• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: ACLU

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk – part 2

12 Friday Jul 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, ACLU, anti-choice, HB 126, initiative, Jay Ashcroft, missouri, Missouri Supreme Court, Petition, pro-choice, Secretary of State

“…You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…”

Today the Missouri Supreme Court refused to intervene in the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals ruling that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) [2019 file photo].

From the Missouri ACLU:

ACLU Win Affirmed, But Ashcroft Continues to Prevent Vote
July 12, 2019 – 4:00pm

Today, the Missouri Supreme Court let stand the Court of Appeals holding that Secretary of State Ashcroft acted outside his legal authority by rejecting the referendum petition on Missouri’s abortion ban. This recognition that Ashcroft acted illegally should prevent him from ever again abusing his office to derail the people’s right to challenge legislation by referendum.

Unfortunately, Ashcroft is continuing to obstruct the people’s vote by dragging his feet in his quest to deny the people a say on Missouri’s extreme 8-week abortion ban. If he acted promptly, supporters could begin to gather signatures by July 18 at the latest. But Ashcroft seems intent to slow the process so that supporters will not have enough time to collect enough signatures.

“It is no secret that Ashcroft’s agenda is banning abortion in Missouri,” says Anthony Rothert, interim Executive Director at the ACLU of Missouri. “While it is fantastic that the courts have made clear that he acted illegally, he may well succeed in preventing voters from getting their say on this important issue. Ashcroft’s tenure as Missouri’s chief election officer continues to be marked by efforts to prevent Missourians from voting.”

If Ashcroft had not illegally rejected the referendum petition, then he would have had to certify the petition for signature gathering by July 18. He will not meet that deadline, which in turn denies a meaningful opportunity to collect signatures, which must be submitted by August 28.

We reject the idea that Missourians can be denied the right to a referendum because of the unlawful action of an elected official determined to take away constitutional rights. The people kept for themselves the right of referendum to safeguard Missourians from an overzealous, out-of-touch government. No matter how they would vote on the referendum, every Missourian is harmed by Ashcroft’s abuse of this office to serve his radical anti-abortion agenda.

Our fight is not over. We continue to push Ashcroft to his job by certifying ballot language by July 18. Should he fail to do so, we will not let Missourians forget that he has taken the fate of the abortion ban away from the voters of Missouri.

Ironic isn’t it? Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) gets away with doing his job poorly. In Missouri republican circles that’s considered a feature, not a bug.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

So this happened today (July 9, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk (July 10, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk

10 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, ACLU, anti-choice, HB 126, initiative, Jay Ashcroft, missouri, Petition, pro-choice, Secretary of State

“…You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…”

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

The Missouri Western District Court of Appeals ruled a few days ago that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process. Except:

ACLU of Missouri

Let us be very clear. We are NOT cleared to gather signatures yet. Why? Secretary Ashcroft is obstructing the right to referendum.
The court ruled that Secretary Ashcroft acted illegally. He is now purposefully denying the right of the people to have a referendum.
The court is allowing Secretary Ashcroft to restart the clock and delay giving us ballot language until it could be too late to collect signatures.
That’s why we’ve appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court today.

[….]

Know this: If we are blocked from the ballot box because Secretary Ashcroft has run down the clock and given us, the people, no meaningful chance to gather 100,000 signatures by August 28th, we will continue to fight.
The ACLU will do whatever is necessary to make sure abortion remains legal in Missouri. The campaign will work to make sure reproductive rights are preserved across the state in any way it can.

[….]

The fight for reproductive rights does not rely on a single tool. We will see you in the streets, in the legislature, at the ballot box, and in the court room.

[….]

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

So this happened today (July 9, 2019)

So this happened today

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

abortion, ACLU, anti-choice, Attorney General, Eric Schmitt, HB 126, initiative, Jay Ashcroft, Petition, pro-choice, Secretary of State

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

An entry today in the Missouri Court System Casenet after the Western District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

WD82880 – AMERICAN CIVIL LIB, APEL V JOHN ASHCROFT, RES

07/09/2019

Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
motion and application; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: ANTHONY EDWARD ROTHERT
On Behalf Of: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, SARA E BAKER

Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
Respondents Ashcroft and Schmitts Motion for Rehearing, En Banc Review, or Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: DEAN JOHN SAUER
On Behalf Of: JOHN ROBERT ASHCROFT, ERIC SCHMITT

You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al.

