DOCSLIB.ORG

Advisory Memorandum on Voting Rights in Ohio (May 2018)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advisory Memorandum on Voting Rights in Ohio (May 2018) Advisory Memorandum To: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights From: The Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Date: May, 2018 Subject: Voting Rights in Ohio On January 17, 2018, the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) elected to undertake a study of voting rights in the state. Specifically, in support of the Commission’s 2018 Statutory Enforcement Report on voting rights in the United States, the Committee sought to review related testimony received during a Committee briefing in 2006 to: (1) determine the extent to which voting rights concerns raised in 2006 remained challenges in Ohio in 2018; and (2) identify any new voting rights concerns that may have surfaced in Ohio since that time. As part of its review, the Committee held additional briefings on March 2, 2018 and March 9, 2018. Panelists who had presented to the Committee in 2006 on the topic of voting rights were invited to return to update their testimony. Additional panelists currently involved in voting administration and advocacy were also invited to participate.1 The following advisory memorandum results from a review of the testimony provided to the Committee in 2006, combined with the additional testimony obtained in 2018. It begins with a brief background of the issue to be considered by the Committee. It then identifies primary findings as they emerged from this testimony. Finally, it makes recommendations for addressing related civil rights concerns. This memorandum focuses on the right of all eligible U.S. Citizens to participate in free and fair elections, to vote, and to have their vote counted. While other important topics may have surfaced throughout the Committee’s inquiry, matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate are left for another discussion. This memorandum and the recommendations included within it were adopted by a majority of the Committee on May 24, 2018. Background The right to vote is one of the most fundamental components of democracy—so important, that the U.S. Constitution includes four amendments protecting it.2 Established under the Civil Rights Act of 1957, as part of its core mandate, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is directed to “[i]nvestigate formal allegations that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote and have 1 Please see Appendix for meeting agendas and complete list of speakers. 2 U.S. Const. amend. XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI. Note: Amendment XV guarantees the right to vote shall not be abridged or denied on the basis of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”; Amendment XIX guarantees that the right to vote will not be abridged or denied “on account of sex”; Amendment XXIV guarantees that the right to vote will not be abridged or denied “by any reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax”; Amendment XXVI guarantees the right to vote will not be abridged or denied on account of age for all citizens 18 years or older. Page 1 of 17 that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin.”3 Throughout its history, the Commission and its Advisory Committees have released numerous reports on the state of voting rights in the U.S.4 The Committee notes that the Commission is presently conducting a study of voting rights in the United States nationally, in fulfillment of its 2018 statutory enforcement report to be submitted to Congress and the President. As part of this study, the Commission has requested that its advisory committees consider undertaking studies on voting rights in their respective jurisdictions. In this context, the Ohio Advisory Committee submits this memorandum to the Commission regarding the present state of voting rights in Ohio. Overview of Testimony In considering this study the Committee sought balanced and diverse input from involved stakeholders representing all relevant perspectives. During each of the 2006 and the 2018 hearings, the Committee invited testimony from academic experts, county voting officials, state level elected officials representing both major political parties, and community advocates.5 All invited parties who were unable to attend personally were offered the opportunity to send a delegate, or to submit a written statement offering their perspective on the civil rights concerns in question. During the 2006 hearings, the Committee was able to achieve reasonably diverse and inclusive participation from each of the aforementioned parties. During the Committee’s 2018 revisiting of the topic, however, despite numerous outreach attempts, no representative from the office of the Ohio Secretary of State chose to participate, and the Committee was unable to secure Republican representation from the current Ohio Legislature. The Committee acknowledges these limitations in the perspectives that follow. Findings In keeping with their duty to inform the Commission of (1) matters related to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws; and (2) matters of mutual concern in the preparation of reports of the Commission to the President and the Congress,6 the Ohio Advisory Committee submits the following findings and recommendations to the Commission regarding voting rights in Ohio. These findings and recommendations are intended to highlight the most salient civil rights themes as they emerged from the Committee’s inquiry. In recognition of the Commission’s continued study of this topic, in lieu of providing a detailed discussion of each finding presented, the Committee offers a general outline of themes, along with appropriate 3 Voting, 1961 Comm’n on Civil Rights Rep., Foreword, p. xv, http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11961bk1.pdf (last accessed July 21, 2016). 