Republican Secretaries of State in Kansas and Arizona are devising a whole new way to make voting harder. Thwarted by the U.S. Supreme Court in their attempt to require proof of citizenship for voter registration, they are working on a plan to create an unprecedented system of two classes of voters: those who qualify—under new rules—to vote in federal elections only, and those who qualify to vote in state elections as well as federal elections.

Some background, from Talking Points Memo:

In both states, the preparations underway are reactions to the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the legal battle over Arizona’s 2004 voter identification law, known as Proposition 200. While the headlines in June painted the ruling as a blow to Proposition 200, officials in both Arizona and Kansas have chosen to focus on the leeway the Supreme Court left them. Kansas State Election Director Brad Bryant laid out the argument in an email he sent to county election officers at the end of July.

“As the Supreme Court made clear, its decision applies only to ‘federal registration forms’ and covers only federal elections,” Bryant wrote, according to a copy of the email provided to TPM. “States remain free to require proof of citizenship from voters who seek to also vote in state elections.”

Here’s how it works: When potential voters register using the standard federal voter registration form, they are asked only to indicate, by their signature, that they are citizens of the U.S. and therefore qualified to vote. But in addition to the standardized voter registration provided to all states by the federal government, there’s also a form, in almost all states, that is customized to that state. Kansas’ Secretary of State is now saying there’s a loophole in the Supreme Court decision that leaves a window of opportunity to require proof of citizenship on the state registration form.

So, Kansas is going to add that stipulation to its voter registration form. By this logic, that means that there will be two classes of voters: Tier 1 will be who have registered via the federal form—with no documentary proof of citizenship. In Kansas, those voters will be allowed to vote only on federal offices, not on state and local elections. Tier 2 voters, who have registered via the state form—providing the required proof of citizenship—will be allowed to vote in both state and federal elections.

Of course, it’s an “end-around” play, designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling and to suppress the votes of people who they’d like to keep from voting—effectively people who don’t have the necessary documents [or the time/money to go and get them], which generally means minorities, poor people and older people—who tend to vote for Democrats.

This ploy is also another sorry, scary and democracy-killing example of states asserting their rights versus the federal government—not for reasons of fairness or opportunity, but as a cynical and nihilistic way of manipulating elections. Sadly, it’s part of a trend: We’ve also seen state legislatures attempting to nullify federal gun laws, and make implementation of the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] illegal in their states.

Creating separate and unequal “tiers” of voting is a sickening idea that has the potential to become a terrible trend. At long last, have they no decency?

The post Voting rights watch: KS and AZ have scary plans for “two-tier” voting appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Progressives are often considered professorial, which in many circles is tantamount to being called wordy. Contrary to that questionable conventional wisdom is a definition of a progressive that includes two short points.  A progressive:

1.  Is not afraid to talk about any subject, so long as the dialogue is civil.

2.Feels the pain of those who are suffering and is willing to for action to be taken through the public sector to help alleviate that pain.

Regrettably, most “progressives” run the gamut from the “liberal like Joe Biden” to the “moderate like Claire McCaskill.” They seem to consider certain issues to be off limits. They don’t want to violate principle number one, openness to discussing virtually any issue).

What are some of the topics that progressives in the 75% – 50% range (with 100% being a genuine progressive) are reluctant to discuss.

1. Gun control is like leprosy to moderate progressives. It hasn’t always been that way; during the riots of the 1960s most liberals supported banning most forms of firearms because they were the weapon of choice in both crime and mass uprisings. Concern about the dangers of guns extended into the 1990s when President Bill Clinton was able to get Congress to agree to banning eleven types of assault weapons. And if we rewind the clock, progressive strongly opposed the high-powered machine guns, rifles, and handguns used by organized crime during Prohibition and extending into the period of American Mafiosi supremacy (now the dubious distinction of primacy is the bailiwick of other countries).

In January, 2011, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely wounded; six others were killed and thirteen more wounded by Jared Loughner, an unstable individual who exacted his damage with a Glock 19 pistol.

In April, 2007, a student at Virginia Tech University, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others on campus. He later committed suicide. His weapons of choice for the carnage he inflicted were an easy to get 2 mm semi-automatic handgun and a 22-caliber pistol.

In neither of these massacres was the topic of gun control given serious consideration. The last time that the role of guns as a contributing factor to killing was truly discussed was the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981. It wasn’t Reagan who brought it up or the family of the three law enforcement agents who were seriously wounded. Rather it was Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady who was shot in the head and suffered permanent neurological damage. He and his wife, Sarah, were so appalled by the indifference to the use of a handgun that they started an organization called Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

2. There are certainly other topics that progressives used to discuss but seem to have lost from their vocabulary. It is somewhat interesting that two of them became a common part of our language within two years of one another. When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Roe v Wade ruling on January 22, 1973, the word abortion could now be spoken rather than whispered. The word “choice” is also nearly expunged from our reproductive vocabulary.

 Roe v Wade was handed down exactly three years and three months (April 22, 1970) after the first Earth Day, in which progressives openly embraced environmental causes. Conservatives and some moderates now consider being pro-environment tantamount to being anti-energy; anti-economic growth; anti-job growth; and in some cases, even anti-American.

The silence of the progressives reminds me of an incident when I was in fourth grade. Someone at lunch uttered a word I had never heard before, shit. I thought that it was hilarious that there was a word that you couldn’t say if it didn’t insult anyone. Several times I marched around the cafeteria saying shit, shit, shit. A teacher heard me and immediately sent me to the principal’s office where I laughed, even when my parents were called. On a relative scale, they were pretty cool about it all.

I hope that I along with other progressives are now engaged in more important issues that striding around the cafeteria saying *hit. How about saying “gun control,” “abortion,” “choice,” and environmental protection.” There are many others as well, especially regarding labor and consumer rights.

It’s obviously absurd to wait for the John Boehners, Mitch McConnells, and Mitt Romneys to use progressive words in any fashion other than pejorative. Real progressives use them properly. Next are the Barack Obamas, Joe Bidens, Claire McCaskills, and other “in the middle.” Let’s do what we can to encourage them to do so. Step number one: walk around a school cafeteria repeatedly saying “gun control, gun control.”

The post If you won’t talk about guns, you’re not a progressive appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The word that comes to mind when seeing the photo above is shame. The photo comes from Arizona, where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down on January 8, 2011. She was reaching out to meet with constituents when a troubled man approached her and those around her and just started firing. Six individuals were killed, and twelve others besides Rep. Giffords were injured.

But who is ashamed and who is to be shamed? As an American, I am ashamed to have this image, one that undoubtedly has been circulated around the world, represent a “legitimate” way of celebrating Christmas. I thought Santa was a peaceful, kind old gentleman who limited his acts of nastiness to placing a few pieces of coal in the stocking of a young child who, in the eyes of his or her parents, had acted poorly over the past year. I thought that if there were guns near the Christmas tree, they were made of plastic and could shoot nothing more harmful that a light stream of water.

Even though I am not a religious person, I think that there is such a thing as the Christmas spirit, and it involves, love, caring, and sharing. I’m even willing to accept that it includes an excessive amount of commercialism. What it does not include is violence or threats of violence.

But my shame at the sight of the photo and everything that it represents is relevant only to the extent that I share my thoughts and some people listen. I’m somewhat preaching to the choir; those reading this post are probably of a similar frame of mind to me.

The question is, “Is there any shame among the people in the photo, the person or persons whose idea it was to orchestrate such a photo, the person who “shot” the photo, and the persons who proudly distributed it to the public? Are they at all embarrassed by violence in the United States? Are they embarrassed by not only our lack of gun laws, but the intensity with which our leaders and followers refuse to discuss the issue? Are they concerned that Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Gifford’s husband, might see the photo and once again wonder in what kind of society does he live where guns can be viewed so cavalierly and seen as objects of humor?

No doubt those responsible for the photo and the “guns with Santa” event would say that they are simply exercising their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. They might also say that in their opinions, the second amendment guarantees them the right to possess guns.

The question is, would those involved be influenced if there was massive outrage across the state of Arizona and throughout the United States? Suppose that President Barack Obama said that he was embarrassed by the flaunting of guns at Christmas time? I know, he wouldn’t shame the people responsible for it and instead he’d receive blowback as someone who is “soft on guns.” So the President would have too much to lose by taking on this issue. But suppose that children, parents, teachers, child welfare advocates, health care workers – just about everyone who in one way or another is impacted by the reckless use of guns spread the word that this photo does not represent the American in which they want to live. Suppose that we had a conversation about how guns can be part of our society, part of our culture, but they should be presented and utilized in a way that minimizes their offensiveness to others?

We can try. Jon Stewart made the guns with Santa his “Moment of Zen” on Tuesday, December 6. You might want to take a look below (about 10 seconds), see how you feel about it, and perhaps ask a few friends their thoughts about glorify and trivializing guns at the same time. We can do better.

The post Frivolous displays of guns with Santa speak volumes about Arizona appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A bill currently in play in the Arizona legislature would establish a State Defense Force (SDF) that could be called up for whatever reason Governor Jan Brewer considers to be necessary.

This is not your father’s National Guard–that well-established, federally regulated force with a specifically defined role. In fact, it’s not the National Guard at all, but rather a separate, volunteer military force that the governor could call up and use for any purpose whatsoever. As the official language of the bill says,

If the national guard of Arizona or a major portion thereof is called into active federal service, or if the national guard or a major portion thereof is alerted for federal service or for any other reason the governor considers to be necessary, the governor may establish an armed force for the safety and protection of the lives and property of the citizens of the state which shall be known as the Arizona state guard.

That phrase, “for any other reason the governor considers to be necessary” should, and is, raising alarms.

What’s different and scary about this legislation? The idea of a state guard is not, in itself, new. Arizona is far from the first  to establish a State Defense Force. In fact, 23 other states already have them—and have had them for many years.  They’re perfectly legal under federal law. The difference is that this one would be in the Arizona of 2011, which is fast becoming ground zero for the most radical of radical-right legislative proposals.

Here’s how one op-ed writer put it in a recent posting in the Phoenix Sun:

…if Senate Bill 1495 becomes law, [it would be] a blank check to establish a “state guard” that would do her bidding, whatever that bidding might be.

One fear is that the “bidding” could be defending the state’s border with Mexico—a move that would usurp the border-protection role reserved for the federal government. Sound implausible? A quick review of the history of this legislation says otherwise.

Jack Harper, the Arizona state legislator who introduced the bill  in January also  introduced a similar bill in 2007, but it was vetoed by then-Governor Janet Napolitano, who went on to become President Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security–and, ironically, America’s chief border-defense enforcer. In his announcement of the 2011 bill, Harper, a Republican, said outright that the bill would pave the way for a citizen-militia force that would protect his state’s border with Mexico–something that he undoubtedly thinks his former governor is not attentive enough to. There’s no acknowledgment, of course, that  his rationale flies in the face of the recent increase the number of federal Border Patrol agents along the Arizona border, and a corresponding decrease in illegal immigrants attempting to cross in the US via the Arizona border

The idea of establishing a rogue border-protection force—at the beck and call of a governor who has a demonstrated, very low opinion of immigrants—is part of a disturbing pattern in the Arizona legislature. This is the state that, less than two months after the shootings in Tucson, made the Colt singe-action rifle the official state firearm. Equally frightening is another new Arizona bill, that Huffington Post describes as “…grant[ing] a committee the right to nullify “existing federal statutes, mandates and executive orders.” Or, as long-time Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini notes, it gives Arizona the right “to secede without officially doing so.”

Once upon a time, there were state legislatures that could be regularly relied upon to serve as role models for smart, forward-thinking, progressive legislation. One that comes to mind is California, where air-quality and gasoline mileage-standards, and many other common-good notions got their first footholds and later spread across the country. Today, we have role-model reversal: The states that are out in front, so to speak, are setting a backwards-facing example.  How sad that in 2011, states like Arizona are becoming the poster children, standard-bearers and petri dishes for the worst ideas of the radical right.

The post More AZ shenanigans: a personal “army” for the governor appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a development whose irony cannot be ignored, the University of Arizona launched the National Institute for Civil Discourse [NICD] at the end of February 2011. Yes, that Arizona: The state with some of the most repressive anti-immigrant laws in America. The state whose governor cut off funding for life-saving organ transplants for people receiving Medicaid. The state that brought us Sen. John McCain and Governor Jan Brewer, neither of whom has a stellar record for civil discourse or humane policy-making. And, of course, the state where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down at a political rally in January.

I’m not saying that the intent and mission of the new institute is bad. In fact, given that it’s located in Arizona, the institute seems to have potential as a counterbalance to the uncivil policies and behaviors emanating from its host state.  For the record, the institute describes itself as:

…a national, nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy generation regarding civic engagement and civility in public discourse consistent with First Amendment principles. It offers an institutional structure to support research and policy generation and a set of innovative programs advocating for civility in public discourse, while encouraging vigorous public debate, civic engagement, and civic leadership.

For gravitas, NICD has lured ex-presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to serve as honorary co-chairs. Bush 41 seems a reasonable choice, as he was relatively benign in the civil discourse department. He served at a time when political discourse had its heated moments, but nothing like what we’ve seen in the past 10 years or so.  On the debit side, though, H.W. did spawn and promote the political career of Bush 43, who pretty much flunked the civility test. But we can’t hold H.W. totally responsible for W.

It’s probably fair to say that Clinton was civil–although sometimes colorful– in his rhetoric and generally people-sensitive in his policies. But Clinton’s presence at NICD is poignant: He has earned his place at the table as a perennial target of political  vitriol during his campaigns and his two terms as President.

NICD is the new kid on the block in a growing roster of related initiatives aimed at nurturing a more civil tone in political dialogue. Already in place is St. Louis’ Danforth Center for Faith and Politics, a center-right program with a similarly stated intent, based at Washington University.  At California State University-Northridge, there’s a year-long initiative called “Civil Discourse & Social Change,” a program with many cousins at universities across the country. To name just a few.

So, is civil discourse a practical, sustainable trend or a buzz-phrase? Will high-minded mission statements and university symposia led by big-name headliners and Ph.D’s influence partisan politicos in the heat of do-or-die campaigning, when verbal “push” could come to literal “shove?” I’m hoping for the best and preparing for more of the worst.

The post National Institute for Civil Discourse opens in…Arizona? appeared first on Occasional Planet.