tax on estates valued at over $1 billion.
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are trying to repeal the estate tax entirely—and pass other tax policies to serve the rich.
Back at the state level, California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, and Hawaii have also introduced wealth tax bills this year, while Washington's law was upheld by that state's Supreme Court in March.
"If the federal government won't act," California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-24) said while introducing a wealth tax bill in January, "we the states will."