4 See Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Univ. of Md. Francis King Carey School of Law: Thurgood Marshall Law Library, http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/subjlist_index.html (last accessed July 21, 2016). 5 The complete agenda and minutes from this meeting can be found in Appendix B. 6 45 C.F.R. § 703.2 (2018). Page 2 of 17 additional resources, as topics of reference for the Commission’s 2018 statutory enforcement report. The complete meeting transcripts are included in Appendix A for further reference. The following findings result directly from the testimony received, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify due to their professional experience, academic credentials, subject expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand. 1. Voter discrimination can be thought of in two separate but related and equally important categories: voter denial, and vote dilution. a. Voter denial includes practices that impede eligible voters from casting their vote or from having their votes counted, such as strict voter ID requirements and limits on early and absentee voting.7 b. Vote dilution refers to practices that may weaken the strength of some groups’ votes, “particularly groups that are defined along lines of race or ethnicity,”8 such as gerrymandering. 2. Voting is regarded as a fundamental right and has been acknowledged as such by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 19th century.9 a. Based on the standard set forth by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board,10 if voting regulations burden voting rights, the court may consider the severity of the burden, the number of people affected, and the potential for disparate impact.11 The state then must justify the burden by demonstrating that it serves an important regulatory interest.12 b. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982, allows a claim to be made of race discrimination based on a result that is discriminatory, regardless of intent.13 7 See Daniel Tokaji, Testimony Before the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mar. 2, 2018, Transcript, p. 3 lines 10-15; p. 4 lines 14-26. Available at: https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetingdocuments.aspx?flr=155584&cid=268. (Hereafter cited as 2018 Transcript I). Note: after October 2018, transcripts will be available under the historical documents of the Committee, https://facadatabase.gov/committee/histories.aspx?cid=268&fy=2018. Also available at Appendix E. 8 Tokaji Testimony, 2018 Transcript I, pp. 3 lines 16-23, 4 lines 14-20. 9 Tokaji Testimony, 2018 Transcript I, p. 3 lines 20-31; Kerstin Sjoberg-Witt Testimony, 2018 Transcript I, p. 13 lines 21-28. 10 553 U.S. 181 (2008). 11 Tokaji Testimony, 2018 Transcript I, p. 5 lines 10-31, pp. 25 line 35-26 line 16 (citing Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S.). 12 Ibid. 13 Voting Rights Act, Section 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1973; see also Tokaji Testimony, 2018 Transcript I, p. 5 lines 27-39. Page 3 of 17 3. Voting practices and requirements in the United States vary widely from state to state.14 a. Variance in election law results in confusion and misinformation.15 For example, differences in voter ID laws between states may leave voters confused as to what is required in Ohio.16 Individuals with felonies on their record are permitted to vote immediately upon completion of their sentence in Ohio, but not in other states.17 This may lead many such individuals to be unaware of their right to vote, and may disproportionately impact people of color.18 b. There has been a significant increase in election related litigation in the United States since 2000.19 Litigation and resulting frequent changes in voting laws may contribute to voter and poll worker confusion regarding voting requirements.20 Changes are particularly damaging when rules are modified shortly before an election.21 The Ohio Secretary of State’s Office has reportedly not allocated any funding to voter education to make voters aware of the changes in 2018.22 “Community groups and nonprofit organizations have had to stand in the gap to provide voters with information about the mechanics of how, where, and when to vote.”23 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America 1
    DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America 1 DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America A Report by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. and the NAACP 2 DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) National Headquarters 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10013 212.965.2200 www.naacpldf.org The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (LDF) is America’s premier legal organization fighting for racial justice. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, LDF seeks structural changes to expand democracy, eliminate racial disparities, and achieve racial justice, to create a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. LDF also defends the gains and protections won over the past 70 years of civil rights struggle and works to improve the quality and diversity of judicial and executive appointments. NAACP National Headquarters 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, Maryland 21215 410.580.5777 www.naacp.org Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Our mission is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial discrimination. For over one hundred years, the NAACP has remained a visionary grassroots and national organization dedicated to ensuring freedom and social justice for all Americans. Today, with over 1,200 active NAACP branches across the nation, over 300 youth and college groups, and over 250,000 members, the NAACP remains one of the largest and most vibrant civil rights organizations in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Eugene Scalia Secretary of Labor U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave., N.W
