July, 06 2020, 12:00am EDT
States Can Require Presidential Electors to Follow Popular Vote, U.S. Supreme Court Rules
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that states have the authority to require presidential electors to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state.
Paul Smith, CLC's Vice President, Litigation and Strategy, issued the following statement:
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that states have the authority to require presidential electors to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state.
Paul Smith, CLC's Vice President, Litigation and Strategy, issued the following statement:
"Today's ruling is the correct one. If electors had been turned loose to violate state law and ignore their state's voters, they would have been free to accept contributions from wealthy special interests who want to influence our politics, free from any public disclosure. While numerous federal laws require elected officials and policymakers to follow financial ethics and transparency rules, there are currently no federal ethics or transparency laws for presidential electors. The absence of transparency laws, combined with unfettered discretion, would have led to corruption threatening the very legitimacy of the presidential election.
Voters should go to the polls with the confidence that their vote will count and that their political system will be free from corruption. However far from perfect the current system may be, the chaos of an unbound Electoral College would have been even worse."
Campaign Legal Center and Issue One filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the cases, Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, arguing that states should have the ability to bind electors to the popular vote.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders, Booker, and Welch Unveil Ban on Junk Food Ads Targeting Kids
"We cannot continue to allow large corporations in the food and beverage industry to put their profits over the health and wellbeing of our children," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Apr 19, 2024
A trio of U.S. senators on Friday introduced what's being billed as first-of-its-kind legislation sponsors say will "take on the greed of the food and beverage industry and address the growing diabetes and obesity epidemics" with a federal ban on junk food ads targeting children.
The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act—introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.)—would also require warning labels "on sugar-sweetened foods and beverages; foods and beverages containing non-sugar sweeteners; ultra-processed foods; and foods high in nutrients of concern, such as added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium."
"Let's be clear: The twin crises of type 2 diabetes and obesity in America are being fueled by the food and beverage industry that, for decades, has been making massive profits by enticing children to consume unhealthy products purposely designed to be overeaten," Sanders—who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee—said in a statement. "We cannot continue to allow large corporations in the food and beverage industry to put their profits over the health and wellbeing of our children."
"Nearly 30 years ago, Congress had the courage to take on the tobacco industry, whose products killed more than 400,000 Americans every year," Sanders added. "Now is the time for Congress to act with the same sense of urgency to combat these diabetes and obesity epidemics. That means banning junk food ads targeted to kids and putting strong warning labels on food and beverages with unacceptably high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat."
Booker said that "the future of our nation depends on a continued investment in the health and wellbeing of our children," adding that "more and more of our children are developing diabetes and obesity primarily because a handful of corporate food giants push addictive, ultra-processed foods to drive up their profits."
"By banning junk food advertising to children, implementing front-of-package warning labels, and funding research on the dangers of ultra-processed foods, we can rein in the predatory behavior of big food companies and ensure a healthier future for generations to come," he added.
As the senators noted:
Today, more than 35 million Americans are struggling with type 2 diabetes—90% of whom are overweight or obese. These crises go hand-in-hand and children are severely impacted. Today, 1 out of 5 five kids are living with obesity. A serious illness unto itself, diabetes is also a contributing factor to heart disease, stroke, amputations, blindness, and kidney failure. Unless the U.S. dramatically changes course, these numbers will continue to grow exponentially.
The impact on the economy is enormous: Last year, the total cost of diabetes exceeded $400 billion, approximately 10% of overall U.S. healthcare expenditures.
Meanwhile, the U.S. food and beverage industry spends about $14 billion annually on marketing unhealthy products, with $2 billion of that spent on advertising these products to children.
"Our food environment has become dominated by ultra-processed foods that have more in common with a cigarette than a fruit or vegetable," said Ashley Gearhardt, director of the Food and Addiction Science & Treatment Lab at the University of Michigan. "Many ultra-processed foods are hyperpalatable and trigger the core signs of addiction, like intense cravings and a loss of control over intake."
"The American public is not adequately warned about the risks associated with these products and children are a key marketing demographic for ultra-processed foods with unhealthy nutrient profiles," Gearhardt added. "The Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act is a courageous step towards promoting the physical and mental health of American children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Complaints of Pregnant Patients Denied Emergency Care Surged After Dobbs
"MAGA abortion bans deny women lifesaving care," one critic said in response to reporting on patient stories.
Apr 19, 2024
New reporting from The Associated Press that complaints of pregnant patients turned away from emergency departments "spiked" after the reversal of Roe v. Wade sparked fresh condemnation of efforts to restrict abortion rights on Friday.
Since the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court ended nearly half a century of nationwide abortion rights with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, over 20 states have enacted new restrictions on reproductive healthcare, creating a culture of confusion and fear at many medical facilities.
Early last year, the AP submitted a public records request for 2022 complaints filed under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that requires hospitals and emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide screenings to patients who request them and prohibits refusing to treat individuals with an emergency medical condition.