08 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

abortion, ACLU, anti-choice, HB 126, initiative, Jay Ashcroft, missouri, Petition, pro-choice, Secretary of State, Western District Court of Appeals

The Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

“We will not go back”

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

Today at the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals WD82880 [pdf]:

[….]

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker (collectively “ACLU”) appeal a trial court judgment dismissing its verified petition with prejudice and denying pending motions in a proceeding where the ACLU sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and declaratory relief from State officials after a referendum petition sample sheet was rejected. The Secretary of State exceeded his statutory authority by rejecting the sample sheet on constitutional grounds at a point when the Secretary of State’s authority was limited by section 116.332 to review of the sample sheet for sufficiency as to form.

[….]

1. The Secretary of State’s authority to review a referendum petition sample sheet for sufficiency as to form pursuant to section 116.332 does not extend to determining compliance with the constitution and is limited to determining substantial compliance with the form requirements set forth in section 116.030.

2. The Secretary of State was obligated to approve the ACLU’s sample sheet as sufficient as to form as no issues with compliance with section 116.030 were identified.

3. Though a writ of mandamus could have been sought to compel the Secretary of State to approve the ACLU’s sample sheet as sufficient as to form, permanent mandatory injunctive relief is also available to compel the Secretary of State to withdraw rejection of, and to approve, the sample sheet.

4. Rule 84.14 directs this court to give such judgment as the court ought to give. Judgment is entered compelling the Secretary of State to approve the ACLU’s sample sheet.

[….]

Pre 1973, 2019 medical instruments.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126

28 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Governor, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, Resist

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

abortion, ACLU, anti-choice, HB 126, missouri, referendum

Pre 1973 2019 medical equipment.

Today:

ACLU-MO files Referendum Petition to stop MO’s anti-abortion law
May 28, 2019 – 12:45pm

Jefferson City – The ACLU of Missouri submitted a referendum petition to the Missouri Secretary of State to be approved for circulation.

This is the first step to bring Missouri’s anti-abortion law before the voters. The referendum will need to be certified for circulation and then over 100,000 signatures will need to be gathered to place the issue on the ballot. Once the signatures are submitted, the law cannot go into effect until a statewide vote has been made. A simple majority vote will veto the law.

Missourians oppose ending legal abortion. The Missouri General Assembly, trying to outdo the misguided and extreme examples of anti-abortion politicians in Alabama, Ohio, Georgia, and Kentucky, has made its intention clear: it wants to ban all abortion. Preventing Missourians from accessing abortion after eight weeks, before some even know they are pregnant, is unconstitutional and dangerous.

Abortion access is healthcare. HB 126, the law that will be put before Missouri voters, would criminalize doctors who perform abortions and force pregnant individuals to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, including in cases of rape and incest and even if the pregnancy is not viable or is risky for the woman.

“Failing to protect the right to an abortion violates the individual freedom of Missourians. HB 126 runs counter to our shared belief in autonomy and it has devastating health consequences for Missourians who become pregnant,” said Sara Baker, legislative and policy director with the ACLU of Missouri.

Passing an eight week abortion ban is an example of government overreach and disregard for the constitutional rights of Missourians. The ACLU of Missouri will continue to explore all options to stopping HB 126.
“The Constitution gives pregnant individuals the right to make the decision whether to end a pregnancy,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “We will make sure that abortion remains legal in Missouri.”

HB 126 can be submitted to the voters for disapproval. In the Missouri Constitution:

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 49

Reservation of power to enact and reject laws.

Section 49. The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided.

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 52a

Referendum–exceptions–procedure.

Section 52(a). A referendum may be ordered (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and laws making appropriations for the current expenses of the state government, for the maintenance of state institutions and for the support of public schools) either by petitions signed by five percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, or by the general assembly, as other bills are enacted. Referendum petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 52b

Veto power–elections–effective date.