    The Honorable Eugene Scalia Secretary of Labor U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210 Attention: Proxy Voting and Shareholder Rights NPRM. Regarding RIN: 1210-AB91 Dear Secretary Scalia, I am submitting the following comment letter to express my support for the Department of Labor’s recently proposed rule “Fiduciary Duties Regarding Proxy Voting and Shareholder Rights” published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2020. This rule rightly reaffirms the fiduciary obligations that ERISA-backed pension fund managers owe to their beneficiaries and puts forward much needed reforms in a proxy advisory industry that for too long has neglected to serve the best interest of pensioners. As a former Treasurer of the State of Ohio and Mayor of Cincinnati, I have had firsthand experience overseeing a pension system and I take seriously the responsibility of a fund’s management team to provide financial security to the men and women who work hard their entire lives with the hopes to attain a secure retirement. For pension beneficiaries across the country, this proposal by the Department of Labor is a positive step towards ensuring that accountability and fiscal responsibility take precedent over any other considerations. Rightly so, the proposed rule seeks to address the outsized roles that proxy advisory firms have in investment decisions and examine whether their recommendations are always economically beneficial to pensioners. The proxy system has long been taken advantage of by those without fiduciary responsibilities, preventing sound advice from reaching the nation’s pension and investment funds and retail shareholders. There is currently a duopoly in the system, in which two companies, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, control the overwhelming majority of the proxy advisory market.
    [Show full text]
  • “NAACP”) and the Ohio State Conference of the NAACP (“OH NAACP”) Respectfully Submit This Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents in This Matter.1
    No. 16-980 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRetARY OF STAte, Petitioner, v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE AND THE OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS MARTIN L. SAAD GILDA R. DANIELS KATHLEEN K. SHEriDAN Counsel of Record JOHN C. VAZQUEZ JUDITH BROWNE DIANIS CHriSTOPHER N. MORAN DONITA JUDGE VENABLE LLP EILEEN MA 600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ANDREW HAirSTON Washington, DC 20001 ADVANCEMENT PROJECT (202) 344-4000 1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 728-9557 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) September 22, 2017 275734 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................i TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ..............iv IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .....................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................2 ARGUMENT....................................6 I. OHIO’S SUPPRESSIVE VOTER TACTICS DENY THE RIGHT TO VOTE ....................................6 A. History of Voter Suppression in Ohio......6 1. Voter Challenges ...................7 2. Long Lines and Poll Worker Error ....7 3. Golden Week .......................8 4. Provisional Ballots .................10 5. Other Election Administration Errors ...........................11 ii Table of Contents Page B. Ohio’s History of Suppressive Voting Measures Has Led to Decreased Voter Engagement and Inactive Voters ........12 1. A Decline in Black Voter Participation in Ohio in 2016 Reflects the Impact of Voter Suppression.......................13 2. Disenfranchisement Results in Low Voter Participation Rates in Communities of Color ..............14 II.
    [Show full text]
  • John H. Merrill Secretary of State
    ALABAMA STATE CAPITOL (334) 242-7200 600 DEXTER AVENUE FAX (334) 242-4993 SUITE S-105 WWW.SOS.ALABAMA.GOV MONTGOMERY, AL 36130 [email protected] JOHN H. MERRILL SECRETARY OF STATE October 2, 2020 Senator Mitch McConnell 317 Russell S.O.B. Washington, DC 20510 Dear Majority Leader McConnell: Thank you for your swift action to hold hearings and to make certain that each Senator has the opportunity to consider the President’s nomination to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is of utmost importance that the Supreme Court has a full nine-member court before Election Day on November 3, 2020. Maintaining the integrity and credibility of our elections is of paramount significance to each of us as our state’s respective chief election official. Americans must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote with confidence, knowing their ballot will be counted for the candidate of their choice. In the case an election issue is challenged in court, America cannot afford a tie vote. We must be able to report election results in a timely, secure, and efficient manner as we have done before. The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett is an outstanding nominee for consideration for a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. She brings with her an unblemished record and extensive experience as a litigator and distinguished professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Her philosophy and tried and true beliefs of upholding the constitution and the laws of our nation as written make her an excellent choice for our nation’s highest court.