"This is the reality that extreme Republicans call 'pro-life.'"
"One year after submitting the request, the federal government agreed to release only some complaints and investigative documents filed across just 19 states," the AP's Amanda Seitz reported. "The names of patients, doctors, and medical staff were redacted from the documents."
"One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her," the journalist detailed. "Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn't offer an ultrasound. The baby later died."
According to Seitz:
Emergency rooms are subject to hefty fines when they turn away patients, fail to stabilize them, or transfer them to another hospital for treatment. Violations can also put hospitals' Medicare funding at risk.
But it's unclear what fines might be imposed on more than a dozen hospitals that the Biden administration says failed to properly treat pregnant patients in 2022.
It can take years for fines to be levied in these cases. The Health and Human Services agency, which enforces the law, declined to share if the hospitals have been referred to the agency's Office of Inspector General for penalties.
Responding to the reporting on social media, journalist Jane Mayer declared, "This is barbaric."
Texas Poor People's Campaign said that women in the state "are being left to die in ER waiting rooms. We cannot let this policy violence against women continue. Please join us as we mobilize voters for the '24 election."
Going into November, abortion has been a key issue at the state and federal level. Supporters of reproductive freedom are working to advance various ballot measures while Democratic President Joe Biden's campaign has highlighted his support for abortion rights and the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, has bragged about his role in reversing Roe—he appointed three of the six justices behind the majority opinion.
"MAGA abortion bans deny women lifesaving care," stressed Alex Wall, senior vice president for digital advocacy at the Center for American Progress. Citing examples from Texas and Florida in the AP report, he reiterated, "MAGA Republicans did this."
Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said that "this is the reality that extreme Republicans call 'pro-life'—pregnant women being turned away at hospitals and emergency centers. Absolutely disgraceful. No woman should ever be denied emergency care."
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, who covers U.S. legal battles, noted that this "devastating and timely story" from Seitz comes "just days before the Supreme Court considers whether emergency rooms can legally force patients to the brink of death before terminating a failing pregnancy."
The high court is set to hear arguments in that case Wednesday. The Biden administration is challenging Idaho's near-total ban on abortion, which "would make it a criminal offense for doctors to comply with EMTALA's requirement to provide stabilizing treatment, even where a doctor determines that abortion is the medical treatment necessary to prevent a patient from suffering severe health risks or even death," as the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit explains.
The Justice Department is seeking a judgment that Idaho's law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and "is preempted by federal law to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Oppose Israel Funding Advanced by US House
"Congress is shamefully choosing a failed approach of fueling genocide rather than saving Palestinian and Israeli lives," said Rep. Cori Bush.
Apr 19, 2024
Progressive lawmakers on Friday dissented as the Republican-controlled U.S. House advanced legislation to provide more military funding to Israel as well as Ukraine and Taiwan, with Rep. Cori Bush condemning a committee's refusal to consider an amendment aimed at securing a permanent cease-fire in Gaza.
The legislation passed a procedural hurdle in a vote of 316-94, placing votes for the separate aid packages and a bill calling for more humanitarian assistance to Gaza on the legislative agenda for Saturday.
Bush (D-Mo.) joined progressives including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in opposing the legislation, with centrist Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina also voting with the left-wing faction.
The Missouri Democrat condemned the House Rules Committee's refusal to consider an amendment she submitted along with Tlaib, which called for a lasting cease-fire, a release of all hostages in Israel and Palestine, and "diplomacy to secure self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis."
"Congress is shamefully choosing a failed approach of fueling genocide rather than saving Palestinian and Israeli lives, releasing the hostages and others arbitrarily detained, and prioritizing peace in the region," said Bush.
The funding package includes $26.4 billion for Israel, purportedly to support "its effort to defend itself against Iran and its proxies" following Iran's retaliatory drone attack on Israel this week—to which Israeli forces responded with a limited attack on Friday.
The new military aid was passed on top of more than 100 weapons transfers the Biden administration has made to Israel since October 7. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, two of the transfers were reviewed by Congress and totaled about $250 million.
"Our country spends billions of tax dollars to maintain this apartheid state and support the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestinians," said Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, in a statement on Thursday.
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said she was "encouraged" that Democrats in Congress were able to secure more humanitarian aid for Gaza, where dozens of people have starved to death as Israel has blocked nearly the vast majority of aid shipments since October, but said the provisions do not "come close to meeting the desperate needs of the people in Gaza," particularly considering the United States' suspension of funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
"Americans will remember this moment," said Balint. "The United States must be firm in demanding a course correction from the Netanyahu government. Without a strong message against more offensive aid, the United States risks signaling support for an expanded offensive in Rafah, for an escalation with Iran, and for continued disregard for Palestinian life."
Omar called the funding package part of the U.S. government's "thinly veiled attempts to escalate an already very dangerous situation."
"What is needed most of all is a sober approach to de-escalation and conflict prevention," said the congresswoman. "Congress should be focused on efforts to de-escalate tensions—not inflame them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular