POPULARITY
3 episodes with director counsel
6 episodes with director counsel
3 episodes with director counsel
2 episodes with director counsel
2 episodes with director counsel
3 episodes with director counsel
2 episodes with director counsel
2 episodes with director counsel
2 episodes with director counsel
4.18.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump lawlessness, DOGE/DOJ target non-profit, Sen. Van Hollen returns, MLK struggles in the North We haven't made it to the first 100 days, and the twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, has unleashing lawlessness. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, will explain that although Trump's tactics aren't new, they can be stopped. According to the nonprofit organization Vera Institute, it was targeted by Trump's DOJ and DOGE, setting a troubling precedent for targeting nonprofits that receive federal funding. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen just returned from El Salvador, where he finally met Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the father who was wrongfully deported. And I spoke with Jeanne Theoharis about her new book, "King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South." The book focuses on how King's experiences outside the South significantly influenced his campaign for racial justice. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
4.18.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump lawlessness, DOGE/DOJ target non-profit, Sen. Van Hollen returns, MLK struggles in the North We haven't made it to the first 100 days, and the twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, has unleashing lawlessness. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, will explain that although Trump's tactics aren't new, they can be stopped. According to the nonprofit organization Vera Institute, it was targeted by Trump's DOJ and DOGE, setting a troubling precedent for targeting nonprofits that receive federal funding. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen just returned from El Salvador, where he finally met Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the father who was wrongfully deported. And I spoke with Jeanne Theoharis about her new book, "King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South." The book focuses on how King's experiences outside the South significantly influenced his campaign for racial justice. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Michele Norris is in for Ali Velshi and is joined by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund Janai Nelson, Director of Social Security & Disability Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Kathleen Romig, Professor of International Affairs at UC-San Diego Barbara F. Walter, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University Martha S. Jones, Professor of U.S. History at Georgetown University Chandra Manning, and co-authors of ‘You Must Take Part In Revolution' Melissa Chan and Badiucao.
This week on Broken Law, we revisit two moving speeches from ACS's 2023 National Convention. Oren Nimni and Sherrilyn Ifill explore the complicity of lawyers in maintaining our unjust legal system and the special responsibility we bear in creating a more just future.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgToday's Host: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSFeatured Speaker: Oren Nimni, Litigation Director, Rights Behind BarsFeatured Speaker: Sherrilyn Ifill, Former President and Director Counsel, NAACP LDF; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq. Endowed Chair in Civil Rights, Howard UniversityLink: Register for ACS's 2024 National ConventionVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.
Charles Coleman is in for Ali Velshi and is joined by President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Noah Bookbinder, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Janai Nelson, Rep. Stacey E. Plaskett (D-U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS), NBC News' Julia Jester, Host of #RolandMartinUnfiltered Roland Martin, Co-Founder & CEO of Capital B News Lauren Williams, Special Correspondent with Vanity Fair Molly Jong-Fast, MSNBC Justice & Legal Affairs Analyst Anthony Coley, NBC News' Matt Bradley, Staff Writer at The AtlanticTom Nichols, Political Analyst on SiriusXM Ameshia Cross
“When they hear that you're a veteran, it's an immediate connection. They know that I can understand what they're talking about … because I lived through it too.” – Monica De Martin The veteran population is aging rapidly, and many senior vets need legal assistance with end-of-life planning, including wills. Monica De Martin, Director ‒ Counsel, Internal Investigations at Société Générale and a veteran of the Australian Royal Navy, and Peter Kempner, Legal Director and Senior Law Project Director with Volunteers of Legal Service (VOLS), talk about how pro bono assistance benefits these vets — and creates meaningful experiences for volunteers. PLI is proud to offer programs, Pro Bono Memberships, and scholarships to support the essential public service work of the legal profession.
9.27.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Ala. Congressional Maps, Childcare Funding Expiring, PA Judge Dismisses Murder Charges On Fmr. Cop, Doing Business in Liberia The battle over Alabama's congressional districts continues after the Supreme Court denied the emergency request to keep Republican-drawn congressional lines. A court-appointed master proposes three options, but the black caucus of the state's Democratic Party objects to the plans and wants to offer its own redistricting map. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, is here to help us unpack it all. We are days away from a government shutdown if Congress cannot agree on a plan to keep it running. We'll look at what's keeping the House from getting on one accord. Federal Childcare funding is set to expire this Saturday, leaving millions of families without childcare options. I'll talk to the President and CEO of The Children's Defense Fund to find out what choices those families will have. A Pennsylvania judge dismisses the murder charges against a former cop who shot motorist Eddie Irizarry within seconds. It's Time to Bring the Funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered streaming live on the Black Star Network. Let's go. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platforms covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this episode of The Enemies List, Rick is joined by Sherrilyn Ifill. Sherrilyn is a lawyer and author and former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Together, they discuss America's historical issues with voting rights, predominantly in African American communities. Sherrilyn describes the areas of the country where voting rights are at their weakest, what segregation looks like in modern day America, the Supreme Court's decimation of Section 5, and if she thinks Trump can be kept off the ballot in 2024. You can follow Sherrilyn on Twitter @SIfill_ and both of her books are available now. Timestamps: [00:01:28] The state of voting rights [00:03:37] States disenfranchising voters [00:8:07] Similarities to school integration [00:10:16] The slow erosion of the Voting Rights Act [00:13:42] The 14th amendment [00:21:48] A healthy democracy Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. In our final Opinionpalooza episode of 2023, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern host the Amicus annual “breakfast table” round-up at the end of the Supreme Court term, and they're joined by: Jamelle Bouie, former chief political correspondent at Slate and current New York Times Opinion columnist and political analyst for CBS News. Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and newly appointed head of Howard University's inaugural Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq. Endowed Chair in Civil Rights. Professor Stephen Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." --- In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia and Mark loosen their ties, pour a snifter of brandy and hit the cigar bar of jurisprudence for a final discussion of the term that was; why progressives are still struggling to find an answer to the court's torque to the right, and resisting the media's urge to put a moderate bow on each extreme term. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. In our final Opinionpalooza episode of 2023, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern host the Amicus annual “breakfast table” round-up at the end of the Supreme Court term, and they're joined by: Jamelle Bouie, former chief political correspondent at Slate and current New York Times Opinion columnist and political analyst for CBS News. Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and newly appointed head of Howard University's inaugural Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq. Endowed Chair in Civil Rights. Professor Stephen Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." --- In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia and Mark loosen their ties, pour a snifter of brandy and hit the cigar bar of jurisprudence for a final discussion of the term that was; why progressives are still struggling to find an answer to the court's torque to the right, and resisting the media's urge to put a moderate bow on each extreme term. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This episode is a part of Opinionpalooza. Slate's coverage of Supreme Court decisions. If you would like to help us continue to cover the courts aggressively, please consider joining Slate Plus. In our final Opinionpalooza episode of 2023, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern host the Amicus annual “breakfast table” round-up at the end of the Supreme Court term, and they're joined by: Jamelle Bouie, former chief political correspondent at Slate and current New York Times Opinion columnist and political analyst for CBS News. Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and newly appointed head of Howard University's inaugural Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Esq. Endowed Chair in Civil Rights. Professor Stephen Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, author of the New York Times bestselling book, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." --- In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia and Mark loosen their ties, pour a snifter of brandy and hit the cigar bar of jurisprudence for a final discussion of the term that was; why progressives are still struggling to find an answer to the court's torque to the right, and resisting the media's urge to put a moderate bow on each extreme term. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Republicans claim the election was stolen. They use those claims to justify suppressing people's right to vote. All of it happening amid a national reckoning on race. Rachel Maddow and Isaac-Davy Aronson tell the story of a time uncannily similar to our own – in the early 1960s. And how it's both a parallel to our present moment and the origin of conflicts playing out today.Featuring Guests:Rick Perlstein, historian, author of Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American ConsensusSherrilyn Ifill, Vernon Jordan Endowed Chair in Civil Rights at Howard University and former President and Director-Counsel of LDF.Jim Brosnahan, lawyer and author of Justice At Trial: Courtroom Battles and Groundbreaking Cases
Finally, some good news! The Supreme Court's ruling in Allen v. Milligan preserves section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, joins Kate, Melissa, and Leah to break down the opinion for a live show at Howard University School of Law.Listen to this past episode where the hosts recap the oral arguments for Allen v. MilliganRead Melissa Murray's op ed with Steve Vladeck in The Washington PostListen to argument recaps for Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC in this episodeFollow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky
In this episode, host Kimberlé Crenshaw is joined by Cheryl Harris, Robin D.G. Kelley, and Janai Nelson. They explain what has been happening with the College Board's proposed AP African American Studies course, share a close reading of what the revisions are and what they mean, and discuss what we can all do about it. Kimberlé also shares exciting news about the launch of the Freedom to Learn Network, including information on the national day of action happening on May 3rd, 2023. With: Cheryl Harris, the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation Chair in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at UCLA School of Law Robin D.G. Kelly, the Gary B. Nash Professor of American History at UCLA Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Hosted by Kimberlé Crenshaw (@sandylocks) Produced by Nicole Edwards, with support from Kristin Penner, Kevin Minofu, Marjorie Bostwick, and Heather Malveaux. Mixing by Sean Dunnam. Music by Blue Dot Sessions Follow us at @intersectionalitymatters, @IMKC_podcast Resources Go to www.freedomtolearn.net for more information on the campaign, including resources like social media toolkits, and to access Freedom to Learn TV. Register here for the Freedom to Learn Rallies and NYC Reception: https://bit.ly/F2LNYCRally https://bit.ly/F2LDCRally https://bit.ly/F2LNYCReception Find out what people are doing in your area on the Freedom to Learn National Day of Action on May 3rd: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mlNoKD0xvfy372T6tNcm1qDWMdb3GBrTn9hhhAp05pU/edit?usp=sharing Sign the Open Letter on Fighting “Anti-Woke” Censorship of Intersectionality and Black Feminism: bit.ly/NoErasure
On this week's Amicus Dahlia Lithwick is first joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to talk about Tennessee and the mounting evidence of Republican state houses and governors finding novel (but also depressingly old) ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. Ifill sounded the alarm about all of this in a prescient piece in Slate last month that deserves your attention. Next, Dahlia is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck on the opaque, unquestioned and largely unquestionable Supreme Court processes that undergird conservative contempt for the rule of law. Professor Vladeck's book, The Shadow Docket - How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic is out in May. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. There was, categorically, Too Much News this week, so Dahlia turned to Mark for an exclusive conversation for our Slate Plus members about all the stuff we couldn't cram into an already jam-packed main show. They start with what's really not happening, and that is Supreme Court decisions. It's April and there has been a mere smattering of decisions from the High Court. Mark and Dahlia try to figure out what the looming logjam might mean. Next, they talk yacht etiquette, gift grift, and Justice Clarence Thomas' law breaking. And… Hey! Remember Wisconsin? It's a big deal - Mark and Dahlia delve into why. Finally, the Supreme Court may not be issuing decisions, but it did deny a petition to overturn a stay of West Virginia's extreme trans athlete ban. Mark has more on that decision and the shortcomings of a new Biden regulation about trans athletes. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On this week's Amicus Dahlia Lithwick is first joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to talk about Tennessee and the mounting evidence of Republican state houses and governors finding novel (but also depressingly old) ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. Ifill sounded the alarm about all of this in a prescient piece in Slate last month that deserves your attention. Next, Dahlia is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck on the opaque, unquestioned and largely unquestionable Supreme Court processes that undergird conservative contempt for the rule of law. Professor Vladeck's book, The Shadow Docket - How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic is out in May. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. There was, categorically, Too Much News this week, so Dahlia turned to Mark for an exclusive conversation for our Slate Plus members about all the stuff we couldn't cram into an already jam-packed main show. They start with what's really not happening, and that is Supreme Court decisions. It's April and there has been a mere smattering of decisions from the High Court. Mark and Dahlia try to figure out what the looming logjam might mean. Next, they talk yacht etiquette, gift grift, and Justice Clarence Thomas' law breaking. And… Hey! Remember Wisconsin? It's a big deal - Mark and Dahlia delve into why. Finally, the Supreme Court may not be issuing decisions, but it did deny a petition to overturn a stay of West Virginia's extreme trans athlete ban. Mark has more on that decision and the shortcomings of a new Biden regulation about trans athletes. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On this week's Amicus Dahlia Lithwick is first joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to talk about Tennessee and the mounting evidence of Republican state houses and governors finding novel (but also depressingly old) ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. Ifill sounded the alarm about all of this in a prescient piece in Slate last month that deserves your attention. Next, Dahlia is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck on the opaque, unquestioned and largely unquestionable Supreme Court processes that undergird conservative contempt for the rule of law. Professor Vladeck's book, The Shadow Docket - How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic is out in May. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. There was, categorically, Too Much News this week, so Dahlia turned to Mark for an exclusive conversation for our Slate Plus members about all the stuff we couldn't cram into an already jam-packed main show. They start with what's really not happening, and that is Supreme Court decisions. It's April and there has been a mere smattering of decisions from the High Court. Mark and Dahlia try to figure out what the looming logjam might mean. Next, they talk yacht etiquette, gift grift, and Justice Clarence Thomas' law breaking. And… Hey! Remember Wisconsin? It's a big deal - Mark and Dahlia delve into why. Finally, the Supreme Court may not be issuing decisions, but it did deny a petition to overturn a stay of West Virginia's extreme trans athlete ban. Mark has more on that decision and the shortcomings of a new Biden regulation about trans athletes. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today's show has a 17 min news recap and then I talk to Professor Schwartz starting at 17 mins and Tom Merritt and I begin at 49 mins Thanks so much for listening. Please give the show 5 stars and a review on Apple and Spotify Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 740 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls. SHIELDED :HOW THE POLICE BECAME UNTOUCHABLE “A must-read for anyone who wants to understand why we lack an effective system of legal accountability for police violence and misconduct in our country. Once you understand how we got here, Schwartz's smart, pragmatic proposals for change ring clear and true.” –Sherrilyn Ifill, Former President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation. Professor Schwartz additionally studies the dynamics of modern civil litigation. She is co-author, with Stephen Yeazell, of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (10th Edition), and her recent scholarship includes articles empirically examining the justifications for qualified immunity doctrine; the financial impact of settlements and judgments on federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and agency budgets; and regional variation in civil rights protections across the country. Professor Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. After law school, Professor Schwartz clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then associated with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, in New York City, where she specialized in police misconduct, prisoners' rights, and First Amendment litigation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Merritt is an award-winning independent tech podcaster and host of regular tech news and information shows. Tom hosts Sword and Laser, a science fiction and fantasy podcast, and book club with Veronica Belmont. He also co-hosts Daily Tech News Show, covering the most important tech issues of the day with the smartest minds in technology. Tom also hosts Cordkillers with Brian Brushwood, bringing people the news they need to watch the TV shows and movies they want when they want and how they want them. That's not all! There's also It's a Thing with Molly Wood, A Word with Tom Merritt with some of the smartest most interesting people on the planet, and Know A little More. All his shows are listed on the subscription page. From 2010 until 2013, Tom hosted the award-winning Tech News Today and weekly cord-cutting show Frame Rate on the TWiT network. He created, developed and produced both shows. From 2004 until 2010 Tom was executive editor for CNET TV at CNET.com. He hosted the daily Buzz Out Loud podcast and a weekly how-to show called The Real Deal. In addition, Tom hosted regular segments on CNET TV like Top 5, How-to, Hacks, and more. Tom served as executive producer for TechTV's website until 2004. He started at ZDTV as Producer of The Screen Savers website in 1999. Tom has run SuBBrilliant.com since 1996. It is a collection of Web experiments including SuBBrilliant News, a parody news blog, and the East Meets West podcast which features Roger Chang. You'll also find Tom as a guest or interviewed as an expert on many TV, radio and Internet shows like ABC's Good Morning America, CBS Radio, NPR, This Week in Tech, The Phileas Club and more. Tom is @acedtect@mstdn.social on Mastodon Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page
As nonprofits, we need to be responsive to the people's needs at the moment while tackling the bigger structural issues as well. This is a powerful message that this episode's guest can never overemphasize. Nicole Campbell brings in Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights legal organization. In this conversation, Sherrilyn talks about the work they are doing at LDF and how it is transforming the lives of countless discriminated and disadvantaged members of the Black community. She also shares her advice for nonprofits and philanthropies to build better. Listen in and learn about the immense power of being responsive and other lessons and information born out of decades in service of the people.
As nonprofits, we need to be responsive to the people's needs at the moment while tackling the bigger structural issues as well. This is a powerful message that this episode's guest can never overemphasize. In this special two-part series, Nic is talking with Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights legal organization. This interview was recorded back in May 2020, when the country contended with both a pandemic and growing racial and social justice movements. Which, two years later, is still pressing on in addition to the war in Ukraine and inflated markets worldwide. Listen in and learn about the immense power of being responsive and other lessons and information born out of decades in service of the people.
On Halloween, the Supreme Court will hear pair of cases challenging affirmative action in university admissions. Spooky! Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, joins Melissa, Kate, and Leah to preview the cases.Listen to an episode on race conscious remedies from our spin-off show, Irrational Basis Review
Janai Nelson, President and Director Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, on voting rights and reproductive rights.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
As nonprofits, we need to be responsive to the people's needs at the moment while tackling the bigger structural issues as well. This is a powerful message that this episode's guest can never overemphasize. Over the next two weeks we will be recasting a special two-part series, Nic is talking with Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights legal organization. This interview was recorded back in May 2020, when the country contended with both a pandemic and growing racial and social justice movements. Which, two years later, is still pressing on in addition to the war in Ukraine and inflated markets worldwide. Listen in and learn about the immense power of being responsive as we close out the month focused on Leading within Change.