    [Show full text]
  • Legion News Summer 2020
    hio “For God & Country” LEGION NEWS Official Publication of The American Legion, Department of Ohio VOLUME 86, NO. 3 July | August | September 2020 2021 MIDWINTER CONFERENCE Department Executive Committee Meeting Saturday, June 27th, 10am • Small Gold #1 Pins: A Small Small District 8 @ 28.57% The 2021 Mid-Winter Conference will be held at the Crowne Plaza (Final Meeting) Gold Number One Pin will be Medium District 4 @ 69.23% Hotel North, 6500 Doubletree Avenue, Columbus, OH on the week- The Department Commander presented to each District 1st Vice Large District 10 @ 28% end of January 22-24th. The Legion, SAL and the Auxiliary are all Roger Friend convened the meet- Commander, who leads in their re- housed and have meetings in the same hotel. The Conference is fo- ing promptly at 10am. American spective categories at the time of a 2020 Department Membership cused on training and education of the American Legion and its pro- Legion Auxiliary President Kris- Department Executive Committee Recruiter of the Year – Is award- grams. Anyone is welcome to attend the Conference or any of the ten Little, and Sons of American meeting. (Retroactive for August, ed to the top new member recruiter meetings and classes offered. Closer to the event a schedule will be Legion Detachment Commander December, and April DEC Meet- of membership year as of May tar- available online. Bernie Kessler, brought American ings for 2019-2020) get date. To make reservations please call 614-885-1885 and select option Legion Family greetings. There August: • 1st Vice Commander #2 to receive the discounted group rate of $99.00 plus tax.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 1A APPENDIX a UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No
    APPENDIX 1a APPENDIX A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No. 19-3196 ———— WILLIAM T. SCHMITT; CHAD THOMPSON; DEBBIE BLEWITT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FRANK LAROSE, Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant. ———— Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus No. 2:18-cv-00966— Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief District Judge. ———— Argued: June 26, 2019 Decided and Filed: August 7, 2019 ———— Before: CLAY, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. ———— COUNSEL ARGUED: Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON 2a BRIEF: Benjamin M. Flowers, Michael J. Hendershot, Stephen P. Carney, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTOR- NEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Columbus, Ohio, Mark G. Kafantaris, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which CLAY, J., joined, and BUSH, J., joined in part. BUSH, J. (pp. 15–26), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. OPINION HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs William T. Schmitt and Chad Thompson submitted proposed ballot initiatives to the Portage County Board of Elections that would effectively decriminal- ize marijuana possession in the Ohio villages of Garrettsville and Windham. The Board declined to certify the proposed initiatives after concluding that the initiatives fell outside the scope of the municipali- ties’ legislative authority. Plaintiffs then brought this action asserting that the statutes governing Ohio’s municipal ballot-initiative process impose a prior restraint on their political speech, violating their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • EXTENSIONS of REMARKS May 8, 1996 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS
    10608 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS May 8, 1996 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS KEN BLACKWELL MAKES THE tax compliance is $192 billion-an amount we must be cognizant of the costs imposed CASE FOR A FAIRER, SIMPLER equivalent to General Motors' entire output on businesses by such mandates. TAX CODE for 1994 .. As we said in the tax commission's report, There are other costs that are not included filing tax returns will never be anyone's fa­ in the Tax Foundation's numbers. One of vorite pastime, but neither should it be what HON. STEVE CHABOT these is the cost of dealing with an audit or it has become: one of life's most nerve­ OF OHIO some other contact with the IRS. In 1990, the wracking, gut-wrenching and mind-numbing IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IRS conducted 1.2 million audits, and sent 4.9 million computer-generated notices to tax­ chores. The current tax code is exceedingly Wednesday, May 8, 1996 payers regarding their returns or payments. expensive to comply with, increasingly dif­ The IRS filed 1.1 million liens and 2.6 million ficult to enforce and oftentimes impossible Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, one of the best to understand. and most persuasive advocates of a fairer, levies, and penalized a third of all employers simpler Tax Code is my good friend, former for payroll tax deposit errors. Needless to Long ago the authors of the Federalist Pa­ say, taxpayers spent a considerable number pers warned, "It will be of little avail to the colleague on the Cincinnati City Council, and of hours in these contacts with the IRS in people that the laws are made by men of present treasurer of the State of Ohio, Ken addition to the time they spent preparing their own choice if the laws be so volumi­ Blackwell.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Notice for Use with the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) R.C
    Form No. 120 Prescribed by Secretary of State (09-17) Election Notice for use With the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) R.C. 3511.16 Issued by the Mahoning County Board of Elections BOE to check one: Initial notification (to be posted 100 days prior to date of election) Updated notification (to be posted 45 days prior to date of election) MAY 8, 2018 PRIMARY ELECTION State Executive Offices (Governor, Attorney General, Auditor of State, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State) Name of Candidate Office Party Precincts Richard Cordray and Betty Governor and Lieutenant Democratic All Precincts Sutton Governor Larry E. Ealy and Jeffrey Governor and Lieutenant Democratic All Precincts Lynn Governor Dennis John Kucinich and Governor and Lieutenant Democratic All Precincts Tara L. Samples Governor Bill O’Neill and Chantelle C. Governor and Lieutenant Democratic All Precincts Lewis Governor Paul E. Ray and Jerry M. Governor and Lieutenant Democratic All Precincts Schroeder Governor Joe Schiavoni and Stephanie Governor and Lieutenant Democratic All Precincts Dodd Governor Mike DeWine and Jon Governor and Lieutenant Republican All Precincts Husted Governor Mary Taylor and Nathan D. Governor and Lieutenant Republican All Precincts Estruth Governor Constance Gadell-Newton Governor and Lieutenant Green All Precincts and Brett R. Joseph Governor Steve Dettelbach Attorney General Democratic All Precincts Dave Yost Attorney General Republican All Precincts Zack Space Auditor of State Democratic All Precincts Keith Faber Auditor of State Republican All Precincts Kathleen Clyde Secretary of State Democratic All Precincts Frank LaRose Secretary of State Republican All Precincts Rob Ricahrdson Treasurer of State Democratic All Precincts Sandra O’Brien Treasurer of State Republican All Precincts Robert Sprague Treasurer of State Republican All Precincts Paul Curry(write-in) Treasurer of State Green All Precincts U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Broken Voting System and How to Repair It
    THE 2012 ELECTION PROTECTION REPORT OUR BROKEN VOTING SYSTEM AND HOW TO REPAIR IT FULL REPORT PRESENTED BY ELECTION PROTECTION Led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 662-8600 Toll Free: (888) 299-5227 Fax: (202) 783-0857 www.866OurVote.org /866OurVote @866OurVote www.lawyerscommittee.org /lawyerscommittee @lawyerscomm © 2013 by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. This report may be reproduced in its entirety as long as Election Protection is credited, a link to the Coalition’s web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. The report may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Lawyers’ Committee’s permission. NOTE: This report reflects the views of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other Election Protection partner or supporter. About ELECTION PROTECTION The nonpartisan Election Protection coalition—led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—was formed to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Made up of more than 100 local, state and national partners, this year’s coalition was the largest voter protection and education effort in the nation’s history. Through our state of the art hotlines (1-866-OUR-VOTE, administered by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and 1-888-Ve-Y-Vota, administered by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund); interactive website (www.866OurVote.org); and voter protection field programs across the country, we provide Americans from coast to coast with comprehensive voter information and advice on how they can make sure their vote is counted.