Section 52(b). The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures referred to the people. All elections on measures referred to the people shall be had at the general state elections, except when the general assembly shall order a special election. Any measure referred to the people shall take effect when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise. This section shall not be construed to deprive any member of the general assembly of the right to introduce any measure.

And in RSMo §116.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

DACA, what DACA?

02 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

25th Amendment, ACLU, DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Donald Trump, gaslighting, immigration, social media, Twitter

Gaslighting from the occupant of the White House.

Demonstration in support of DACA – Kansas City – September 5, 2017.

One of this morning’s many delusional tweets from Donald Trump (r):

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
Democrats are doing nothing for DACA – just interested in politics. DACA activists and Hispanics will go hard against Dems, will start “falling in love” with Republicans and their President! We are about RESULTS.
9:16 AM – 2 Jan 2018

He thinks we’re all stoopit.

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was the Obama era directive giving close to 800,000 individuals who entered the country as undocumented minors deferred action on deportation.

A reply from the ACLU.

ACLU‏ @ACLU
Reminder: You ended DACA.
[….]
9:57 AM – 2 Jan 2018

On September 5, 2017:

Statement from President Donald J. Trump
Immigration
Issued on: September 5, 2017
[….]
…the Department of Homeland Security will begin an orderly transition and wind-down of DACA, one that provides minimum disruption. While new applications for work permits will not be accepted, all existing work permits will be honored until their date of expiration up to two full years from today. Furthermore, applications already in the pipeline will be processed, as will renewal applications for those facing near-term expiration. This is a gradual process, not a sudden phase out. Permits will not begin to expire for another six months, and will remain active for up to 24 months…
[….]

So, republicans control the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. There’s a republican administration in the White House.

“…Democrats are doing nothing for DACA…”

Yep, gaslighting.

Previously:

In support of DACA – Kansas City – September 5, 2017 (September 5, 2017)

Don’t think 2018 is going to be any better. (January 1, 2018)

Bipartisanship gone bad: The Israel Anti-Boycott Act

20 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACLU, AIPAC, Ann Wagner, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Claire McCaskill, H.R. 1697, Israel, Israel Anti-Boycott Act, J Street, Jason Smith, missouri, S. 720, Sam Graves, Vicky Hartzler

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720 and H.R.1697) is very bad legislation. It’s also that rarity, a bill that truly has bipartisan support. It’s laws like this proposed legislation, I suspect, that gives being bipartisan a bad rep.

The bill essentially bans boycotts or economic sanctions against countries “friendly” to the U.S. , specifically, but not necessarily limited to, Israel:

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or
  • requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

The legislation would levy significant fines not only for participating in boycotts or sanctions, but also for simply requesting information about such actions. Legislation like this would have precluded the boycott of South Africa that was at least partly responsible for the fall of apartheid. People on the left and on the right oppose this bill for much the same reason: it is improperly coercive, too broad in scope, and violates the Constitution. If its support is bipartisan, so is its opposition.

Who opposes the Israel Anti-Boycott Act?

The ACLU wrote in a letter to the Senate that “the bill would punish businesses and individuals based solely on their point of view. Such a penalty is in direct violation of the First Amendment,” adding that:

“… this bill cannot fairly be characterized as an anti-discrimination measure, as some would argue. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prevents businesses from discriminating against customers based onrace, color, religion, and national origin. This bill, on the other hand, aims to punish people who support international boycotts that are meant to protest Israeli government policies, while leaving those who agree with Israeli government policies free from the threat of sanctions for engaging in the exact same behavior. Whatever their merits, such boycotts right ly enjoy First Amendment protection.