As nonprofits, we need to be responsive to the people's needs at the moment while tackling the bigger structural issues as well. This is a powerful message that this episode's guest can never overemphasize. Over the next two weeks we will be recasting a special two-part series, Nic is talking with Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights legal organization. This interview was recorded back in May 2020, when the country contended with both a pandemic and growing racial and social justice movements. Which, two years later, is still pressing on in addition to the war in Ukraine and inflated markets worldwide. Listen in and learn about the immense power of being responsive as we close out the month focused on Leading within Change.
Yesterday, April 7th, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, making her the first Black woman to serve as a justice on the nation's highest court. Building off the confirmation of Justice Brown Jackson, we took a Deep Dive into the life and legacy of Judge Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to serve on the federal judiciary. Constance Baker Motley was a civil rights lawyer, NY state politician, and the first Black woman appointed to the federal judiciary. Before finishing law school at Columbia University in 1945, Motley served as a law clerk in the office of Thurgood Marshall, the well known civil rights leader who was the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1946, Motley joined the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund where she served as a civil rights lawyer for nearly two decades. She represented well known civil rights leaders like MLK and Medgar Evans whose constitutional rights were often under siege by the American government during that time. She also represented those who took part in civil rights activism such as the Freedom Fighters and the Birmingham Children Marchers. She was considered a key legal and political strategist of the movement. In 1950, Motley was the legal mind behind the original complaint in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark case that ended school segregation in the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The complaint in Brown v. BOE (1954) argued that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, racial separation under the guise of "separate but equal," was in-fact unequal therefore unconstitutional. This historical case set the legal stage for desegregation in the U.S. In 1964, Motley became the first Black woman elected to the NY State Senate, and she eventually became the first Black woman elected to serve as Borough President of Manhattan. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed her to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, making her the first Black woman to be appointed to the federal bench. Today, we took a deep dive into her life and legacy with Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and Professor Law and History at Harvard University. She's author of Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality, “A must-read for anyone who dares to believe that equal justice under the law is possible and is in search of a model for how to make it a reality,” said Professor Anita Hill. Anita Hill is the legal scholar and professor who captivated the American public in 1991 during her testimony before the Senate judiciary committee in the vetting process for then-nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas is the only other African American to sit on the Supreme Court; he was appointed by George H. W. Bush to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. He's married to Virginia Thomas who sent a great deal of text messages begging former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to push to overturn the fairly drawn results of the 2020 presidential election. We also spoke with President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Janai Nelson, about the legacy Motley left and the pivotal cases she worked on during her time there. Simone Yhap, the immediate past president of the National Chair of the National Black Law Students Association also joined us. Yhap spoke to us about the obstacles Black law students continue to face, citing a recent incident from law student Brooklyn Crockton. Crockton posted a TikTok back in March about what happened when she arrived at court to serve as a Rule 9 attorney representing an indigent client. She says a court officer blocked her entry into the courtroom and asked if she was the defendant on trial. Simone speaks to this incident with her own story of racial discrimination during law school and reflects on how the historical confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will inspire the next generation of U.S. attorneys. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gestures as she speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, March 22, 2022 (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Yesterday, April 7th, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, making her the first Black woman to serve as a justice on the nation's highest court. Building off the confirmation of Justice Brown Jackson, we took a Deep Dive into the life and legacy of Judge Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to serve on the federal judiciary. Constance Baker Motley was a civil rights lawyer, NY state politician, and the first Black woman appointed to the federal judiciary. Before finishing law school at Columbia University in 1945, Motley served as a law clerk in the office of Thurgood Marshall, the well known civil rights leader who was the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1946, Motley joined the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund where she served as a civil rights lawyer for nearly two decades. She represented well known civil rights leaders like MLK and Medgar Evans whose constitutional rights were often under siege by the American government during that time. She also represented those who took part in civil rights activism such as the Freedom Fighters and the Birmingham Children Marchers. She was considered a key legal and political strategist of the movement. In 1950, Motley was the legal mind behind the original complaint in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark case that ended school segregation in the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The complaint in Brown v. BOE (1954) argued that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, racial separation under the guise of "separate but equal," was in-fact unequal therefore unconstitutional. This historical case set the legal stage for desegregation in the U.S. In 1964, Motley became the first Black woman elected to the NY State Senate, and she eventually became the first Black woman elected to serve as Borough President of Manhattan. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed her to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, making her the first Black woman to be appointed to the federal bench. Today, we took a deep dive into her life and legacy with Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and Professor Law and History at Harvard University. She's author of Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality, “A must-read for anyone who dares to believe that equal justice under the law is possible and is in search of a model for how to make it a reality,” said Professor Anita Hill. Anita Hill is the legal scholar and professor who captivated the American public in 1991 during her testimony before the Senate judiciary committee in the vetting process for then-nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas is the only other African American to sit on the Supreme Court; he was appointed by George H. W. Bush to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. He's married to Virginia Thomas who sent a great deal of text messages begging former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to push to overturn the fairly drawn results of the 2020 presidential election. We also spoke with President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Janai Nelson, about the legacy Motley left and the pivotal cases she worked on during her time there. Simone Yhap, the immediate past president of the National Chair of the National Black Law Students Association also joined us. Yhap spoke to us about the obstacles Black law students continue to face, citing a recent incident from law student Brooklyn Crockton. Crockton posted a TikTok back in March about what happened when she arrived at court to serve as a Rule 9 attorney representing an indigent client. She says a court officer blocked her entry into the courtroom and asked if she was the defendant on trial. Simone speaks to this incident with her own story of racial discrimination during law school and reflects on how the historical confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will inspire the next generation of U.S. attorneys. Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gestures as she speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, March 22, 2022 (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
In this episode, Kimberlé is joined by thought leaders Jelani Cobb, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Cornel West, who share their perspectives on the threats to Black history and realization of Black freedom. The conversation is anchored in the question, "Was 2022 the last Black History Month?” and makes explicit why we must to fight to ensure it was not. Revisiting the crucial insights they raised as part of the MasterClass series, “Black History, Black Freedom, and Black Love,” each guest discusses what lessons we can learn from Black history in this renewed period of racial backlash. With anti-Critical Race Theory bills assaulting curricula in classrooms and gagging conversations about racism across the country, this conversation addresses the urgent need to push back against the reconfiguration of right wing organizing. Having endured the first Black history month commemorated under the vice grip of this anti-truth campaign, this episode invites us into a timely conversation about the past, present, and future of our collective struggle. With: JELANI COBB - Professor, Columbia School of Journalism; Staff writer, New Yorker; Author, "The Matter of Black Lives: Writing From The New Yorker" SHERRILYN IFILL - Former President & Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Author, "On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-First Century" CORNEL WEST - Professor, Union Theological Seminary; Author, "Race Matters" and "Democracy Matters" Hosted by Kimberlé Crenshaw (@sandylocks) Produced and edited by Julia Sharpe-Levine Co-produced by Ashley Julien Supported provided by Destiny Spruill, Rebecca Scheckman, and the African American Policy Forum Music by Blue Dot Sessions Follow us at @intersectionalitymatters, @IMKC_podcast
On Sherilyn Ifill's last day as President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Anita Hill interviews Ifill about the LDF's legacy and her contributions. They talk civil rights – where we are today, where we're going and what it means to run a modern day civil rights organization. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
As nonprofits, we need to be responsive to the people's needs at the moment while tackling the bigger structural issues as well. This is a powerful message that this episode's guest can never overemphasize. Over the next two weeks for a special two-part series, Nic is talking with Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights legal organization. This interview was recorded back in May 2020, when the country contended with both a pandemic and growing racial and social justice movements. Which, two years later, is still pressing on in addition to the war in Ukraine and inflated markets worldwide.
This week, Hillary continues her series on the state of our democracy. On today's episode, we take a look at how our courts, and our laws, are holding up under pressure from powerful interest groups. First, we hear from Dahlia Lithwick, who has covered the Supreme Court for Slate since 1999. Dahlia shares some rather grim predictions on what we can expect from the Court this term with regard to abortion rights, gun regulations, and more. After that comes a conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill about President Biden's Supreme Court nominee, the Court's decimation of voting rights, and Sherrilyn's next project, once she steps down as President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund this spring. Bios: Dahlia Lithwick is a senior editor at Slate, where she writes her award-winning “Supreme Court Dispatches” and “Jurisprudence” columns and hosts Amicus, a podcast about the law and the Supreme Court. Her forthcoming book, Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, is due out this fall. Sherrilyn Ifill is the outgoing President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund known for her work on voting rights, police violence, and racial justice. Previously, she taught for twenty years at the University of Maryland law school. Sherrilyn was one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People of the Year in 2021. Full transcript is HERE. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
It's election season again and, in America, sadly, that means it is voter suppression season. Starting in 2020, 49 states proposed over 440 bills to make it harder for Americans to vote, and many of them have passed. In 2021, state lawmakers started using the newly released census data to draw state maps that lock up their political power – often at the expense of communities of color. And now in 2022, these tactics are almost certain to impact the midterm elections for Congress, as well as local and state elections nationwide. Federal legislation that would have addressed these tactics and reversed some of the Supreme Court's gut punches to the Voting Rights Act has stalled. And Republican lawmakers in at least eight states are trying to strip away power from secretaries of state, governors, and nonpartisan election boards over how elections are run and counted–effectively giving political operatives the power to cancel your vote. My guest today, lawyer Janai Nelson, has spent her career battling these issues. At the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where she currently serves as Associate Director-Counsel and will soon take over as president and Director-Counsel, she has overseen court challenges to racial and partisan gerrymandering, to overturn harsh voter ID laws, and to re-enfranchise folks who have lost their right to vote because of felony convictions. As a professor of law at St. John's University School of Law, she has also taught classes on election law and political participation and has written extensively on the dismantling of the Votings Rights Act at the expense of communities of color. We're catching Janai at a heady time, just as she is ascending to the helm of one of the nation's foremost civil rights organizations, and just as those rights face threats we haven't seen in decades, if not centuries. She joins us today to talk about all this and more.
Yesterday's Senate vote on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act may not have been what we hoped for, but we're not giving up. That's why, for the newest episode of the Clyburn Chronicles, I sat down with my friend, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Sherrilyn Ifill, to discuss the path forward.
Carlton T. Mayers II worked at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) as Policy Counsel for its Policing Reform Campaign, where he advances LDF's efforts to effect responsible and unbiased policing by working with local communities and stakeholders. “Mayers' knowledge of the various facets of law enforcement and criminal justice and his experience working directly with the prison population will add great value to our justice reform efforts,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of LDF. “We look forward to working with him and welcome him as he joins the LDF family.”
Samantha Bee sits down with the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP-LDF Sherrilyn Ifill to discuss the one year anniversary of the killing of George Floyd, voter suppression tactics, and living in a world that is basically fact free.
Nonprofits need to be responsive to the immediate and critical needs of the communities they serve while also tackling bigger structural issues. This powerful message emerges throughout this episode in which A. Nicole Campbell talks to Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh and current President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation's premier civil rights legal organization. In this conversation, Sherrilyn talks about the work they are doing at LDF and how it is transforming outcomes for the Black community. She also shares her advice for nonprofits and philanthropies to build better to effect and sustain change. Listen in and learn about the immense power of being responsive and other key lessons and information borne out of decades of serving marginalized communities.
Welcome to System Check. On this podcast, we’re going to break down the big, unwieldy, seemingly immovable systems that structure our politics and our lives. In the ten episodes in this season, we will delve into the history of these systems, and along with our guests, we will seek ways to move beyond or redesign these systems. In our first episode, your hosts Dorian Warren and Melissa Harris-Perry are focusing on the system at the top of everyone’s minds: Voting. More than 75 million Americans have already cast a ballot, (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/elections/75-million-americans-have-already-voted.html) but election watchers are warning that long lines, false information, and purposeful barriers may deter many Americans from exercising their right to vote. America’s convoluted voting system is deeply and purposely unfair to many Americans, especially African Americans, Spanish-speakers, caregivers, and those with the least education and the fewest financial resources. It’s time for a system check. Sherrilyn Ifill, (https://www.naacpldf.org/about-us/staff/sherrilyn-ifill/) President and Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (https://www.naacpldf.org/) joins us to consider the long history of voter suppression in the United States and to outline how state laws, federal court decisions, and digital misinformation continue to depress voter turnout. After listening to this interview, we know you will want to learn more. Check out Sherrilyn Ifill, Civil Rights Superhero (https://www.glamour.com/story/sherrilyn-ifill-women-of-the-year-2020) by Melissa Harris-Perry (Glamour, October 13, 2020); Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t know his civil rights history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/17/mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-know-his-civil-rights-history/) by Sherrilyn Ifill (Washington Post, October 17, 2019) and the testimony of Sherrilyn Ifill, before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2019 (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190129/108824/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-IfillS-20190129.pdf) (January 29, 2019). Also in this episode, co-host Melissa Harris-Perry delivers the weekly “System Analysis” with a surprising take on the rationality of voting. She concludes by drawing on the wisdom of Professor Lani Guinier. (https://www.fairvote.org/lani_guinier_champion_of_democracy) legal scholar and a champion of voting rights and racial justice. Twenty years ago, as the 2000 election between Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush descended into a chad-hanging fiasco, Lani Guinier wrote Making Every Vote Count (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/making-every-vote-count/) for The Nation. Her analysis remains relevant today. In the second half of the episode, we talk to Alicia Garza (https://aliciagarza.com/) , co-founder of #BlackLivesMatter (https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/) , founder of the Black Futures Lab (https://blackfutureslab.org/) , co-founder of Super Majority (https://supermajority.com/) , host of her own podcast, Lady Don’t Take No (https://lady-dont-take-no.simplecast.com/) , and author of the new book, The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/565184/the-purpose-of-power-by-alicia-garza/) . Alicia Garza is insightful, impactful, and vulnerable in this interview you will not want to miss! Transforming analysis into action, we give listeners three action items this week: Read Alicia Garza’s The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/565184/the-purpose-of-power-by-alicia-garza/) . If you haven’t already voted—VOTE! Not sure if you’re registered? You can check here (https://www.vote.org/) . If you or anyone you know encounters difficulties while trying to vote, call Election Protection: 1-866-OUR VOTE (https://866ourvote.org/) Be sure to keep listening until the end of the episode, because organizer Linda Sutton of Democracy North Carolina (https://democracync.org/) has an inspiring final word this week. System Check is a project of The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/) , hosted by Melissa Harris-Perry and Dorian Warren and produced by Sophia Steinert-Evoy. Our executive producer is Frank Reynolds. DD Guttenplan is Editor of The Nation, Erin O’Mara is President of The Nation. Our theme music is by Brooklyn-based artist and producer Jachary (https://jachary.bandcamp.com/) . Special thanks this week to our guests Sherrilyn Ifill and Alicia Garza. Support for System Check comes from Omidyar Network, a social change venture that is reimagining how capitalism should work. Learn more about their efforts to recenter our economy around individuals, community, and societal well-being at Omidyar.com (https://omidyar.com/) .
Baratunde speaks with Sherrilyn Ifill, the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund about the very long history of voter suppression, why it still exists (hint: white supremacy and racism), and the current tactics being deployed for the 2020 election. Show Notes + Links We are grateful to Sherrilyn Ifill for joining us. Follow her at @Sifill_LDF and @NAACP_LDF on Twitter. You can learn more about the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund at https://www.naacpldf.org/. We will post this episode, a transcript, show notes and more at howtocitizen.com. Please show your support for the show in the form of a review and rating. It makes a huge difference with the algorithmic overlords! HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW. ACTIONS FOR THIS EPISODE. INTERNAL ACTIONS Become educated on the systems of oppression so you know the roots and how to fight back. Two good books to start with for a comprehensive take. Stamped from the Beginning by Ibram X Kendi Crusade for Justice: The Autobiography of Ida B Wells You can buy these books and support local bookstores using our show’s bookshop.org link https://bookshop.org/shop/howtocitizen Understand the Voting Rights Act and how the Shelby decision changed everything. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-shelby-county-broke-america/564707/ Make your voting plan. Visit www.morethanavote.org to make your voting plan. This is the organization that LeBron James helped start, and they’ve partnered with a number of groups including Sherrilyn and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Also visit https://votesaveamerica.com/plan/ the newly released tool from Vote Save America to get ready with a sample ballot for your area to plan your voting so you can be EFFICIENT at the voting booth. EXTERNAL ACTIONS Find out the EXACT requirements of mail-in or absentee ballots in your state and share them so every vote is counted. The requirements and directions for voting by mail differ by state. Some require signatures by a witness on the outside of the envelope along with the witness’s address and your signature. Some require using two envelopes when mailing them back. Get the details from a trusted source or from the ballot itself and remind people to triple check these details! Be a democracy team captain. Take the lead in making sure at least three people you know vote. Follow up with them often until they have voted. Ask each one to do the same! Compile key information about voting and vote by mail for your state. Then simplify the directions for those you are taking responsibility for, and share resources with them. Here are two comprehensive and easy to understand sites summarizing the steps for each state: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/how-to-vote-2020/ https://votesaveamerica.com/states/ Finally, offer to provide a witness signature for the mail-in ballot envelope if that’s required, or offer to deliver their ballot to the drop-off location if they are unable to do so themselves. Support the polls. Bring water, masks, gloves, umbrellas, and other supplies to share with people waiting in long lines to support the polls. If you’re an artist, consider bringing your talents to the public as people wait in line. They will love you for it. ------------------------------------------------------ If you take any of these actions, share that with us - action@howtocitizen.com. Mention Making Our Vote Count in the subject line. Also share your citizening on social media using #howtocitizen. We love feedback from our listeners - comments@howtocitizen.com. Visit Baratunde's website to sign up for his newsletter to learn about upcoming guests, live tapings, and more. Follow him on Instagram or join his Patreon. You can even text him, like right now at 202-894-8844. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers
In this episode, Kimberlé speaks with six leading scholars about the legacy of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court’s largely undersung role in the battle for our democracy, and the profound consequences of the Left’s failure to prioritize the courts over the last several decades. With: DEVON CARBADO - Professor of Law, UCLA; Author, Acting White? Rethinking Race in “Post-Racial” America ERWIN CHEMERINSKY - Dean, UC Berkeley School of Law; Author, We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century SUZANNE GOLDBERG - Professor of Law, Columbia; Founding Director, Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic at Columbia CHERYL HARRIS - Professor of Law, UCLA; Author, “Whiteness as Property” SHERRILYN IFILL - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund MELISSA MURRAY - Professor of Law, NYU, Author, “The Equal Rights Amendment: A Century in the Making" Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/ Hosted by Kimberlé Crenshaw (@sandylocks) Produced by Julia Sharpe-Levine Edited by Julia Sharpe-Levine and Rebecca Scheckman Additional support provided by the African American Policy Forum Music by Blue Dot Sessions Follow us at @intersectionalitymatters, @IMKC_podcast
In Part 2 of a special bonus edition of Talking Feds commemorating the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, Jill Wine-Banks, Joyce Vance, and Barbara McQuade speak with Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) about voter suppression, the unravelling of our democracy that has been going on for years, and the role the legal community has played in these failures.
Leah and Kate are joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of NAACP LDF. They further break down the “shadow docket” cases from last term, highlight an underappreciated theme of the last term, and identify some things to watch in the next few months.
In response to the horrific murder of George Floyd and the worldwide protests against police brutality that followed, the House Democrats wrote the Justice in Policing Act. The provisions in this bill are our best chance for real change in the 116th Congress. In this episode, we see how the bill would limit military equipment being transferred to cops, create a nationwide public database for information about cops and police departments, and limit the qualified immunity that allows cops to use violence with impunity. We also look at The Dingleberry Method, which is the best play for Democrats to use if they want any of this to become law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD192: Democracy Upgrade Stalled CD200: How to End Legal Bribes Bill Outline Justice in Policing Act of 2020 TITLE I: POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY Subtitle A - Holding Police Accountable in the Courts Sec. 101: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Makes it a crime for someone enforcing a law to “knowingly or with reckless disregard” deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitutions, instead of “willingly” deprive a person their rights. Sec. 102: Qualified Immunity Reform Local law enforcement officers and prison guards will not be given immunity if they say they were acting in “good faith” or that they believed their conduct was lawful. Sec. 103: Pattern and Practice Investigations Gives the Attorney General optional subpoena authority and authorizes (but does not appropriate) $300,000 for grants to help states conduct investigations for the next three years Sec. 104: Independent Investigations The attorney general to give grants to states to help them conduct independent investigations of law enforcement. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) $2.25 billion Subtitle B - Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act Sec. 113: Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies Orders the Attorney General to do a review and recommend additional standards that are supposed to result in greater accountability of law-enforcement agencies. Sec. 114: Law Enforcement Grants Gives the Attorney General the option to provide grants to Community organizations to study law-enforcement standards. Sec. 115: Attorney General to Conduct Study Orders the attorney general to do a study on the ability of law-enforcement officers to dodge investigative questions. Sec. 116: Authorization of Appropriations Authorizes (but does not appropriate) about $28 million. Sec. 117: National Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight Creates a task force staffed by the Attorney General to process complaints of law enforcement misconduct. Authorizes (but does not appropriate) $5 million per year Sec. 118: Federal Data Collection on Law Enforcement Practices Each federal, state, and local law enforcement agency would have to report a breakdown of the numbers of traffic stops, pedestrian stops, , And uses of deadly force by race, ethnicity, age, and gender of the officers and the the members of the public to the Attorney General. States that do not submit the reports would not be given money from the Department of Justice. TITLE II: POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA Subtitle A - National Police Misconduct Registry Sec. 201: Establishment of National Police Misconduct Registry Six months after enactment, the Atty. Gen. would have to create a database containing each complaint filed against the law enforcement officer, termination records, certifications, in records of lawsuits and settlements made against the officer. The registry would be available to the public Sec. 202: Certification Requirements for Hiring of Law Enforcement Officers Withholds money from a state or jurisdiction if all officers have not completed certification requirements. Subtitle B - PRIDE Act Sec. 223: Use of Force Reporting Requires states to report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis, information about law enforcement officers who shoot civilians, civilians who shoot law-enforcement officers, any incident involving the death or arrest of a law-enforcement officer, deaths in custody, and arrests and bookings. The reports must contain information about the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, English language proficiency, and housing status of each civilian against whom a local law enforcement officer used force. Reports must also include the location of the incident, whether the civilian was armed and with what kind of weapon, the type of force used, the reason force was used, a description of any injuries sustained as a result of the incident, the number of officers involved, the number of civilians involved, a description of the circumstances, efforts by local law-enforcement to de-escalate the situation, or the reason why efforts to de-escalate were not attempted. The Attorney General would have to make this information public once per year in a report. TITLE III: IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES Subtitle A - End Racial and Religious Profiling Act Sec. 311: Prohibition “No law-enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall engage in racial profiling." Racial profiling is defined as relying, to any degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities. Sec. 312: Enforcement Allows victims of racial profiling to sue in civil courts, either in the state for in a district court of the United States. Subtitle B - Additional Reforms Sec. 361: Training on Racial Bias and Duty to Intervene The attorney general has to establish a training program to cover racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice. The training program must exhibit a clear duty for federal law-enforcement officers to intervene in cases where another law-enforcement officer is using excessive force against a civilian. Sec. 362: Ban on No-Knock Warrants in Drug Cases Search warrants authorized for drug cases would have to require that the law-enforcement officer provide notice of his or her authority and purpose. Sec. 363: Incentivizing Banning of Chokeholds and Carotid Holds States will not receive funding from the Department of Justice unless the state has enacted a law prohibiting officers in the State or jurisdiction from using a chokehold or carotid hold. Chokeholds would be classified as civil rights violations Sec. 364: PEACE Act “Less lethal” force can be used if it’s “necessary and proportional” in order to arrest a person “who the officer has probably cause to believe has committed a criminal offense” and if “reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of less lethal force have been exhausted” Deadly force can only be used “as a last resort” to “prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another person”, and if the use of deadly force creates no “substantial risk of injury to a third person”, and if “reasonable alternatives tot he use of the form of deadly fore have been exhausted” Officers have to give people a verbal warning that they are a law enforcement officer and that they “will use force against the person if the person resists arrest or flees” Sec. 365: Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act Prohibits the 1033 Program from transferring military equipment to domestic law enforcement for “counter drug” and “border security activities” but they can continue to get equipment for “counterterrorism” Would require the police departments to submit to the Defense Department a description of how they intend to use the military equipment, the department would have to publish a notice on their website and “at several prominent locations in the jurisdiction" that they are requesting the military equipment, and have the notices available for 30 days, and that the department has approval to receive the equipment by the city council. Reports on where the equipment goes must be submitted to Congress Prohibits the transfer of controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers, grenades (including flash bangs), explosives, controlled vehicles, MRAPs, trucks, drones, combat aircraft, silencers, and long range acoustic devices. The department would be required to return the equipment if they are investigated by the Justice Department or found to have engaged in widespread civil rights abuses Police departments “may never take ownership” of controlled property Applies only to equipment transferred in the future. Subtitle C - Law Enforcement Body Cameras Sec. 372: Requirements for Federal Uniformed Officers Regarding the Use of Body Cameras Requires uniformed officers with the authority to conduce searches and make arrests to wear a body camera. The body camera - vide and audio - must be activated whenever a uniformed officer is responding to a call for service or during any other law enforcement encounter with a member of the public, except if an immediate threat to the officer’s life or safety makes turning the camera on impossible. Officers must notify members of the public that they are wearing a body camera When entering someone’s home or speaking to a victim, the officer must ask if the resident or victim wants the camera turned off and turn it off if requested, if they are not executing a search warrant. Body cameras can not be equipped with real time facial recognition technology Facial recognition technology can be used with the footage with a warrant Body cameras can’t be used to gather intelligence on protected speech, associations, or relations. Body cameras are not required when the officer is speaking to a confidential informant or when recording poses a risk to national security. Body cameras are not allowed to be turned on when an officer is on a school campus unless he/she is responding to an imminent threat of life or health Footage must be retained for 6 months and then permanently deleted Citizens and their lawyers and the families of deceased citizens have the right to inspect body camera footage related to their cases Body camera footage related to a use of force or a civilian complaint must be kept for at least 3 years Redactions can be used Body camera footage retained longer than 6 months is inadmissible in court If an officer interferes or turns off a recording, “appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken” and the interference can be used as evidence in court. Sec. 373: Patrol Vehicles with In-Car Video Recording Cameras In car video camera recording equipment must record whenever an officer is on patrol duty, conducting an enforcement stop, patrol lights are activated, if the officer thinks the recording could help with a prosecution, and when an arrestee is being transported. Recordings must be retained for 90 days. Sec. 374: Facial Recognition Technology In car video cameras can not be equipped with facial recognition technology TITLE IV - JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT Sec. 403: Lynching Co-conspirators to a lynching can be sentenced to 10 years in prison Articles/Documents Article: READ: Democrats Release Legislation To Overhaul Policing By Barbara Sprunt, npr, June 8, 2020 Article: Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis By Mandeep R Mehra, Frank Ruschitzka, and Amit N Patel, The Lancelet, June 5, 2020 Article: Verizon and AT&T Partner With Pro-Police Militarization Lobbying Group By Donald Shaw, Sludge, June 4, 2020 Article: The no-knock warrant for Breonna Taylor was illegal By Radley Balko, The Washington Post, June 3, 2020 Article: 10 Things Dems Could Do Right Now -- If They Actually Wanted To Stop Trump’s Power Grab By David Sirota, Substack, June 2, 2020 Article: De-escalation Keeps Protesters And Police Safer. Departments Respond With Force Anyway. By Maggie Koerth and Jamiles Lartey, FiveThirtyEight, June 1, 2020 Article: U.S. lawmaker prepares bill aiming to end court protection for police By David Morgan, Reuters, June 1, 2020 Statement: The Posse Comitatus Act, U.S. Northern Command, September 23, 2019 Article: Slavery and the Origins of the American Police State By Ben Fountain, Medium, September 17, 2018 Document: An Evaluation of the Department of Defense's Excess Property Program: Law Enforcement Agency Equipment Acquisition Policies, Findings, and Options by Aaron C. Davenport, Jonathan William Welburn, Andrew Lauland, Annelise Pietenpol, Marc Robbins, Erin Rebhan, Patricia Boren, K. Jack Riley, Rand Corporation, 2018 Article: Trump Reverses Obama Policy on Surplus Military Gear for Police By Pete Williams and Julia Ainsley, NBC News, August 28, 2017 Article: New Ferguson Video Adds Wrinkle to Michael Brown Case By Mitch Smith, The New York Times, March 11, 2017 Article: L.A. schools police will return grenade launchers but keep rifles, armored vehicle By Stephen Ceasar, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2014 Article: Michael Brown Robbed Convenience Store, Stole Cigarillos Before Darren Wilson Shooting, Dorian Johnson Says By Thomas Barrabi, International Business Times, November 25, 2014 Article: The “1033 Program,” Department of Defense Support to Law Enforcement By Daniel H. Else, Congressional Research Service, Specialist in National Defense, August 28, 2014 Additional Resources About: Vanita Gupta, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Oversight Hearing on Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability, House Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Art Acevedo: President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association Paul Butler: Professor of Law at Georgetown Law School Vanita Gupta: President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill: President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Marc Morial: President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Urban League Ben Crump: President and Founder of Ben Crump Trial Lawyer for Justice (lawyer for the family of George Floyd) Transcript: C-SPAN: Part 1 34:15 Vanita Gupta: My tenure as head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division began two months after 18 year old Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson. The Justice Department was hardly perfect, but we understood our mandate: to promote accountability and constitutional policing in order to build community trust. During the Obama administration, we opened 25 pattern-or-practice investigations to help realize greater structural and community centered change, often at the request of police chiefs and mayor's who needed federal leadership. After making findings, we negotiated consent decrees with extensive engagement and input from community advocates, who not only identified unjust and unlawful policing practices, but also helped develop sustainable mechanisms for accountability and systemic change. That is not the Justice Department that we have today. Under both Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, the department has abdicated its responsibility and abandoned the use of tools like pattern-or-practice investigations and consent decrees. Instead it is focused on dismantling police accountability efforts and halting any new investigations. The disruption of crucial work in the Civil Rights Division and throughout the Department of Justice to bring forth accountability and transparency in policing is deeply concerning. In the absence of federal leadership, the Leadership Conference Education Fund launched the new era of public safety initiative, a comprehensive guide and toolkit outlining proposals to build trust between communities and police departments, restore confidence and imagine a new paradigm of public safety. While much of these changes must happen at the state and local level, success is going to require the leadership support and commitment of the federal government including Congress. Last week, the leadership conference and more than 400 civil rights organizations sent a letter to Congress to move us forward on a path of true accountability. The recommendations included the following: One, create a national necessary standard on the use of force. Two, prohibit racial profiling, including robust data collection. Three, ban the use of chokeholds and other restraint maneuvers. Four, end the militarization of policing. Five, prohibit the use of no knock warrants, especially in drug cases. Six, strengthen federal accountability systems and increase the Justice Department's authority to prosecute officers that engage in misconduct. Seven create a national police misconduct registry. And eight, end qualified immunity. The Leadership Conference was pleased to learn that the Justice in Policing Act introduced Monday by both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate reflects much of this accountability framework. This is Congress's most comprehensive effort in decades to substantially address police misconduct by taking on issues critical issues affecting black and brown communities. 1:02:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: One of the key parts of the system of impunity has been qualified immunity defense that shields officials from the unforeseeable consequences of their act but has been interpreted by courts so ***extensively that it now provides near immunity for police officers who engage and unconstitutional acts of violence. 1:02:45 Sherrilyn Ifill: The Justice and policing act seeks to address qualified immunity by amending the civil rights statute used most in police excessive use of force cases. 42 USC section 1983 and we welcome this amendment. We want it to apply to all civil suits that are pending or filed after enactment of the Act. And we'll continue to work towards the elimination of qualified immunity. 1:24:10 Ben Crump: The only reason we know what happened to George Floyd is because it was captured on video. The advent of video evidence is bringing into the light what long was hidden. It's revealing what black Americans have known for a long, long time - that it is dangerous for a black person to have an encounter with a police officer. Given the incidents that have led to this moment in time, it should be mandatory for police officers to wear body cams and should be considered obstruction of justice to turn them off. Like a black box data recorded in an airplane body cams replace competing narratives with a single narrative, the truth with what we see with our own eyes. C-SPAN: Part 2 3:00 Vanita Gupta: I will tell you there's actually significant law enforcement support for this kind of registry. And prosecutors around the country have asked for this kind of registry. But chiefs in particular have said that this is a real problem when they don't have this kind of information when they're making hiring decisions. 14:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: The principal problems that we have found in this long standing systemic issue of police violence against unarmed African Americans is the inability to hold officers who engage in misconduct accountable. Now, this is not just about the individual officer who some refer to as a bad apple. This is about a system of accountability that must exist if police officers are to understand that they cannot engage in certain kinds of conduct without impunity. And unfortunately, all of the legal tools that are available to us to hold officers accountable, have been weakened or lacked the sufficient strength and language to allow us to do so. So strengthening the language of the federal criminal statute that will not hold us to such a high standard and proving intent of the officers conduct is critical. And so adding a recklessness provision into that language that will allow us to get at some of this officer misconduct is vitally important. 45:00 Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): Mayor Morial, throughout recent times, we've seen repeated instances where black people often unarmed have been killed by a police officer. And if the death results in a use of force investigation, that investigation most often is conducted by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer who used the deadly force. Isn't that correct? Marc Morial: That's traditionally the way it works. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): And Professor Butler we've also witnessed these use of force investigations being overseen by the local district attorney who works hand in hand, day after day, year after year, with the same officer and with the agency that employs the officer who used the deadly force in the case that's under investigation. Isn't that correct? And attorney Crump we've seen time and time again that the investigation becomes long and drawn out. And at some point, months or even years later, the local Prosecutor takes that case before a secret grand jury. And out of that grand jury usually comes what's called a no bill, which is a refusal to indict the officer who committed the homicide. Isn't that correct? Ben Crump: Yes, sir congressman Johnson. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): And Professor Butler because grand jury proceeding's a secret, the public never learns exactly what the prosecutor presented to the grand jury. Isn't that correct? Paul Butler: Just like the grand jury proceeding in Staten Island with Eric Garner, who was placed in an illegal chokehold. We have no idea why that grand jury didn't indict that officer for murder. Rep. Hank Johnson (GA): It becomes just another justified killing of a black person by the police in America. Wouldn't it be fairer if the homicide investigation were undertaken by an Independent Police Agency, Attorney Gupta? Vanita Gupta: I think it would. It would also give the community members are much more faith in their legal system if there was an independent investigator in these kinds of cases. 1:41:30 Rep. Tom McClintock (CA): I think there are many proposals that have been raised in the house that merit support. And first is the doctrine of qualified immunity as it's currently applied. It has no place in a nation ruled by laws. For every right, there must be a remedy. And qualified immunity prevents a remedy for those whose rights have been violated by officials holding a public trust. And this reform should apply as much to a rogue cop who targets people because of their race, as it does to IRS or Justice Department officials and target people on the basis of their politics. 1:42:15 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): Police records must be open to the public. It is a well established principle that public servants work for the public. And the public has a right to know what they're doing with the authority the public has loaned them. And police departments should be able to dismiss bad officers without interference from the unions. 1:42:45 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): Turning police departments into paramilitary organizations is antithetical to the sixth principle laid down by Peel. Quote, "To use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective." Weapons that are unique to a battlefield need to be limited to a battlefield. 1:43:15 Rep.Tom McClintock (CA): No knock warrants have been proven to be lethal to citizens and to police officials for obvious reasons. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers the government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes. And that means that the authority as a police must be announced before that intrusion takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril. 2:00:45 Vanita Gupta: I think right now there is a hunger in the streets and in communities around the country to recognize that people want other options in their communities other than to call 911 and have a police officer come at the door when people are in mental health crisis, for homelessness issues and school discipline issues. And they want to - and I've heard this from police chiefs. The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a very powerful statement two days ago, recognizing the systematic decades of underinvestment in the kinds of social systems in housing and homelessness and education, and how that's all been placed at the feet of police officers. This needs to be a holistic evaluation of what spending priorities have been in communities that have been saturated with a criminal justice response, but under invested with resources for education and jobs, and the like. 2:39:00 Rep. Greg Stube (FL): But there are proposals in this bill that are extremely dangerous for those who protect our communities. Removing qualified immunity is only... Qualified immunity is only a protection if officers follow their training and protocols. If they don't follow the training and protocols, they don't get to use the immunity because it's qualified. If officers don't have qualified immunity to follow the training and protocols. I don't know a single person who would want to become a law enforcement officer in today's world, knowing that they may or may not be able to use the training and protocols that they were used to be able to apprehend a suspect who is not complying with them. But maybe that's the goal of the majority to get less and less people to join our law enforcement offices. 2:59:00 Vanita Gupta: Justice Department currently only has one law that they can use to prosecute police misconduct. And as you said, it has the highest mens rea requirement there is in criminal law requiring not only that prosecutors prove that the officer used unreasonable force, but actually also that the officer knew that what he or she was doing was in violation of the law and did it anyway, that is actually a very high burden. And so for years, there have been case after case that the Justice Department has been unable to reach it because of how high this burden is. There are many criminal civil rights prosecutors that for years have also wanted the change that is being proposed in the Justice in Policing Act, because I think it would enhance the Justice Department's credibility in these matters to be able to hold officers who violate federal civil rights laws accountable. And so this Justice in Policing Act asks it change the mens rea standard to knowingly or with reckless disregard, to slightly lower standards so more cases will be charged. It also really importantly broadens the language of the federal civil rights statute by including in its definition of a death resulting from an officers action, any act that was a substantial factor contributing to death. And I know many, many former US Attorneys that are eager to see this change as well. 3:07:00 Vanita Gupta: It is a real shame that in 2020, we still do not have adequate data collection on use of force in this country. We've had to rely for several years on journalists to putting this stuff together at the Washington Post and at The Guardian. The FBI has started to try to more systematically collected it, but this bill, the justice in policing act actually includes a requirement for states to report use of force data to the Justice Department, including the reason that force was used. Technical Assistance Grants are established in this bill to assist agencies that have fewer than 100 employees with compliance. That was often the reason that that police agencies were not reporting on this, but it also requires the Attorney Generals to collect data on traffic stops, searches, uses of deadly force by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, and to disaggregate that data by race, ethnicity and gender. 3:26:00 Vanita Gupta: This national registry would have misconduct complaints. It would have discipline termination records, it would have records of certification. It contains conditioning for money for funds from so that agencies actually have to put in inputs before they can access federal money, but it is high time for this to happen. 3:39:20 Vanita Gupta: The Trump DOJ has essentially abandoned and abdicated a mandate that was given by Congress in 1994 to investigate patterns and practices of unconscious, systemic, unconstitutional policing and police departments around the country. Since the administration began, there has been the opening only of one on a very tiny issue at the police department out of Springfield, Massachusetts, compared to 25 in the Obama administration, and many others in Republican and Democratic administrations prior to that. And so what that has meant is that the tool of these investigations, the tool of the consent decrees has just been lying dormant. Typically, when I oversaw the Civil Rights Division, we had mayors and police chiefs that really, in numerous instances, were actually asking the Justice Department to come in because they needed federal help in very bad situations. And so, jurisdictions have not been able to rely anymore on the Justice Department to support these kinds of efforts. And I think this bill, Justice in Policing does a lot to strengthen the Civil Rights Division's authority, giving it subpoena power, giving it resources. It also gives State Attorneys General the ability to do these patterns and practices where they have already state laws that allow them to do it as well. And that's, of course in this moment, with a justice department that is very disengaged from these issues. An important... Hearing: Oversight of Federal Programs for Equipping State and Local Law Enforcement, United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, September 9, 2014 Watch on C-SPAN Witnesses: Alan Estevez - Principal Deputy Defense Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Brian Kamoie - FEMA Grant Programs Assistant Administrator Peter Kraska - Professor at the School of Justice at University of Eastern Kentucky Mark Lomax - National Tactical Officers Association Executive Directior Transcript: 26:00 Alan Estevez: More than 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies actively participate in the program across 49 states in three US territories. More than $5.1 billion of property has been provided since 1990. 26:15 Alan Estevez: A key element in both the structure and execution of the program is the state coordinator, who is appointed by the respective state governor. State coordinators approve law enforcement agencies within their state to participate in the program, review all requests for property submitted by those agencies along with the statement of intended use. Working through state coordinators. Law enforcement agencies determine their need for different types of equipment and they determine how it's used. The Department of Defense does not have the expertise and police force functions and cannot assess how equipment is used in the mission of individual law enforcement agencies. 27:14 Alan Estevez: Law enforcement agencies currently possess approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property that they have received over time. 27:20 Alan Estevez: Examples of control property include over 92,000 small alarms 44,000 night vision devices 5200 High Mobility Multi Purpose wheeled vehicles or Humvees and 617 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles or MRAPs. The department does not provide tanks, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, crew served weapons or uniforms. 28:20 Alan Estevez: During the height of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey, police drove cargo trucks and three Humvees through water too deep for commercial vehicles to save 64 people. In Wisconsin, Green Bay police used donated computers for forensic investigations. During a 2013 flood in Louisiana, Livingston parish police used six Humvees to rescue 137 people. In Texas armored vehicles received through program protected police officers during a standoff and shootout with gang members. 30:35 Brian Kamoie: The department's preparedness grant programs assist communities across the nation to build and sustain critical capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. 33:00 Brian Kamoie: Grant recipients must purchase equipment listed on the department's authorized equipment list, which outlines 21 categories of allowable equipment. The department prohibits the use of grant funds for the purchase of lethal or non lethal weapons and ammunition. These equipment categories are not on the authorized equipment list. Homeland Security grant funds may be used to purchase equipment that can be classified as personal protective equipment, such as ballistics protection equipment, helmets, body armor, and ear and eye protection. Response vehicles such as BearCats are also allowed. The Homeland Security Act allows equipment purchased with grant funds, including personal protective equipment to be used for purposes unrelated to terrorism. So long as one purpose of the equipment is to build and sustain terrorism based capabilities. 33:46 Brian Kamoie: The authorized equipment list also notes that ballistic personal protective equipment purchased with grant funds is not for riot suppression. 40:10 Alan Estevez: When it's no longer needed, we make it available not just cross levels across the Department of Defense first, and law enforcement by congressional authorization as dibs early in that process before it goes out to state agencies. And not all the equipment that's provided to law enforcement is available to everyone else. 40:45 Alan Estevez: Again, it's not for the department to really judge how law enforcement's...that's not our expertise. We rely on the state coordinators, appointed by the governor of each of those states who vet incoming requests from their local law enforcement agencies. 48:00 Coburn: How do you all determine what Federal Supply classes are available to be transferred? Alan Estevez: That is done basically by our item managers who... Coburn: I know, but tell me how do they decide MRAPs appropriate for community of my hometown, 35,000 people. Alan Estevez: that is done by the state coordinate... Coburn: I understand that but how did you ever decide that an MRAP is an appropriate vehicle for for local police forces? Alan Estevez: We know an MRAP is a truck senator with Coburn: No it is not a truck. It's a 48,000...offensive weapon. Alan Estevez: It's a very, very, very heavy...it is not an offensive weapon, Senator. Coburn: It can be used as an offensive weapon. Alan Estevez: When we give an MRAP, it is stripped of all its electronic warfare capability. It does not have a 50 caliber weapon on it. It is not an offensive weapon, is a protective vehicle. 49:15 Coburn: How do we ever get to the point where we think states need MRAPs. How did that process come about? Alan Estevez: Now this is one of the areas that we're obviously going to look at senator. How we decided what equipment is available. I mean, obviously we've made some big decisions, fighter aircraft tanks, strikers, those type of things are not available. Sniper Rifles - not available. Grenade launchers - not available. Coburn: Drones are available. Alan Estevez: No. Coburn: Airplanes are available. Alan Estevez: Airplanes are available. Cargo helicopters. Helicopters, not Apaches. Okay. Coburn: But but really you you can't tell us today how we make those decisions of what goes on the list and off the list. Alan Estevez: It's basically a common sense decision inside the department and then we do as I keep saying go back to the states. 50:15 Coburn: When something is removed from the list, and I don't know if you have any recent experience with this, are agencies are required to return the restricted equipment. Alan Estevez: That's why we retain title for what we call controlled equipment so that we can pull that equipment. 57:00 Alan Estevez: So as force structural changes, as our budget changes, things that we thought we would need, were are no longer needed. Or things that we bought for the war. And I'm not not talking about tactical rifles and like I'm talking about basic medical kits, that type of stuff may no longer be needed as we draw down force structure based on changing environment on the ground. PCA changes our force structure, things that we required will no longer be needed as that force structure changes. That's the basic reason. 58:30 Senator McCaskill: The Lake Angeles Police Department in Michigan, you gave them 13 military assault weapons since 2011. They have one full time sworn officer. So one officer now has 13 military grade assault weapons in their police department. How in the world can anyone say that this program has a one lick of oversight if those two things are in existence? Alan Estevez: I'll have to look into the details on each of those. The rule of thumb is one MRAP validated by the state coordinator for a police department that requests an MRAP no more than one. So I'd have to look at the incident in Senator Coburn's state. And same thing with rifles...weapons. Senator McCaskill: I will make part of the record the list we have a long list of law enforcement agencies that received three times as many 5.56 and 7.62 military grade weapons per for full time officer and this is a long list. 1:05:00 Senator Johnson: This program, which has apparently provided about $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997. It's all been free, correct? Alan Estevez: Yes. It's not free to the taxpayer. We bought it used it on... Senator Johnson: Free to local governments, correct? Alan Estevez: That's correct. Senator Johnson: Free local to police departments. Alan Estevez: Yes, sir, Senator. Senator Johnson: Do you know if too many police farms return free things down? Alan Estevez:Again, I'm not in the position of a local police department, but if something was available, and they thought they needed it, because they have to sustain this equipment, if they thought they needed it, and it was useful to them. Why not? 1:23:15 Rand Paul: In FEMAs authorized equipment lists, there's actually written descriptions for how the equipment should be used. And it says it's specifically not supposed to be used for riot suppression. Mr. Kamoie? Is that true that it's not supposed to be used for Riot suppression? And how do you plan in policing that since the images show us clearly, large pieces of equipment that were bought with your grants being used in that Riot suppression? Protest suppression, rather. Brian Kamoie: Senator Paul, that is accurate. The categories of personal protective equipment that include helmets, ear and eye protection, ballistics personal protective equipment, is a prohibition in the authorized equipment list that is not to be used for riot suppression. Rand Paul: And what will you do about it? Brian Kamoie: We're going to follow the lead of the Department of Justice's investigation about the facts. We're going to work for the state of Missouri to determine what pieces of equipment were grant funded, and then we have a range of remedies available to us. Should there be any finding of non compliance with those requirements. Those include everything from corrective action plans to ensure it doesn't happen again. recoupment of funds. So we'll look very closely at the facts. But we're going to allow the investigation to run its course and determine what the appropriate remedy is. 1:25:20 Rand Paul: Mr. Estavez in the NPR investigation of the 1033 program, they list that 12,000 bayonets have been given out. What purpose are bayonets being given out for? Alan Estevez: Senator, bayonets are available under the program. I can't answer what a local police force would need a bayonet for. Rand Paul: I can give you an answer. None. So what's the what's President Obama's administration's position on handing out bayonets to the police force? It's on your list. You guys create the list. You're going to take it off the list. We're going to keep doing it. Alan Estevez: We are going to look at what we are providing under the administration's review of all these programs. Rand Paul: So it's unclear at this point whether President Obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out. I would think you can make that decision last week. Alan Estevez: I think we need to review all the equipment that we're providing Senator. And as I said, we the Department of Defense do not push any of this equipment on any police force. The states decide what they need. 1:26:00 Rand Paul: My understanding is that you have the ability to decide what equipment is given out and what equipments not given out. If you decided tomorrow, if President Obama decided tomorrow that mine resistant ambush protection 20 ton vehicles are not appropriate for cities in the United States. He could decide tomorrow to take it off the list. You could decide this tomorrow. My question is, what is the administration's opinion on giving out mine resistant ambush protection 20 ton vehicles to towns across America? Are you for it or against it? Alan Estevez: Obviously we do it senator we're going to look at that. I will also say that I can give you anecdotes for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that protected police forces in shootouts. Rand Paul: But we've already been told they're only supposed to be used for terrorism, right? Isn't that what the rule is? Alan Estevez: Our rule is for counter-drug, which could have been the shootout I'd have to look at the incident. Counter-narcotics counter-terrorism. 1:28:00 Rand Paul: The militarization of police is something that has gotten so far out of control and we've allowed it to descend along with a not a great protection of our civil liberties as well. So we say we're going to do this, it's okay if it's for drugs. Well look at the instances of what have happened in recent times. The instance in Georgia just a couple of months ago, of an infant in a crib getting a percussion grenade thrown in through a window in a no knock raid. Turns out the infant obviously wasn't involved in the drug trade, but neither was even the infant's family - happened to have been the wrong place the wrong time. No one's even been indicted on this. So really, this is crazy out of control and giving military equipment and with a breakdown of the whole idea of due process of no knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore. You can see how this gets out of control and people are very, very concerned with what is going on here. And I see the response so far to be lackluster, and I hope you will do a more complete job in trying to fix this. Thank you. 1:32:20 Ayotte: Is there any coordination between the grants that homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on the 1033 front? Brian Kamoie: We don't coordinate in the decision making about local law enforcement requests. The process that Mr. Estevez has laid out, we don't coordinate that at all. 1:51:40 Peter Kraska: The clear distinction between our civilian police and military is blurring in significant and consequential ways. The research I've been conducting since 1989 has documented quantitatively and qualitatively the steady and certain marks of U.S. civilian policing down the militarization continuum. Culturally, materially, operationally, and organizationally, despite massive efforts at democratizing police, under the guise of community policing reforms, the growth in militarized policing has been steep and deep. In the mid 1980s, a mere 30% of police agencies had a SWAT team. Today well over 80% of departments, large and small, have one. In the early 1980s, these these agencies conducted approximately 3,000 deployments a year nationwide. Today, I estimate a very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. And it is critical to recognize that these 60,000 deployments are mostly for conducting drug searches on people's private residences. This is not to imply that all police, nearly 20,000 unique departments across our great land, are heading in this direction. But the research evidence along with militarized tragedies in Modesto, Georgia, Ferguson and tens of thousands of other locations, demonstrates a troubling and highly consequential overall trend. What we saw played out in the Ferguson protests was the application of a very common mindset, style of uniform and appearance and weaponry used every day in the homes of private residences during SWAT raids. Some departments conduct as many as 500 SWAT team raids a year. And just as in the two examples above, and in the Ferguson situation, it is the poor and communities of color that are most impacted. 1:54:00 Peter Kraska: I mentioned that police militarization predates 911 this is not just an interesting historical fact it is critical because it illuminates the most important reason or causal factor in this unfortunate turn in American policing and American democracy. It is the following: our long running an intensely punitive self proclaimed war on crime and drugs. It is no coincidence that the skyrocketing number of police paramilitary deployments on American citizens since the early 1980s, coincides perfectly with the skyrocketing imprisonment numbers. We now have 2.4 million people incarcerated in this country, and almost 4% of the American public is now under direct correctional supervision. These wars have been devastating to minority communities and the marginalized and have resulted in a self perpetuating growth complex. Cutting off the supply of military weaponry to to our civilian public is the least we could do to begin the process of reining in police militarization and attempting to make clear the increasingly blurred distinction between the military and police. Please do not underestimate the gravity of this development. This is highly disturbing to most Americans on the left and the right. 1:57:30 Mark Lomax: The threat that firearms pose to law enforcement officers and the public during violent critical incidents has proven that armored rescue vehicles have become an essential as individually worn body armor or helmets in saving lives. 2:11:30 Peter Kraska: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 had been in place untouched for quite a long time until the 1980s drug war. And it wasn't until the 1980s drug war it was actually the Reagan administration that wanted to completely repealed Posse Comitatus. But what instead happened is they just amended it significantly, to allow for cross training and weapons transference. And just as an aside, I don't want to make too much of an aside, but we also have to remember that the Department of Defense has been very actively involved in training local police departments as well, not just providing them equipment, but providing them training. I've got a great quote that if you, I'm not going to read it now, but if you asked me to read it, I will. that talks about even having navy seals and Army Rangers come to a local police department and teach them things. So it's not just weapons transference. The federal government has increasingly since 911 played a significant role in accelerating these trends towards militarization. And, you know, the extent to which the 1033 program, Department of Homeland Security funds, etc, have contributed to it. I would certainly call it significant. But I think we have to remember that the that the militarized culture have a component of policing, and it's just a component of policing. This isn't a unified phenomenon at all of police in the United States of America. Hell, we have a police department right next to us, Lexington PD, very smart, very wise. They don't do this kind of thing at all, and they would never do it. So the police in communities a bit split over this. And I don't want anybody to get the impression because of the experts we've heard that policing is all for this stuff, because it's just not true. There are lots of folks that aren't. Anyway, back to federalisation. So, I think the federal government's played a significant role in probably the last 10 to 14 years. 2:14:10 Peter Kraska: This had everything to do with prosecuting the drug war. And that's when we saw the precipitous rise in not only the number of SWAT units but the amount of activity. That's when we saw departments doing 750 to 1000 drug raids per year on people's private residences. That's when we saw police departments all over the country in small little localities sending off two or three officers to a for profit training camp, like Smith and Wesson or Heckler and Koch getting training and coming back to the department and starting a 15 officer, police paramilitary unit with no clue what they were doing whatsoever. That all happened as a part of the drug war. 2:26:50 Peter Kraska: Oftentimes, these kind of conversations devolve into an either or type of argument. And it's really critical to recognize that there are absolutely lots of situations. Columbine, for example, where you have to have a competent professional response, a use of force specialist, military, Special Operations folks, police special, whatever you want to call them, you have to have that, no doubt. What I was talking about was 60,000 deployments, as I was not talking about 60,000 deployments. For those situations. Those situations are incredibly rare. Thank goodness, they're incredibly rare. Those situations absolutely require a competent response, active shooter, terrorist, whatever kind of situation. Our research demonstrated conclusively that 85% of SWAT team operations today are proactive, choice driven raids on people's private residences 85%. What that means is that the original function of SWAT in the 1970s was the idea that SWAT teams were to save lives, they were to respond in a laudable way to very dangerous circumstances and handle the circumstances well. What happened during the 1980s and early 1990s drug war is that function flipped on its head. We went from these teams predominantly doing reactive deployments, maybe one to two of these in an entire municipality, one to two a year. Smaller jurisdictions, probably something like that wouldn't happen in 100 years, but they were there to handle it. This has devolved now into what I'm talking about widespread misapplication of the paramilitary model. 2:29:00 Peter Kraska: 50% of these small police departments... 50% of them are receiving less than 50 hours of training per year for their SWAT team. The recommended amount from the MTOA used to be 250. I think they've reduced it to 200. 250 hours versus 50 hours. These are not well trained teams. These are a localized 18,000 police departments all doing their own thing with no oversight and no accountability. And that's why we're seeing and we have seen hundreds of these kinds of tragedies that I've mentioned, but also lots of terrorized families that have been caught up in these drug operations and drug raids. Thank you. 2:35:30 Peter Kraska: Military gear and garb changes and reinforces a war fighting mentality amongst civilian police, where marginalized populations become the enemy and the police perceive of themselves as a thin blue line between order and chaos that can only be controlled through military model power. 2:47:50 Peter Kraska: Most police departments that handle civil protests correctly know that the last thing you want to do is instigate. It was just a wonderful article written in the Washington Post, it interviewed a whole bunch of Chiefs of Police that understand this and how you sit back and you don't antagonize and you certainly don't display this level of weaponry. Hearing: Police Brutality, United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, March 20, 1991 Witnesses: John Dunne: Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division Transcript: 6:00 Rep. Howard Coble (NC): It would be my hope that this matter could be resolved internally in Los Angeles. The fear I have about what occurred on the coast is that many people are probably going to try to bash every law enforcement officer in the country. That's what bothers me. And I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of law enforcement in this country. 30:15 Rep. Henry Hyde (IL): I know civil rights prosecutions nationwide by year, compiled from annual Department of Justice Statistics, and in 1990, there was 7,960 complaints received and 3,050 investigations. I take it, a great number of the complaints were found to be without merit or beyond investigation, but cases presented to the grand jury or grand juries were only 46. So out of 3,050 investigations there were only 46 that you felt worth taking to a grand jury was that right. Mr. Dunn? John Dunne: Mr. Hyde in light of all of the circumstances, specifically, the key being whether or not the federal state interest had been vindicated. Yes, about one and a half percent, usually runs about 2% a year, of the complaints we receive actually go to prosecution. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
From the groundbreaking Brown v. Board of Education case to voting rights and education, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) has been the nation’s premier civil rights law organization fighting for racial justice and equality since its founding in 1940 by legendary civil rights lawyer (and later Supreme Court justice) Thurgood Marshall. Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF’s President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), will discuss important NAACP cases and issues. Originally aired on SiriusXM on March 28, 2020.
Description: From the groundbreaking Brown v. Board of Education case to voting rights and education, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) has been the nation’s premier civil rights law organization fighting for racial justice and equality since its founding in 1940 by legendary civil rights lawyer (and later Supreme Court justice) Thurgood Marshall. Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF’s President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), will discuss important NAACP cases and issues. Originally aired on SiriusXM on March 28, 2020.
On this episode of Justice in America, Josie Duffy Rice and her guest co-host, Darnell Moore, talk to Sherrilyn Ifill about policing, civil rights, the criminal justice system, and more. Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation’s premier civil rights law organization. LDF was founded in 1940 by one of the most important civil rights lawyers in history, Thurgood Marshall, who later became Supreme Court justice. Ifill began her career as a Fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union, before joining the staff of the LDF as an Assistant Counsel in 1988, where she litigated voting rights cases for five years. Her 2007 book “On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 21st Century,” was highly acclaimed, and is credited with laying the foundation for contemporary conversations about lynching and reconciliation. Ifill is one of our heroes, and it was an honor to speak with her for this episode of Justice in America. For more information and show notes please visit theappeal.org
Sherrilyn Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the nation’s premier civil rights law organization. Sherrilyn joined hosts Josie Duffy Rice and Darnell Moore to talk about her book recommendations. For show notes and more information please check out theappeal.org.
Sherrilyn Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), the nation’s premier civil rights law organization fighting for racial justice and equality. LDF was founded in 1940 by legendary civil rights lawyer (and later Supreme Court justice) Thurgood Marshall, and became a separate organization from the NAACP […]
This week, we’re sharing a past program on the Civil War and Reconstruction and public memory. Leading civil war historians Eric Foner, Thavolia Glymph, and Kate Masur explore the questions: How do we define Reconstruction? What was that period like politically and economically, for ordinary Americans and for the country’s leaders? How can we better understand the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments by contextualizing them in the history of Reconstruction? And how does that history connect to modern issues surrounding racial inequality, Confederate monuments, and more. Sherilynn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, moderates. This program was presented at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund in partnership with the Thurgood Marshall Institute. If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation and want to hear more from the panelists, please check out their other appearances on Live at America’s Town Hall: Eric Foner on the Second Founding Women and the Civil War: The Untold Stories featuring Thavolia Glymph and Kate Masur Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
The currently legal ability of obscenely rich people to bribe lawmakers and law enforcers is the source of many - if not all - of our political problems. In this episode, get an update on the few democracy-enhancing bills that have moved in this Congress and Jen speaks to Sam Fieldman - the National Counsel at Wolf-PAC - who explains how we can constitutionally end the role of money in politics by going around Congress. Joe Briney joins Jen for the thank you's. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! ______________________________________________________ Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD129:The impeachment of John Koskinen CD192: H.R. 1 Outline Recommended Reading Article: Ensuring elections 'free from foreign intrusion' by John Sarbanes and Brian Frosh, Baltimore Sun, July 3, 2019 Article: Alexander-Murrary Bill, by Donald Shaw, ReadSludge.com, June 10, 2019. Article: Microsoft and Election Guard by Whitney Webb, MPN News, May 24, 2019. Document: Ballot-Marking Devices (BMDs) Cannot Assure the Will of the Voters SSRN, May 21, 2019 Article: DHS to Assess Risks Posed to Ballot-Marking Devices by Mark Niese, GovTech, May 2, 2019. Article: DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016 by Sean Gallagher, ARS Technica, April 10, 2019. Article: Amid Election Integrity Criticism, Georgia Governor Signs Bill to Replace Voting Machines by Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse, Governing, April 5, 2019. Article: Firm’s close ties to Georgia stir concerns about voting system purchase by Mark Niesse, Atlanta Journal, January 30, 2019 Article: “Our best friend in this debate is the public,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Friday. by Ella Nilsen, Vox, January 04, 2019. Article: How the GOP is using the Help America Vote Act to block voting, by Thom Hartmann, Salon.com, November 23, 2018. Article: The Latest: Some Georgia Statewide Races Too Close to Call U.S. News, November 7, 2018. Article: VOTING MACHINES ARE STILL ABSURDLY VULNERABLE TO ATTACKS by Lily Hay Newman, Wired, September 28, 2018. Article: Top Voting Machine Vendor Admits It Installed Remote-Access Software on Systems Sold to States by Kim Zetter, Vice News, July 17, 2018. Article: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Ran—and Won—as a Movement Candidate, by DD Guttenplan, The Nation, June 27, 2018. Article: Voting machine vendor treated election officials to trips to Vegas, elsewhere by Greg Gordon, Amy Renee Leiker, Jamie Self and Stanley Dunlap, McClatchy DC Bureau, June 21, 2018. Document: LD-2 Lobbying Report Disclosure Form Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records, 2018 Data: Lobbying Spending Data:Lobbyists representing Election Systems & Software, 2018 OpenSecrets.org, 2018. Article: The Fraud Behind Article V Convention Opposition by Sam Fieldman, Medium.com, October 12, 2017. Article: Some Machines Are Flipping Votes, But That Doesn't Mean They're Rigged by Pam Fessler, NPR, October 26, 2016. Document: 2012 REDMAP Summary Report Redistricting Majority Project, January 4, 2013. Document: Report on Proper Use of Campaign Funds and Resources Committee on Ethics, January 4, 2013. Document: Title 36 organizations Every CRSRReport.com, June 17, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Bill Outline H.R. 2722: SAFE Act Sponsor: Zoe Lofgren of northern California 74 pages Passed the House on June 27, 2019 225-184 Only GOP yes: Newbie Rep. Brian Mast - 38 year old wounded Afghanistan war veteran representing the Palm Beach area Went to the Committee on Rules and Administration in the Senate Title 1: Financial Support for Election Infrastructure Subtitle A: Voting System Security Improvement Grants Sec. 102: Paper ballot requirements “The voting system shall require the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voters’ vote that shall be marked and made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter’s vote is cast and counted, which shall be counted by hand or read by an optical character recognition device or other counting device." “The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error on the paper ballot…” Recounts: The paper ballot “shall constitute the official ballot and shall be preserved and used as the official ballot for purposes any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.” Sec. 104: Durability and readability requirements for ballots Ballots must be on “durable” paper, which means it is capable of withstanding multiple recounts by hand without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots” and they must maintain readability for 22 months. Sec. 105: Recycled Paper Ballots must be printed on recycled paper starting on January 1, 2021. Sec. 107: These rules will apply “for any election for Federal office held in 2020 or any succeeding year.” Grandfathered equipment: Districts using machines that print paper ballots with the votes already tallied can use those machines until 2022, but they must offer every voter the opportunity to vote using a blank paper ballot, which are not allowed to be designated as provisional. Sec. 111:Grants for equipment changes Federal tax money will be given to states to replace their voting system, if needed. Grant amount: At least $1 per the average number of people who voted in the last two elections To use these grants, the states can only buy voting equipment from a vendor “owned and controlled by a citizen or permanent resident of the United States” The vendor must tell government officials if they get any part of their election infrastructure parts from outside the United States Authorizes (but doesn’t appropriate) $600 million for 2019 and $175 million for each even number election year through 2026 Subtitle B:Risk-Limiting Audits Sec. 121: Risk-limited audits required for all elections for Federal office State election officials will make the rules for how these will be done Sec. 122: Federal government will pay for audits Authorizes “such sums as are necessary” Title II: Promoting Cybersecurity Through Improvements in Election Administration Sec. 201: Voting system cybersecurity requirements Vote counting machine rules Machines that count ballots must be built so that "it’s mechanically impossible for the device to add or change the vote selections on a printed or market ballot” The device must be “capable of exporting its data (including vote tally data sets and cast vote records) in a machine-readable, open data standards format” The device’s software’s source code, system build tools, and compilation parameters must be given to certain Federal and State regulators and “may be shared by any entity to whom it has been provided… with independent experts for cybersecurity analysis.” The devise must have technology that allows “election officials, cybersecurity researchers, and voters to verify that the software running on the device was built from a specific, untampered version of the code” that was provided to Federal and State regulators. Loophole for moles: The Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security can waive any of the requirements other than the first one that prohibits machines that can change votes. The waivers can be applied to a device for no more than two years. The waivers must be publicly available on the Internet. Not effective until November 2024 election. Ballot marking machines and vote counters can’t use or “be accessible by any wireless, power-line, or concealed communication device” or “connected to the Internet or any non-local computer system via telephone or other communication network at any time.” Effective for the 2020 general election and all elections after Ballot marking devices can’t be capable of counting votes States may submit applications to Federal regulators for testing and certification the accuracy of ballot marking machines, but they don’t have to. Sec. 202: Testing of existing voting systems 9 months before each regularly scheduled general election for Federal offices, “accredited laboratories” will test the voting system hardware and software with was certified for use in the most recent election. If the hardware and software fails the test, it “shall” be decertified. Effective for the 2020 General Election. Sec. 203: Requiring use of software and hardware for which information is disclosed by manufacturer “In the operation of voting systems in an election for Federal office, a State may only use software for which the manufacturer makes the source code… publicly available online under a license that grants a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sub-licensable license to all intellectual property rights in such source code…." …except that the manufacturer may prohibit people from using the software for commercial advantage or “private monetary compensation” that is unrelated to doing legitimate research. States “may not use a voting system in an election for Federal office unless the manufacture of the system publicly discloses online the identification of the hardware used to operate the system” If the voting system is not widely-used, the manufacture must make the design “publicly available online under a license that grants a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sub-licensable license to all intellectual property rights…” Effective for the 2020 General election Sec. 204: Poll books will be counted as part of voting systems for these regulations Effective January 1, 2020 Title III: Use of voting machines manufactured in the United States Sec. 301: Voting machines must be manufactured in the United States HR 391: White House Ethics Transparency Act of 2019 Pdf of the bill Reported June 12, 2019 out of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform 23-16 On January 28, 2017 - a week after taking office - President Trump issued an executive order that requires all executive agency appointees to sign and be contractually obligated to a pledge that… The appointee won’t lobby his/her former agency for 5 years after leaving Will not lobby the administration he/she previously worked for Will not, after leaving government, “engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938” Will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists Will recuse themselves from any matter involving their former employers for two years from the date of their appointment If the appointee was a lobbyist before entering government, that person will not work on any matter that they had lobbied for for 2 years after the appointment BUT Section 3 allows waivers: “The President or his designee may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person.” Sec. 2: Requires any executive branch official who gets a waiver to submit a written copy to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and make a written copy of the waiver available to the public on the website of the agency where the appointee works. Backdated to January 20, 2017 (President Trump’s inauguration) H.R. 745: Executive Branch Comprehensive Ethics Enforcement Act of 2019 Reported March 26, 2019 out of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 18-12 Pdf of the bill Sec. 2: Creates a transition ethics program Requires the President-elect to give Congress a list of everyone in consideration for security clearance within 10 days of the applications submission and a list of everyone granted security clearance within 10 days of their approval. Requires the transition team to create and enforce an “ethics plan” that needs to describe the role of registered lobbyists on the transition team, the role of people registered as foreign agents, and which transition team members of sources of income which are not known by the public Transition team members must be prohibited by the ethics plan from working on matters where they have “personal financial conflicts of interest” during the transition and explain how they plan to address those conflicts of interest during the incoming administration. The transition team ethics plan must be publicly avail on the website of the General Services Administration Transition team members need to submit a list of all positions they have held outside the Federal Government for the previous 12 months -including paid and unpaid positions-, all sources of compensation that exceed $5,000 in the previous 12 months, and a list of policy issues worked on in their previous roles, a list of issues the team member will be recused from as part of the administration. Transition team members that do not comply will not be granted any access to the Federal department or agency that isn’t open to the public. S. 195 : Creates a transition ethics program: Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act Pdf of the bill Reported 4/10/19 out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On Senate Calendar Sec. 2: Definitions “Congressionally mandated report” means a report that is required to be submitted to Congress by a bill, resolution, or conference report that becomes law. Does NOT include reports required from 92 nonprofit corporations labeled as “Patriotic and National Organizations” (“Title 36 corporations”) Sec. 3: Website for reports 1 year after enactment, there needs to be a website “that allows the public to obtain electronic copies of all congressionally mandated reports in one place” If a Federal agency fails to submit a report, the website will tell us the information that is required by law and the date when the report was supposed to be submitted The government can’t charge a fee for access to the reports The reports can be redacted by the Federal agencies Resources Twitter Link: Rachel Maddow Twitter Link Twitter. Employment Profile: Employment History for Richardson, Sean J OpenSecrets.org Employment Profile: Employment History for Jen Olson OpenSecrets.org Email Link: Sam Fieldman Email at Wolf-PAC PDF Email: Email with Eli Baumwell of the W.V. ACLU Volunteer Link: Volunteer for Wolf-PAC Resource Link: Article V Wolf-PAC Resource Link Documentary: Wolf Pac Documentary Congressional Dish Interview: Interview with Sam Fieldman from Wolf-PAC Preet Bharara Podcast: Taking Trump to Court (with David Cole) YouTube Video: Wolf PAC Call for Volunteers - Get Money Out of Politics! YouTube Video: Mike Monetta On Why Wolf-PAC Is Making A Movie YouTube Video: Wolf PAC Resolution Passes New Jersey Senate YouTube Video: Fight Against Money In Politics: Cenk Uygur (Wolf-PAC Presentation) YouTube Video: Republican Vermont Representative Vicky Strong YouTube Video: Americans for Prosperity testify in New Jersey YouTube Video: Hawaii Senate Judiciary Hearing on 2018 SCR 76, Wolf-PAC YouTube Video: Cenk Uygur's Speech at The Conference to Restore the Republic YouTube Video: Article V Debate Document: Case Docket: Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n Document: Brief by ACLU in support of Citizens United Document: Brief by former members of the ACLU in support of neither party Document: Essay on Term Limits Document: Article V of the US Constitution - Overview Document: Virginia Plan (First draft of the Constitution) Document: Full Text of Congressional Regulations on Article V Document: 1984 Version of Congressional Regulations on Article V Document: 1987 Version of Congressional Regulations on Article V Document: Congressional Record Archive Copy of Congressional Regulations on Article V Document: The Fix It America Constitutional Amendment Document: Take Back our Republic Document: Role of Congress Document: American Promise 28th Amendment Document: United for the People Amendments Reference Website: Massachusetts Commission Govtrack: H.R. 2722 Document: H.R. 391 Document: H.R. 745 Document: H.R. 745 Document: H.R. 964 Document: S. 195 Sound Clip Sources Watch on C-Span: House floor debate on HR 2722 June 27,2019 sound clip transcripts pdf Watch on C-Span: William Barr Testifies on Mueller Report Before Senate Judiciary Committee May 1, 2019 1:57:55 Sen. Amy Klocuchar (MN): For the last two years, Senator Lankford and I, on a bipartisan bill with support from the ranking and the head of the intelligence committee; have been trying to get the Secure Elections Act passed. This would require backup paper ballots. If anyone gets federal funding for an election, it would require audits, um, and it would require better cooperation. Yet the White House, just as we were on the verge of getting a markup in the rules committee (getting it to the floor where I think we would get the vast majority of senators), the White House made calls to stop this. Were you aware of that? Attorney General William Barr: No. Sen. Amy Klocuchar (MN): Okay, well that happened. So what I would like to know from you as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer if you will work with Senator Lankford and I to get this bill done? Because otherwise we are not going to have any clout to get backup paper ballots if something goes wrong in this election. Attorney General William Barr: Well, I will… I will work with you, uh, to, uh, enhance the security of our election and I’ll take a look at what you’re proposing. I’m not familiar with it. Sen. Amy Klocuchar (MN): Okay. Well, it is the bipartisan bill. It has Senator Burr and Senator Warner. It’s support from Senator Graham was on the bill. Senator Harris is on the bill and the leads are Senator Lankford and myself, and it had significant support in the house as well. Hearing: Committee on Oversight and Reform:Strengthening Ethics Rules for the Executive Branch, February 6, 2019 Watch on Youtube *28:00 Rep Jordan (OH): 2013 we learned that the IRS targeted conservative for their political beliefs during the 2012 election cycle systematically for a sustained period of time. They went after people for their conservative beliefs, plan in place, targeted people. They did it. The gross abuse of power would have continued, if not for the efforts of this committee. 2014 the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to use the IRS rule making process to gut the ability of social welfare organizations to participate in public debate. Congress has so far prevented this regulation from going into effect, but HR 1 would change that. Hearing: Judiciary Committee For The People Act Of 2019, January 29, 2019 Witness: Sherrilyn Ifill - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Watch on YouTube 32:00 Sherrilyn Ifill: Well before the midterm election, in fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging. Over half a million people from the voter rolls the voter purge, which removed 107,000 people, simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election. But he refused. ______________________________________________________ Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations ______________________________________________________ Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