    [Show full text]
  • Solidarity Day '91 "
    PUBLISHED BY THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Solidarity Day '91 ".. an upsurge of social com1nitment." INSIDE DEMOCRATIC LEFT A Call For Social Idealism Bucking the Trend: COSATU Prepares for a by !ruing Howe ... 3 Democratic Socialist Economy by Dorothee Benz . 18 Opportunity Knocking: Will the Democrats and Labor Rise to the Challenge of National Health Care? Organizing the Lesbian and Gay Labor Network by Susan Cowell . .. 5 An Interuiew With Desma Holcomb ... 29 Universal Health Care In One State? A Report Defeating Scab Culture On Health Care Organizing In Maine Remarks by Richard L. Trumka, President of the United by Mike Cauanaugh and Kit St.John ... 6 Mine Workers of America ... 32 Film Review: Jo-Ann Mort reviews Barbara Kopple's Labor Fights Back: Unions Struggle Against "American Dream" ... 45 Tremendous Obstacles by Laura McClure ... 9 Book Review: Rafael PiRoman reviews Thomas Goeghegan's Which Side Are You On? . 46 Protecting the Right to Strike DSAction ... 23 by John G. Kinloch ... 13 On The Left .. 24 Janie Higgins Reports ... 48 The Fiscal Crisis of the States An Interuiew With Mark Leuinson ... 14 Cover photo by Hilary Marcus/Impact Visuals Solidarity Day Greetings DEMOCRATIC LEFT Remarks by George J. Kourpias at Solidarity Day '91 Founding Editor Michael Harrington (1928-1989) Our message today, to both the powerful few and to their victims, the countless millions, is simple. It is the same message once delivered by Mcmuging Editor Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt said in 1936, "We have always known that Michael Lighty heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is also bad Production economics." That thought was translated into action.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download This Handout As an Adobe Acrobat
    AEI Election Watch 2006 October 11, 2006 Bush’s Ratings Congress’s Ratings Approve Disapprove Approve Disapprove CNN/ORC Oct. 6-8 39 56 CNN/ORC Oct. 6-8 28 63 Gallup/USAT Oct. 6-8 37 59 Gallup/USAT Oct. 6-8 24 68 ABC/WP Oct. 5-8 39 60 ABC/WP Oct. 5-8 32 66 CBS/NYT Oct. 5-8 34 60 CBS/NYT Oct. 5-8 27 64 Newsweek Oct. 5-6 33 59 Time/SRBI Oct. 3-4 31 57 Time/SRBI Oct. 3-4 36 57 AP/Ipsos Oct. 2-4 27 69 AP/Ipsos Oct. 2-4 38 59 Diag.-Hotline Sep. 24-26 28 65 PSRA/Pew Sep. 21-Oct. 4 37 53 LAT/Bloom Sep. 16-19 30 57 NBC/WSJ Sep. 30-Oct. 2 39 56 Fox/OD Sep. 12-13 29 53 Fox/OD Sep. 26-27 42 54 NBC/WSJ (RV) Sep. 8-11 20 65 Diag-Hotline Sep. 24-26 42 56 LAT/Bloom Sep. 16-19 45 52 Final October approval rating for the president and Final October approval rating for Congress and number of House seats won/lost by the president’s number of House seats won/lost by the president’s party party Gallup/CNN/USA Today Gallup/CNN/USA Today Number Number Approve of seats Approve of seats Oct. 2002 67 +8 Oct. 2002 50 +8 Oct. 1998 65 +5 Oct. 1998 44 +5 Oct. 1994 48 -52 Oct. 1994 23 -52 Oct. 1990 48 -9 Oct. 1990 24 -9 Oct. 1986 62 -5 Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republican Sweep: Report on the 2010 Election Results in Ohio
    Mapping the Republican Sweep: The 2010 Election Results in Ohio This report maps the results of the 2010 election for state-wide offices in Ohio as well as voter turnout. The data for this report was taken from the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office and indicate official results. Clearly, the 2010 election saw a sea change in Ohio politics, and dramatic contrast with the 2006 election: 2010 was a Republican sweep, while 2006 saw a near Democratic sweep of state-wide contests. The Overall Election Picture in Ohio In 2010, prior to the November election, all state-wide offices up for election were in the hands of Democrats, except for the open Senate seat and the state auditor. These offices included the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and state treasurer. Republican challengers were able to defeat every one of these Democratic incumbents and to also hold the Senate seat. Some of the Republican victories were narrow, but some were fairly resounding. With a poorly performing state economy and with a strong sense of anti-incumbent anger brewing in the state, Democrats saw their fortunes turn negative across the board. Map 1 is a depiction of the distribution of Republican votes for the average of all of the state-wide races in Ohio in 2010. Map 1 There are several geographic patterns in Map 1. First, we see that there is an urban-rural split in the distribution of Republican votes. For the most part, counties with large cities in them such as Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), Lucas (Toledo), and Summit (Akron) leaned Democratic while more rural counties leaned Republican.
    [Show full text]