Things often don’t go according to plan. In this episode, featuring a feverish and frustrated Jen Briney, learn about the shamefully rushed process employed by the Democrats to pass their top priority bill, H.R. 1, through the House of Representatives. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD129: The Impeachment of John Koskinen Bill Outline: HR 1 For The People Act of 2019 Govtrack - Full Text Official title: “To expand American’s access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.” Short Title: For the People Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. John Sarbanes (MD-3) First co-sponsor: Nancy Pelosi Referred to 10 committees: House Administration House Intelligence (Permanent Select) House Judiciary House Oversight and Government Reform House Science, Space, and Technology House Education and the Workforce House Ways and Means House Financial Services House Ethics House Homeland Security Division A: Voting TITLE I: ELECTION ACCESS Subtitle A: Voter Registration Modernization “Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2019" Part 1: Promoting Internet Registration Sec. 1001: Every State Has to Allow Us To Register to Vote Online Requires every State to allow residents to register to vote online and be given an online receipt of their completed voter registration application Signatures can be electronic as long as the individual has a signature on file with a State agency, including the DMV. People who don’t have signatures on file can submit handwritten signatures through digital means or sign in person on Election Day. Signatures will be required on Election Day for people who registered to vote online and have not previously voted in a Federal election in that state. Sec. 1002: Every State Has To Allow Us To Update Our Registration Online States must allow registered voters to update their registrations online too Sec. 1003: Voter Information Online Instead Of Regular Mail Tells states to include a space for voters to submit an email address and get voting information via email instead of using regular mail (we may need that to be “in addition to”) Prohibits our emails from being given to anyone who is outside the government. The State will have to provide people who opted for emails, at least 7 days before the election, online information including the name and address of the voter’s polling place, that polling place’s hours, and which IDs the voter may need to vote at that polling place. Sec. 1004: 'Valid Voter Registration' Form Definition Defines what is a “valid voter registration form”: The form is accurate and the online applicant provided a signature. Sec. 1005: Effective Date: January 1, 2020. Part 2: Automatic Voter Registration “Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2019" Sec. 1012: Automatic Registration of Eligible Voters Every State will have to create and operate a system for automatically registering everyone eligible to vote “for Federal office in the State”. The States will have 15 days to register a person to vote after getting updated voter information from another agency. Sec. 1015: "Voter Protection and Security in Automatic Registration" Declining automatic registration can’t be used as evidence “In any State or Federal law enforcement proceeding" States will have to keep records of all changes to voter records, including removals and updates, for 2 years and make those available for public inspection. Gives the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology the power to write the rules for how States can use voter information to deem a person ineligible and to write privacy and security standards for voter registration information Voter registration information “shall not be used for commercial purposes.” Sec. 1016: Corrections to Voter Information Can Be Done on Election Day Voters in all States would be able to update their address, name, or political party affiliation in person on Election Day, and they could vote using the corrected information using a regular ballot, not a provisional ballot. Sec. 1017: The Federal Government Will Pay to Make The Changes Authorizes $500 million for 2019, available until it’s gone. Sec. 1021: Effective Date - January 1, 2021 Part 3: Same Day Voter Registration Sec. 1031: Voters Can Register At the Polling Place On Election Day System would have to be in place by November 2020 Part 4: Conditions on Removal on Basis of Interstate Cross-Checks Sec. 1041: Requirements To Use Cross Check To Remove Voters Prohibits States from using interstate crosscheck systems to remove people from voter rules until the State receives the voter’s full name, including their middle name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of their social security numbers and if the State has documentation verifying the voter is no longer a resident of the State. Interstate cross checks can not be used to remove voters from rolls within six months of an election Effective date: Six months after enactment Part 7: Prohibiting Interference with Voter Registration Sec. 1071: Fines and Prison For Interference in Voter Registration People who prevent another person from registering to vote, or attempt to prevent another person from registering, “shall be fined” or imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Effective date: Elections on or after enactment Subtitle B: Access to Voting for Individuals With Disabilities Subtitle C: Prohibiting Voter Caging Sec. 1201: Prohibits Removal of Names Based Solely on Caging Lists State/local election officials will not be allowed to deny a voter registration if the decision is based on a voter caging document, an unverified match list, or an error on a registration that is not material to the citizen’s eligibility to vote. Challenges to voter registration by non-election officials will only be allowed if the person has personal knowledge documented in writing and subject to an attestation under penalty of perjury. Penalties for knowingly challenging the eligibility of someone else’s voter registration with the intent to disqualify that person is punishable by a fine and/or one year in prison for each violation. Subtitle D : Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter Intimidation - “Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019" Sec. 1302: Prohibits Lying To Prevent People From Voting Makes it illegal to communicate by any means false information regarding the time and place of an election, the voter’s registration status or eligibility, or criminal penalties for voting within 60 days of an election if the communication has the intent of preventing another person from voting. Makes it illegal, within 60 days of an election, to communicate by any means false information regarding an endorsement by a person or political party that didn’t actually happen. Penalties: A fine of up to $100,000, five years in prison, or both. The penalties are the same for attempts to lie to people to prevent them from voting. Subtitle E: Democracy Restoration - “Democracy Restoration Act of 2019" Sec. 1402: Voting Rights Extend to Ex-Cons “The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election." Sec. 1408: Effective for any election held after enactment Subtitle F: Promoting Accuracy, Integrity, and Security Through Verified Permanent Paper Ballot - “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2019” Sec. 1502: Requires Paper Ballots for All Federal Elections Requires all voting systems to use individual paper ballots that are verified by the voter before their vote is cast which “shall be counted by hand or read by an optical character recognition device or other counting device” The paper ballots must be preserved as the official ballots and will be counted by hand for recounts and audits If there is a difference between the electronic vote count and the hand count of paper ballots, the hand count of paper ballots will be the final count. Subtitle H: Early Voting Sec. 1611: Every State Must Allow Early Voting for 15 Days Every State will be required to allow citizens to vote in Federal elections during the 15 days preceding the election, with polls open for at least 4 hours per day except on Sundays. Effective Date: Elections after January 1, 2020 Subtitle I: Voting by Mail Sec. 1621: Vote By Mail National Standards States can’t count absentee ballots until they match the signature on the ballot to the signature on the State’s official list of registered voters States must provide ballots and voting materials at least 2 weeks before the election Effective date: Elections held on or after January 1, 2020 Subtitle J: Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas Voters Subtitle K: Poll Worker Recruitment and Training Sec. 1801: Federal Employees As Poll Workers Employees of Federal agencies will be allowed to be excused from work for up to 6 days in order to work in polling places on Election Day and for training. Subtitle L: Enhancement of Enforcement Subtitle M: Federal Election Integrity Sec. 1821: Head of Elections Can’t Campaign for Elections They Oversee It will be illegal for a chief State election administration official to take part in a political campaign “with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority” Subtitle N: Promoting Voter Access Through Election Administration Improvements Sec. 1902: Notification for Polling Place Changes States must notify voters at least seven days in advance if the State has changed their polling place to somewhere other than where they last voted Effective January 1, 2020 Sec. 1903: Election Day Holiday The Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2020 and each even-numbered year after that will be treated as a legal public holiday Encourages, but does not require, the private sector to give their workers the day off for elections Sec. 1904: Sworn Written Statements to Meet ID Requirements If a State requires an ID to vote, a person may vote if they provide, in person, a sworn written statement signed under penalty of perjury attesting to their identity and that they are eligible to vote, unless they are first time voters in the State. Effective for elections occurring on or after enactment Sec. 1905: Postage Free Ballots Absentee ballots will not require postage The Post Office will be reimbursed by States for the lost revenue TITLE II: ELECTION INTEGRITY Subtitle E: Redistricting Reform - “Redistricting Reform Act of 2019” Sec. 2402: Independent Commissions for Redistricting Congressional redistricting must be done by an independent redistricting commission established in the State or by a plan development and enacted into law by a 3 judge court of the US District Court for the District of Columbia Sec. 2411: Creating the Independent Redistricting Commissions The Commissions will be made up of 15 members from the “selection pool” (see Sec. 2412) 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the second most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 who are not affiliated with the two largest political parties The Chair must be a member of the group that is not affiliated with the largest two parties in the State and will be selected via a majority vote of the commission The State can not finalize a redistricting plan unless the plan gets a vote from someone in each of the three membership categories and it passes with a majority of the commission voting yes. Contractors for the commission can be required to provide their political contribution history Sec. 2412: Eligibility for the Independent Commission “Selection Pool” To qualify, the individual must... Be registered to vote Either be with the same political party or with no political party for the previous 3 years Submits an application including a declaration of their political party, if they belong to one, and a commitment to impartiality. An individual is disqualified if the individual or an immediate family member within the 5 years preceding their appointment... Holds public office or is a candidate for public office Serves as an officer of a political party or as a political party consultant Is a registered lobbyist Is an employee of an elected public official, a contractor with the legislature of a State, or a donor who gives more than $20,000 to candidates for public offices. The selection pool will have 36 individuals made up of... 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the second largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals who are not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties The selection pool must be approved by the State’s Select Committee on Redistricting Inaction is a rejection of the selection pool Sec. 2413: Criteria for New Districts Districts must be created using this criteria in this order: Districts must comply with the Constitution, including the requirement that the equalize total population Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act and all Federal laws Districts can’t be drawn in a way that dilutes the ability for minority communities to elect candidates Districts must minimize the division of neighborhoods, counties, municipalities, and school districts “to the extent practicable” Districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor any political party The commission may not consider the political party affiliation or voting history of the district’s population or the resident of any member of the House of Representatives when drawing the district maps All meetings must be held in public, must take comments into consideration and they must publish information, including video archives, about their meetings on a public website Sec. 2431: Authorizes payments to States of $150,000 per district to help pay for the redistricting process Subtitle F: Saving Voters from Voter Purging -“Stop Automatically Voiding Eligible Voters Off Their Enlisted Rolls in States Act” - “Save Voters Act” Sec. 2502: Restricting Voter Roll Purges States can’t use the failure of a voter to vote or the voter’s failure to respond to a notice as the basis for removing their name from the voter rolls TITLE III: ELECTION SECURITY Subtitle A: Financial Support for Election Infrastructure Part 1: Voting System Security Improvement Gains Part 2: Grants for Risk-Limiting Audits of Results of Elections Part 3: Election Infrastructure Innovation Grant Program Subtitle B: Security Measures Subtitle C: Enhancing Protections for United Stated Democratic Institutions Subtitle D : Promoting Cybersecurity Through Improvements in Election Administration Subtitle E: Preventing Election Hacking Division B: Campaign Finance TITLE IV: CAMPAIGN FINANCE TRANSPARENCY Subtitle B: DISCLOSE Act - “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act” Part 1: Regulation of Certain Political Spending Sec. 4101: Foreign Owned Corporations Count as “Foreign Nationals” Makes it illegal for a corporation, LLC, or partnership which is more than 5% owned by a foreign government or 20% owned by foreign individual to directly or indirectly make a contribution in connection with a Federal, State, or local election or a contribution to a political party. It’s also illegal for Americans to accept or solicit a contribution from “foreign nationals” (amends 52 U.S.C 30121(b)) Effective 180 days after enactment, regardless of if regulations are done Part 2: Reporting of Campaign-Related Disbursements Sec. 4111: Corporations Must Report Donations Any corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization (other than 501(c)3 “charities”) that make campaign contributions totaling more than $10,000 in the 2 year election cycle must file a statement containing the name of the donating organization, the business address, a list of that business or corporations’ controlling owners, and the name/address of the person who received each donation of more than $1,000. If the corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization pays for a public communication, they must report the name of any candidate identified and whether the communication was in support or opposition to that candidate. Subtitle C: Honest Ads - “Honest Ads Act” Sec. 4205: Disclosure of Sources of Online Political Ads Extends political ad disclosure laws to internet and other digital communication Sec. 4207: Disclosures Must Be Clear Ads must include a statement telling us the name of the person who paid for the communication in a way that is not difficult to read or hear Sec. 4208: Public Record of Online Political Ads * Requires online platforms to create and make available online for public inspection a complete record of requests to purchase political advertisements if they purchase more than $500 worth in one calendar year Subtitle D : Stand by Every Ad - “Stand By Every Ad Act" Subtitle E: Secret Money Transparency Sec. 4401: IRS Can Investigate Dark Money Groups Again Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the IRS that prevented them from making sure tax exempt organizations aren’t using their funds for political expenditures Subtitle F: Shareholder Right-to-Know Sec. 4501: SEC Can Enforce Shareholder Disclosure Laws Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the Securities and Exchange Commission that prevented them from enforcing laws related to corporations informing shareholders about the corporations political activity. Subtitle G: Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors Sec. 4601: Contractors Can Be Forced to Disclose Donations Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress that prevented requiring government contractors to report their political spending Subtitle H: Limitation and Disclosure Requirements for Presidential Inaugural Committees - “Presidential Inaugural Committee Oversight Act" TITLE V: CAMPAIGN FINANCE EMPOWERMENT Subtitle B: Congressional Elections - “Government By the People Act of 2019” Part 1: My Voice Voucher Pilot Program Sec. 5101: Voucher Pilot Program The Federal Election Commission will create an pilot program and select 3 states to operate it Sec. 5102: Pilot Program Details State’s will provided individuals who request one a “My Voice Voucher" worth $25 Individuals can give their voucher dollars, in $5 increments, to qualified candidates for Congress. Part 2: Small Dollar Financing of Congressional Election Campaigns Sec. 5111: 6x Matching of Small Dollar Donations Payments will be 600% of the amount of small dollar contributions received by the candidate during the Small Dollar Democracy qualifying period Small dollar contribution is between $1 and $200 Limit: The total amount of payments made to a candidate may not be more than 50% of the average of the “20 greatest amounts of disbursements made by the authorized committees of any winning candidate for the office of Representatives in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress during the most recent election cycle, rounded to the nearest $100,000.” Candidates can get an additional payment of up to $500,000 during the period between 60 days and 14 days before the election, which doesn’t count towards the total limit. Candidates are eligible if they can get 1,000 people to make a small dollar contribution and if the candidate can raise at least $50,000. Eligible candidates can’t take more than $1,000 total from any individual. Eligible candidates can’t use more than $50,000 in personal funds. Will be funded by a “Freedom of Influence Fund" Sec. 5112: Coordination with Parties Sec. 5114: Effective starting in 2024 elections Subtitle C: Presidential Elections - “Empower Act of 2019" Part 1: Primary Elections Part 2: General Elections Part 3: Effective Date Subtitle D : Personal Use Services as Authorized Campaign Expenditures - “Help America Run Act” TITLE VI: CAMPAIGN FINANCE OVERSIGHT Subtitle A: Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Sec. 6002: Changes to FEC make up Subtitle B: Stopping Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Division C: Ethics TITLE VII: ETHICAL STANDARDS Subtitle B: Foreign Agents Registration Sec. 7101: New Department of Justice Investigation Unit Will be dedicated to enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act Subtitle C: Lobbying Disclosure Reform Sec. 7201: Expands Definition of “Lobbyist” To include people who provide “legislative, political, and strategic counseling services, research, and other background work” as lobbyists in terms of disclosure requirements Effective upon enactment Subtitle D : Recusal of Presidential Appointees Sec. 7301: Recusal of Appointees Any officer or employee appointed by the President must recuse themselves from any matter involving the President who appointed the officer or employee or that President’s spouse. TITLE VIII: ETHICS REFORMS FOR THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Subtitle A: Executive Branch Conflict of Interest Sec. 8002: Prohibits Private Sector Payments for Entering Government Private companies can’t provide bonus payments, pensions, retirement, group life/health/accident insurance, profit-sharing, stock bonus, or other payments contingent on accepting a position in the U.S. Government. Sec. 8003: Slowing the Revolving Door Executive Branch employees can’t use their government position to “participate in a particular matter” if they know a company they worked for in the last two years has a financial interest. Penalty: Fine and/or 1 year in prison. Penalty for willful violation: Fine and/or up to 5 years in prison Civil penalties: The greater of $100,000 per violation or the amount the person received or was offered for conducting the violation Sec. 8004: Waiting Period For Procurement Officers To Work for Contractors A former official responsible for a government contract can not accept payments from any division, affiliate, or subcontractor of the chosen contractor for 2 years after awarding the contract. A government employee can not award a contract to his or her former employer for 2 years after they leave the company. Sec. 8005: Lobbying Job Waiting Period Senior level Executive Branch employees have to wait 2 years before they can be paid to influence their former colleagues Subtitle B: Presidential Conflicts of Interest Subtitle C: White House Ethics Transparency Subtitle D : Executive Branch Ethics Enforcement Subtitle E: Conflicts for Political Fundraising Sec. 8042: Disclosure of Certain Types of Contributions People who are nominated to high level Executive Branch offices will have to disclose their contributions to political organizations, 501(c)4’s, and 501(c)6’s. Subtitle F: Transition Team Ethics Subtitle G: Ethics Pledge for Senior Executive Branch Employees TITLE IX: CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS REFORM Subtitle A: Requiring members of Congress to Reimburse Treasury for Amounts Paid as Settlements and Awards Under Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Subtitle B: Conflicts of Interest Sec. 9101: Members Can’t Be on For-Profit Boards of Directors Changes the House Rules so that members of the House of Representatives will not be allowed to serve on the board of "any for-profit entity" while serving in the House of Representatives. Sec. 9103: Prohibition Above Can Be Changed via House Rules Subtitle C: Campaign Finance and Lobbying Disclosure - “Connecting Lobbying and Electeds for Accountability and Reform Act” “CLEAR Act" Sec. 9202: Separate Reports for Lobbyist Donations Report submitted by political campaigns will have to report which donations are made by registered lobbyists in a separate statement (amends 52 U.S.C. 30104(b)) Sec. 9203: Effective 90 Days After Enactment Subtitle D : Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Sec. 9303: Online Portal for Congressionally Mandated Reports Portal will create, within one year of enactment, an online portal providing free public digital access to all congressionally mandated reports Reports will be available within 30 days of their submission to Congress TITLE X: PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRANSPARENCY Sec. 10001: Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Return Disclosure Requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit their tax returns for the last 10 taxable years to the Federal Election Commission within 15 days of declaring their candidacy The chairman of the Federal Election Commission must make the candidates’ tax returns, with personal information redacted, publicly available Effective upon enactment Additional Reading Article: 10 things you might not know about HR 1 by Lindsey McPherson and Kate Ackley, Roll Call, March 6, 2019. Article: Conservative expert privately warned GOP donors that a voting rights bill would help Democrats by Lee Fang and Nick Surgey, The Intercept, February 27, 2019. Article: House Democrats forge ahead on electoral reform bill by Zach Montellaro, Politico, February 26, 2019. Markup: H.R. 1, For the People Act of 2019, February 26 ,2019. Article: House Democrats officially unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal by Ella Nilson, Vox, January 4, 2019. Article: One state fixed its gerrymandered districts, the other didnt. Here's how the election played out in both by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, November 9, 2018. Article: 6 takeaways from Georgia's 'Use It Or Lose It' voter purge investigation by Johnny Kauffman, NPR, October 22, 2018. Article: Registration is a voter-suppression tool. Let's finally end it by Ellen Kurz, The Washington Post, October 11, 2018. Report: Purges: A growing threat to the right to vote by Jonathan Brater, Kevin Morris, Myrna Pérez, and Christopher Deluzio, Brennan Center for Justice, July 20, 2018. Article: How Maryland Democrats pulled off their aggressive gerrymander by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 28, 2018. Article: Pennsylvania Supreme Court draws 'much more competitive' district map to overturn Republican gerrymander by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, February 20, 2018. Article: Pennsylvania redistricting decision gives Democrats a boost by Bill Barrow and Mark Scolforo, AP News, February 6, 2018. Article: How redistricting became a technological arms race by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, October 28, 2017. Article: Government by Goldman by Gary Rivlin and Michael Hudson, The Intercept, September 17, 2017. Article: The most gerrymandered states ranked by efficiency gap and seat advantage by Daniel McGlone and Esther Needham, Azavea, July 19, 2017. Article: Here are the first 10 members of Trump's voting commission by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, July 6, 2017. Article: 3 Trump Cabinet officials will still be receiving millions from corporate America by Jeff Stein, Vox, February 3, 2017. Article: Trump adviser Gary Cohn's $285 million Goldman Sachs exit raises eyebrows by Matt Egan, CNN Business, January 27, 2017. Article: The IRS gives up on fighting 'dark money' by Editorial Board, The Washington Post, February 19, 2016. Article: How Crossroads GPS beat the IRS and became a social welfare group by Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets.org, Febraury 12, 2016. Blog: Congress uses PATH to cut IRS off from Section 501(c)(4) social welfare regulations, Wagenmaker & Oberly, December 30, 2015. Article: This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 1, 2015. Article: Five 501(c)(3) groups that might have broken the law by Lee Fang, The Nation, May 21, 2013. Article: The voter-fraud myth by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, October 29, 2012. Article: Justice Dept. accused of partisan voter-roll purge by Pam Fessler, NPR, October 11, 2007. Resources Congressional Budget Office: H.R. 1, Estimated Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues Federal Election Commission: Using Campaign Funds for Personal Use How Stuff Works: PACs vs. Super PACs Research: All About Redistricting - Who draws the lines? Website: The Redistricting Majority Project Website: RepresentUs Sound Clip Sources Short Film: Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis, RepresentUs, YouTube, February 27, 2019. Full Committee Markup: H.R. 1, The For the People Act of 2019, Committee on House Administration, February 26, 2019. Youtube Video Hearing: For the People: Our American Democracy, Committee on House Administration, February 14, 2019. Youtube Video Witnesses: Chiraag Bains - Director of Legal Strategies at Demos Wendy Weiser - Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennen Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law Fred Wertheimer -President of Democracy 21 Kym Wyman - Secretary of State of Washington Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, Senior at Dodge City High School in Kansas and plaintiff in LULAC & Rangel-Lopez v. Cox Peter Earle - Wisconsin Civil Rights Trial Lawyer Brandon Jessup - Data Science and Information Systems Professional and Executive Director at Michigan Forward David Keating - President at the Institute for Free Speech Hearing: Full Committee Hearing on the "Strengthening Ethics Rules for the Executive Branch", Committee on Oversight and Reform, February 6, 2019. YouTube Video Witnesses: Scott Amey - General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight Karen Hobert Flynn - President of Common Cause Rudy Mehrbani - Spitzer Fellow and Senior Counsel, Brennen Center for Justice Walter Schaub Jr - Senior Advisor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Bradley Smith - Chairman at the Institute for Free Speech Sound Clips: 17:30 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D - MD) Title eight includes a bill that I introduced called the executive branch ethics reform act. It would, it would ban senior officials from accepting "golden parachute" payments from private sector employers in exchange for their government service. This would have prevented Gary Cohn from receiving more than $100 million in accelerated payments from Goldman Sachs while leading the Trump administration's efforts to slash corporate taxes. 19:00 Cummings Title eight also would make clear that Congress expects the president to divest his business holdings just as every single president since Jimmy Carter has done and place them in an independent and truly blind trust. 28:00 Rep. Jim Jordan (R - OH) In 2013 we learned that the IRS targeted conservative for their political beliefs during the 2012 election cycle systematically for a sustained period of time. They went after people for their conservative beliefs, plan in place, targeted people. They did it. The gross abuse of power would have continued, if not for the efforts of this committee. 2014 the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to use the IRS rule making process to gut the ability of social welfare organizations to participate in public debate. Congress has so far prevented this regulation from going into effect, but HR 1 would change that. 28:30 Jordan Furthermore, this bill would roll back another critical victory for privacy and free speech secured just last summer following efforts by this committee and others, the IRS changed its policy as it relates to schedule B information. Schedule B contains personal information like names, addresses, and the amounts donated to nonprofit entities. Even though this information is supposed to remain private under current law, states and federal government have leaked these personal details in the past. In changing its policies, the IRS noted that there had been at least 14 breaches resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of schedule B information just since 2010. The result was everyday Americans receiving death threats and mail containing white powder. All because someone disagreed with what they believe and who they gave their hard earned money to. 59:00 Walter Schaub HR 1 addresses big payouts to incoming officials. These golden parachutes raise concerns about an employee appointees loyalty to a former employer. When former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew left Wall Street to join the State Department, he received a large bonus in his employment agreement. Let him keep that bonus specifically because he landed at a high level government job. 1:04:00 Bradley Smith Subtitle B of title six is called Stopping Super PAC and candidate coordination. The sponsors and drafters are either being intentionally disingenuous here or are they simply do not understand what has been put into their own legislation. Nothing in subtitle B, nothing limits. It's reached a super PACs. It applies to every union trade association, advocacy group and unincorporated association in the country. It applies to planned parenthood and right to life, to the NAACP and the ACLU to the national federation of Independent Business and to the Brady Campaign for gun safety. It even applies to individual citizens who seek to participate in public discussion. Nothing. This cannot be said often enough limits it to super PACs through the interplay of its definitions of coordination and coordinated spenders. The laws treatment, uh, traditional treatment of coordinated spending as a contribution to a candidate and current contribution limits in the law. Subtitle be, will actually have the effect of banning, not limiting, but actually banning a great deal of speech that was legal even before the Supreme Court's decision in citizens United versus FEC and Buckley v Vallejo. 1:39:00 Smith I would only add that I think that the disclosure provisions are often worse than people think because they're defining as political activity things that have never been defined as political before. And you run the risk of a regulation swallowing up the entire, uh, discourse in which public, uh, engages. So I would only say that I think the provisions are worse than people think and that they're often hidden through the complex interrelationship of different positions. Well, one, one example would be if an organization, uh, for example, were to hire somebody who had previously been an intern, a paid intern for a member of Congress, that organization would then be prohibited from making any communications that were deemed to promote a tax support or oppose a that candidate. And that vague term could apply to almost anything praising the candidate for introducing a bill, uh, criticizing the congressman for opposing a bill, whatever it might be. Jordan Wow. That put the whole consultant business in this town out of business, it seems to me. Smith It's not just the consulting business. Oh, of course. It puts out of business all of the interest groups and all of the civic groups that people belong to. 1:43:00 Cummings One year ago today when my mother's dying bed at 92 years old, former sharecropper, her last words were, do not let them take our votes away from us. They had fought, she had fought and seen people harmed and beaten, trying to vote. Talk about inalienable rights. Voting is crucial, and I don't give a damn how you look at it. There are efforts to stop people from voting. That's not right. This is not Russia. This is the United States of America, and I will fight until the death to make sure every citizen, whether they're Green party, whether they're Freedom Party, whether they're Democrat, whether you're Republican, whoever has that right to vote. 1:46:00 Karen Hobert Flynn Election day registration is a perfect antidote to a purge so that you can show up on election day. If you see that there's a problem, then you can register to vote and vote on that day. 2:19:00 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R - ND) North Dakota is the only state in the country without voter registration. We have voting. We have counties that vote exclusively by mail, and we currently have no excuse, absentee ballot, absentee voting. We have, we allow felons to vote immediately upon release from prison. Um, our poll workers are almost exclusively volunteers across the entire state. So in short, we have the, the best and easiest vote voting, voting booth access in the entire country, and we are incredibly proud of that. 2:23:00 Armstrong North, we, and this might be a little change, but it's really important to the voters in North Dakota. So we, uh, we start our absentee or early voting process, I think for military deployed overseas, it says early as August. And we have, as I said, no excuse absentee ballots. But what we require is that our ballots are postmarked the day before the election. And in North Dakota, we really, really try to make sure the election is over on election day. Um, north Dakotans don't understand how an election can change by 12, 13, 14,000 votes in the two to three weeks after an election day. Now I'm not in the business and telling people in California or somewhere else how to do their voting laws, but that just is something that is not appropriate here. And this would require ballots to be postmarked up until election day, correct? That's correct. 2:24:00 Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) I wish Mr. Meadows were still here because I'm delighted that he's thinking of stepping into the small donor matching system that has proposed an HR 1. Because when you step into that system, you step into a system that is owned by the people. This is why it's in the bill because the public is tired of feeling like their elections, their system, their government, their democracy is owned by special interests, big corporations, Wall Street, oil and gas industry, super PACs, lobbyists, everybody. But then this is the power move. They want to own their democracy again. 2:27:00 Sarbanes Somebody said, why are we hooking all these things together? Voting ethics, campaign finance, because the people have told us, if you just do one and you don't do the others were still frozen out. The system is still rigged. You fix the voting stuff, but if you go to Washington and nobody's behaving themselves, that doesn't solve the problem or you fix the ethics part, but we're still, the system is still owned by the big money in the special interests because they're the ones that are underwriting the campaigns. Then we're still left out. The system is still rigged. You got to do all of these things together to reset the democracy in a place where it respects the average citizen out there. Who right now is sitting in their kitchen, they're looking at the TV screen there. They're hearing about billionaires and super PACs who are making decisions inside conference rooms somewhere on K Street that affect their lives and all they're saying is we want back in. We're tired of sitting out here with our nose is pressed against the window looking in on the democracy that we have no impact on. That's why we're linking all of these things together to reset the table. So the special interests aren't the ones that are calling the shots. 2:29:00 Sarbanes The provisions of transparency in this bill are targeted to mega donors who give more than $10,000 who right now are hidden behind this Russian doll kind of structure where you can't see who it is, who's behind the curtain, who's putting all this money into campaigns. The public wants to know that that's reasonable. 2:38:00 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) And I'm deeply troubled at what appears to be a Russian engagement through 501(c)(4)s in this country, whether it's the NRA or, um, other, uh, nonprofits that are created for the express purpose here in the United States to lobby on behalf of Russia as it related to the Magnitsky Act. Um, so right now there is no limitation on how much money can be contributed by a foreign government entity to a 501(c)(4). Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that is, yes. Speier And there is no disclosure required as well. Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that's right. Speier So in your estimation, would it be prudent for us to one, limit the amount of contributions that a foreign individual can make to a 501(c)(4), and two, that all of that be subject to disclosure? Hobert Flynn Yeah, I think, I think it would be very important. Um, you know, there are limits. There are bans on foreign nationals giving money in campaign contributions, and I think we should be looking at those kinds of limits for, um, and it's certainly disclosure for, um, contributions to 501(c)(4)s. 2:56:00 Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) You hear so much attack on political action committees, PACs, Mr. Smith, or maybe you'd be best one to answer this. I don't know, maybe I don't want us to answer it. Where do political action committees get their money? Smith Political action committees get their money from individuals. Traditional PACs do. Now Super PACS as they're called, can take money from corporations and unions, but they are not able to contribute directly to candidates. Sort of coordinate anything with candidates. Gibbs I appreciate that. Uh, make the point. Um, because I, I got attacked because I take political action money, but it comes from businesses in my district. A lot of it, it comes from associations. You know, everybody has somebody lobbying for them in DC. I mean, if you're, if you're a member, of a retirement association, any organization, you've got a lobbyist here. 2:57:00 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Let's play a game, let's play a lightening round game. I'm going to be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway. And um, and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible, ideally to enrich myself and advance my interest even if that means putting, uh, putting my interests ahead of the American people. So, um, Mrs Holbert Flynn. Oh, and by the way, I have listed all of you as my co conspirators, so you're going to help me legally get away with all of this. So Mrs Herbert Flynn, I want to run, if I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees, is that, is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that? Hobert Flynn No. Ocasio-Cortez Okay. So there's nothing stopping me from being entirely funded by corporate PACs, say from the fossil fuel industry, the healthcare industry, big Pharma. I'm entirely 100% lobbyists PAC funded. Okay. So let's see. I'm a really, really bad guy and let's see, I've have some skeletons in my closet that I need to cover it up so that I can get elected. Um, Mr. Smith, is it true that you wrote this article, this opinion piece for the Washington Post entitled These Payments to Women Were Unseemly? That doesn't mean they were illegal. Smith Well, I can't see the piece but I wrote a piece or that headline in the post's so I assume that's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. So green-light for hush money, I can do all sorts of terrible things. It's totally legal right now for me to pay people off and that is considered speech. That money is considered speech. So I use my special interest, dark money funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off and get elected. So now I'm elected, now I'm in, I've got the power to draft, lobby and shape the laws that govern the United States of America. Fabulous. Now is there any hard limit that I have, perhaps Mrs Herbert Flynn? Is there any hard limit that I have in terms of what legislation I'm allowed to touch? Are there any limits on the laws that I can write or influence? Especially if I'm a based on the special interest funds that I accepted to finance my campaign and get me elected in the first place. Herbert Flynn There's no limit. Ocasio-Cortez So there's none. So I can be totally funded by oil and gas that can be totally funded by big Pharma come in. Right. Big Pharma laws and there's no limits to that whatsoever. Herbert Flynn That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, so awesome. Now, uh, now Mr Mehrabani, the last thing I want to do is get rich with as little work possible. That's really what I'm trying to do as the bad guy. Right? So is there anything preventing me from holding stocks say in an oil or gas company and then writing laws to deregulate that that industry and cause you know, that could potentially cause the stock value to soar and accrue a lot of money in that time, Rudy Mehrbani You could do that. Ocasio-Cortez So I could do that. I could do that. Now with the way our current laws are set up. Yes? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. Okay. So my last question is, or one of my last questions, I guess I'd say is, is it possible that any elements of this story apply to our current government in our current public servants right now? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez So we have a system that is fundamentally broken. We have these influences existing in this body, which means that these influences are here in this committee shaping the questions that are being asked of you all right now. Would you say that that's correct, Mr Mehrbani or Mr Shaub? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Alright. So one last thing, Mr Shaub, in relation to congressional oversight that we have, the limits that are placed on me as a congress woman compared to the executive branch and compared to say, the president of the United States, would you say that Congress has the same sort of standard of accountability? Are there, is there more teeth in that regulation in Congress on the president? Or would you say it's about even or more so on the federal? Schaub Um, in terms of laws that apply to the president, there's just almost no laws at all that applied to the president. Ocasio-Cortez So I'm being held and every person in this body is being held to a higher ethical standard than the president of the United States. Schaub That's right. Cause or some committee ethics committee rules that apply to you. Ocasio-Cortez And it's already super legal as we've seen for me to be a pretty bad guy. So it's even easier for the president of the United States to be one, I would assume. Schaub That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Thank you very much. 3:04:00 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Uh, and when we think about what we're dealing with, with respect to a campaign finance, uh, are you familiar with doxing? Smith In the sense of outing people online that you're referring to? Yes, generally. Roy So for example, are you familiar with a Twitter account called every Trump donor, which tweeted out one by one, the names, hometowns, occupations, employers, the people who contribute as little as $200 to the president's campaign, each tweet, following a particular formula. My point being in the question for you is, when we talk about campaign disclosures, are we aware of the negative impacts that you have on forcing American citizens and exercising their free speech to have that information be disclosed? Whether that's good policy or not might be debatable, but is there, are there negative consequences to that with respect to free speech given you're an expert on free speech? Smith There are, and there are definitely studies that have shown that disclosure does tend to decrease participation. Now, that doesn't mean as you point out that it's not worth it, but it certainly has costs. And so we have to be careful on how broad we would let that disclosure become. 3:11:00 Scott Amey The law is created that has cooling off periods. And so there's no cooling off period of one year or two year or a permanent bans. HR 1 would move a lot of those to two years I think, which would be beneficial. And there's even disagreement in our community whether one year or two, you know, what is the appropriate time to kind of cool off so that your contacts aren't there. But this is also something that President Trump brought up when he was a candidate. He talked about, uh, I think it was Boeing at the time, but he went on record saying that people who give contracts should never be able to work for that defense contractor. This isn't a bipartisan, this is a bipartisan issue. This is something we can resolve. The laws are already on the books. We just need some extensions in some tweaking of those to improve them and allow people to cool off and not be able to provide a competitive advantage to their new employer or favor them as they're in office and they're walking out the door. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) And so you do believe that extending this cooling off period and strengthening these prohibitions would protect the integrity of the process and helped to reign in these flagrant abuses. Amey 100% in one of the nice things with HR 1 is there is an extension of a cooling off period for people coming into government service. Currently it exists and it's uh, it's one year. This will move it to two and I think that's a probably better place to be in. You shouldn't be handling issues that involve your former employer or clients. Pressley One final question. How might these cozy relationships between government officials and corporate leaders or private contractors help to boost profits for these prison and detention centers? Amey Well, certainly they go with a lot of information, uh, when, when they go over to the private sector. But it also allows them to get back into their former office and within their former agency and call on them. Access as, as you were just pointing out, access is everything in this town. And so if you can get your phone calls answered, if you can get emails read, if you get meetings at that point, that can, not only with members of Congress, but with agency heads that can determine who gets contracts. I mean, it does trickle down from the top and we need to make sure that we prevent as many like actual and also appearances of conflicts of interest as we can. 3:17:00 Rep. Carol D. Miller (R-WV) What impact would the passage of this legislation have on those groups that are not political but may put out policy oriented communications? Smith It would be very curious and I've given a number of examples in the written testimony. I just say that I should add to this of course that the bill includes personal liability for officers and directors of some of these organizations. So you need to almost have to be crazy to let your organization get anywhere close to this promote support attack opposed standard. And again, what does that mean as I suggested? Well, you know, again, uh, government union might take out an ad maybe in a month, right? Or three weeks from now saying don't let president Trump, we shouldn't have to pay because he wants his wall in Mexico, you know, so, so tell them to reopen the government. Is that an attack on president Trump? I think that's the kind of thing that, that folks would not know and would make people very hesitant to run that kind of ad. Miller So it is a personal risk as well. Smith Yes. Yes. Not only risk. Plus it would be a risk, by the way, as well, to the tax status of some of the organizations involved in many of these organizations might have some type of tax status. 501(c)(3) organizations would have to be very careful because if they engage in speech that is now defined as political speech, 501(c)(3) organizations can't engage in political speech. They would jeopardize their tax exempt status. So that's another reason that these organizations would stay far clear of commenting on any kind of public issue. Video: H.R. 1: A Democrat Political Power Grab, Senator Mitch McConnell, YouTube, January 30, 2019. Video: Video Tweeted by Senator Mitch McConnell, January 29, 2019. Hearing: Full Committee Hearing on the "For the People Act of 2019", House Committee on the Judiciary, January 29, 2019. YouTube Video Witnesses: Christian Adams- President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Vanita Gupta - President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference one Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Adav Noti - Chief of Staff, Campaign Legal Center Sarah Tubervillie - Director of the Constitution Project, Project on Government Oversight Hans von Spakovsky - Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Sound Clips: 10:45 Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) The official title of this bill is The For The People Act. This bill though is not for the people. It's not for everyday citizens. This bill siphons power from state legislatures, local elected officials and voters, and seeds, power to Washington lawmakers, unelected federal judges and lawyers. This bill is in particular for the unelected elites. It's for the people who don't answer directly to the voters. Contrary to it's name, this bill takes power away from the people and it does this by violating the constitution, by trampling over both the spirit and the letter of our most fundamental laws. 32:00 Sherrilyn Ifill Well before the midterm election, in fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging. Over half a million people from the voter rolls the voter purge, which removed 107,000 people, simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election. But he refused. 1:08:00 Ifill I think, I think the problem we have is that you know, when we begin talking about the powers between the federal and the state government as it relates to elections, it is of course critical that we look to the constitution and that we look to the articles of the constitution that govern elections. But what we have left out of the conversation at least to this moment is the reordering of the relationship between the federal and state government that came with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and the 14th and 15th amendments in particular. The 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection of laws under, the 15th Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on race. National origin includes enforcement clauses that gives this body, the United States Congress, the power to enforce the rights that are articulated in those amendments to the constitution. And it is those amendments to the constitution that provided this body the right, for example, to pass laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for which all the same arguments that are being made today about the power of the states, about interference, about what the federal government is allowed to do and not allowed to do were raised and overcome. So the federal government actually does have the power when there is evidence and when they are enforcing the rights under the 14th and 15th, amendments to actually, your word would be interfere, but to engage robustly, in the protection of the voting rights of racial minorities. 1:15:00 Vanita Gupta There are over 13,000 election jurisdictions in our country, and elections can be run in a multitude of ways, but it is clear that Congress has the authority to make sure that civil rights are not violated in the course of running these elections. And that there are, there are equitable national standards to guide how this has done. And that is exactly what HR 1 does. 1:26:00 Ifill Let me use as an example. Texas has voter I.D. law from your own state the voter I.D. law that Texas imposed after the Shelby decision as a voter I.D. law that they had attempted to get pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision and pre-clearance was denied, in other words they were not allowed to make that law, become real because of the pre-clearance requirement. After Shelby, the Attorney General, decided that they were going to move forward with that law. It was imposed. We sued. We challenged that law and we won. But in the three years that it took us to litigate that case during that time Texas elected a United States senator in 2014. All 36 members of the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, various statewide commissioners, four justices of the Texas Supreme Court. Candidates for special election in the state Senate State Boards of Education 16 state senators all 150 members of the statehouse over 175 state court trial judges and over 75 district attorneys. We proved at trial that more than half a million eligible voters were disenfranchised by the I.D. law. We were ultimately successful in challenging but it was too late for those elections and this was a scheme that had been denied pre-clearance. This is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in our electoral system and that threatens our democracy. What excuse can we have as a nation for disenfranchising over half a million voters from all of the elections I just described. 1:35:00 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Where are the states, Ms. Ifill, that have most of the states that have prohibitions on people having the APP for you to vote if they've committed a felony? Ifill Well, they have been all over the country, but certainly there was a concentration in the south. As you may know, some of the history of these laws emanated, at the turn of the 19th century, I guess the turn of the 20th century, after southern states received back their power, they pass new constitutions. This is after the civil war and after reconstruction around 1900 and we saw the expansion of ex felon voting restrictions in state constitutions during that period, when there was a very robust effort to try and disenfranchise, at that point, newly freed slaves who had been free for several decades. 2:05:00 Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) It contains a provision where federal tax dollars from hardworking middle class families and single mothers would be lining the pockets of politicians to pay for nasty TV ads and robo calls and paying for politicians, personal childcare and healthcare. Under this bill, it's estimated that at least $3.9 billion of taxpayer dollars would line the pockets of house congressional candidates based on estimates from Bloomberg and an estimated $6.25 billion with line the pockets of presidential candidates based on the formula in this bill and the 2016 election, for a total of $10.1 billion of taxpayer dollars. To me, this is an outrageous, outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. 2:23:00 Hans Von Spakovsky This provision of HR 1 says that if a commission is not established, or if it doesn't adopt a plan, then, the redistricting lines for Congress will be drawn up by a three judge federal court. Now, yeah, the courts get involved, federal courts get involved and redistricting, but they only get involved when there has been a violation of the voting rights act because there's been discrimination in drawing the lines or because the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment, one person, one vote, has been violated because the districts aren't equal enough and that's appropriate. And courts do that. But this bill would give the judicial branch the ability to draw up lines when there's, there's been no such violation. And so they're, in essence, you're taking a power of the constitution gives to the legislative branch and you're giving it to the judicial branch. 2:52:00 Gupta Well, our recourse used to be that changes in local voting patterns would be reported to the Justice Department and there would be recourse for the Justice Department to ensure that racial discrimination was not animating these changes and preventing people from exercising their franchise. As we said, in 2013, the United States supreme court gutted that key tool of the voting rights act. And it is why HR 1 is such an important, uh, act in order to restore the voting rights act and to restore the ability of the Justice Department and federal courts to actually prevent these kinds of nefarious actions from taking place before elections. Uh, litigation is crucial and groups that have risen to the challenge to, to file section two cases, but they are time intensive and they occur after elections after people have already been disenfranchised and can take years to come to adjudication during which elections are taking place. And so that is why, uh, it is incumbent and unnecessary for Congress to restore the provisions of the voting rights act. Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) So HR 1 will help protect the rights of my American citizens to vote before the election. Gupta HR 1, yes, expresses a commitment to restoring the voting rights act, and, uh, and that is what we hope to achieve in this congress. It is HR 1 also contains a slew of protections that have become proxies for racial discrimination around list maintenance and unwarranted voter purging. Hr 1 seeks to remedy those so that, uh, so that people can have their rights guaranteed before elections take place. 3:25:00 Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) And I have to tell you after that, being in Congress for six years, uh, I have come to find that there are so many issues that uh, my republican colleagues and I agree on and that the American people agree that we've reached consensus on it and that ranges from reducing gun violence to addressing climate change, to finding healthcare solutions. But my constituents ask and people I encounter across the country always ask, if we've reached consensus where 90% of Americans think we should have background checks. Majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening. 90% of Americans think we should have the Dream Act. Why can't you guys even vote on these issues? And I've concluded that it's the dirty maps and the dirty money. It is rigged gerrymandered maps where politicians from both parties protect their friends and the status quo and it's the outside unlimited nontransparent money, where Republican colleagues have told me, I am with you on this issue -and I've had someone say this to me - I am afraid about how I'm going to be scored, meaning that these outside groups, we'll give scores based on how you vote and if you're not with them, they'll primary you with more money in an unlimited way. And then that's poisoning our politics and preventing us from reaching consensus. 3:27:00 Swalwell I want to start with Miss Ifill, and if it's OK I want to call you Professor Ifill because I don't know if you remember you were my civil procedure professor at the University of Maryland. You wouldn't remember me I remember you. I was not a standout student at all but Miss Ifill according to your testimony Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have prevented some of the voter suppression schemes that we have encountered over the past five years. And I was hoping you could articulate some of those schemes today. Ifill Yeah just a few of them. Earlier I spoke about Texas's voter I.D. law, an I.D. law that had been denied pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision. Two hours after the Shelby decision the attorney general of Texas tweeted out his intention to resuscitate that law which he did. And we spent three years litigating it. We ultimately prevailed, but in the ensuing three years there were elections for all kinds of offices a law that clearly could not have survived pre-clearance. Just in 2018 we were on the ground in Georgia on election day doing election protection work in Grady County, the polling place had been changed two weeks prior to the election. A notice had been placed in a very small community newspaper but otherwise there was not real notice provided to the community and so people arrived at the old polling place and community residents had to spend the day standing outside the old polling place directing people to the place of the new polling place that had not been properly identified Under Section 5, the moving of a polling place is the kind of thing that you had to submit to pre-clearance and have it approved by the Justice Department before it could be implemented. Now there are a number of people that day who could drive to the new polling place but there were a number of people who had just taken off work and had a limited amount of time to vote and could not dri
Sherrilyn Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She joins David to talk about how growing up in the heat of the civil rights movement inspired her to practice law, the impact of the present reversing of Obama-era policies designed to protect marginalized groups, contemporary race relations in America, her take on Attorney General nominee Bill Barr’s confirmation hearing, and much more.
Leading Civil War and Reconstruction scholars discuss the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment in celebration of its 150th anniversary. Allen Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era, and Director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College. Martha Jones is Society of Black Alumni Presidential Professor and Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University. Kurt Lash is E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law and Founder and director of the Richmond Program on the American Constitution at Richmond School of Law. Darrell A.H. Miller is Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law at Duke Law School. The host is Jeffrey Rosen. Sherrilyn Ifill, the seventh President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Trustee of the National Constitution Center, provides introductory remarks. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The National Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.
April talks to Sherrilyn Ifill, President & Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified on July 9, 1868. Last week, the National Constitution Center and the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund co-hosted a daylong symposium commemorating this important anniversary. In this We the People episode, former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., discusses the importance of the 14th Amendment today during the symposium’s keynote conversation. He is joined by Sherilynn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of LDF, and We the People host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.
Police play an indispensable role in our society. But the responsibility for keeping them accountable may lay with us, the people. In June 2013, documents leaked by Edward Snowden sparked widespread debate about secret government surveillance of Americans. Just over a year later, the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, set off protests and triggered concern about militarization of law enforcement and discriminatory policing. In his new book, Unwarranted, Barry Friedman argues that these two seemingly disparate events are connected—by the failure of policing, from local officers to the FBI and NSA, to be accountable to the public. In recent decades, policing has changed dramatically. Technologies like CCTV and predictive policing software have made suspects of us all, while proliferating SWAT teams and militarized forces have put property and lives at risk—particularly for communities of color and the poor. The effects beg a critical realization for all of us: it's not a question of what the police should do, but what we want the police to do. Join New America NYC for a conversation with Barry Friedman, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Trymaine Lee on the contemporary debates about policing—and the call to better govern those who govern us. PARTICIPANTS Barry Friedman @barryfriedman1 Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law and Director, Policing Project, NYU School of Law Author, Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission Sherrilyn Ifill @Sifill_LDF President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Trymaine Lee @trymainelee National Reporter, MSNBC and NBC News 2016 Emerson Fellow, New America
----Do Black Lives Matter to the Courts?---- It's a question raised time and time again when unarmed black men are killed by police and the officers are either not indicted, or not convicted. It's a question raised by NAACP Legal Defense Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill in a new collection of essays called Policing the Black Man: Arrest Prosecution and Imprisonment . Professor Angela J. Davis is the editor of Policing the Black Man: Arrest, Prosecution and Imprisonment . She's a law professor at American University's Washington College of Law. She's also the author of several books including Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor . Sherrilyn Ifill is the President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund . She co-wrote the essay in Policing the Black Man with her colleague Jin Hee Lee ----Do Black Lives Matter to the Courts?---- Sherrilyn is the author of On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 21st Century .
With a nod to punk rockers The Clash, the question of 'who should stay and who should go' was at the heart of two decisions at the end of the U.S. Supreme Court session. Who should stay in the America and who should go to college were behind rulings on immigration and affirmative action. Maria Hinojosa leads a discussion with Debo Adegbile, lawyer and former Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, professor at the University of Texas Center for Mexican American and Latino Studies, and Julio Ricardo Varela, Political Editor for the Futuro Media Group. For information regarding your data privacy, visit acast.com/privacy See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