The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison, on the other end of the political spectrum, is in perfect agreement:

Whatever one thinks about the BDS [i.e., boycott, divestment, and sanctions] movement and related international efforts to pressure Israel to change its occupation policies, it is deranged to try to criminalize protected political speech and association. As the ACLU points out, that is what this bill does. This legislation is plainly unconstitutional, and I assume it would be struck down in court if it were ever signed into law, but the deeper problem is that so many elected representatives think it is appropriate and desirable to trample on the constitutional rights of Americans to defend another government’s illegal occupation. …

J-street, a liberal Jewish lobbying group that advocates for a two-state solution to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians but which has stopped short of endorsing boycotts and sanctions, also opposes the legislation. In an email to congressional staffers, the J Street Vice President of Government Affairs, Dylan J. Williams, wrote that in its present form, the bill would:

…undermine decades of US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bolster the settlement enterprise and harm the prospects for a two-state solution. […]

[…] we recommended that Members consult with free speech experts on possible Constitutional concerns with the bill. Accordingly, I want to make sure that you saw the letters issued by the ACLU yesterday opposing both the Senate and House versions of the bill on the grounds that they would impose penalties in “direct violation of the First Amendment.”

So who does support this bill?

AIPAC. But that goes without saying.

Who else? At least 237 members of the House of representatives, 63 of whom are Democrats, are cosponsors of the bill, and 45 Senators, 13 of whom are Democrats, are also cosponsors . Others will probably, due to either conviction or the pressures of the prevailing political wisdom, help vote it into law.

Missouri Supporters

As for whom in Missouri supports this legislation, here’s the list of House cosponsors from our fair state: Rep. Wagner, Ann (R-2), Rep. Sam Graves (R-6), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4), Rep. Jason Smith (R-8), and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3). And in the Senate, who else but that consummate bipartisan wannabe, Senator Claire McCaskill, has signed on. So far, at least, Senator Blunt is keeping his hands off this one. Do you think he might actually have a few Constitutional scruples?

McCaskill’s presence is the most easily explained. She’s good at the political calculus and you can bet there’s some payoff here, or at least she hopes there will be, in 2018. The woman’s great strength is her pragmatism. It’s also, alas, her frequent downfall.This case falls into the latter category.

What really bothers me, though, are all those Republicans in the House who support this bill. Don’t most Missouri conservatives get all teary-eyed about the right of bakers and the like to refuse to do business with the LGBT folks – or whoever else their personal Jesus tells them to dis? Yet they don’t want to let businessmen or individuals who have moral qualms about the activities of foreign countries refrain from doing business that supports those activities? It’s not exactly the same question – there’s lots of issues to unpack here – but, on the surface at least, it seems just a little hypocritical.

More importantly, weren’t lots of these chuckleheads elected during the Tea Party “uprising” by voters who went around in tricorner hats waving pocket copies of the Constitution? It was pretty clear, even at that time, that few Tea Partiers had actually bothered to read the document and fewer still understood it, but don’t you think that the folks they sent to Washington ought to at least show a little deference to the legal underpinnings of of our great Democracy?

*2nd to last paragraph slightly revised for clarity (12:03, 7/21/17).

Picture this

09 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACLU, Jay Ashcroft, lawsuit, missouri, Secretary of State, voter photo ID

File this under “see you in court”.

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2015 file photo].

Groups Challenge Missouri Photo ID Law in Court

Jefferson City, Mo. — Advancement Project’s National Office and The American Civil Liberties Union today sued Missouri over the state’s new photo ID law.

The case was filed on behalf of the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri. The groups are seeking a temporary restraining order to block the law from being in effect during a local special election on July 11. In-person absentee voting for this election begins this Monday, June 12. An additional 52 Missouri counties go to the polls on August 8.

The request was made in part because Missouri’s chief elections official, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, has admitted the state would be unable to implement the requirements of restrictive photo ID law in time for this election and the state has yet to allocate funds to the Secretary to implement the law.
 
“Missouri’s restrictive photo ID law was designed to make it harder for people to vote,” said Denise Lieberman, Co-Director of Power and Democracy at Advancement Project’s national office, and coordinator of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition. “It is a gimmick that – as we’ve seen in other states – inevitably leads to blocking people from the ballot, especially people of color, young voters, seniors, women, and people with disabilities. This suppressive effect is magnified once the state fails to hold its end of the bargain. It is beyond unacceptable that the state of Missouri has launched a photo ID requirement while not sufficiently preparing, educating voters, or funding it. As a result, the burden is now falling on the backs of voters.”

“Voters were promised that this law was not about disenfranchising the most vulnerable in our state,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The state’s lack of funding and implementation of this law tells another story.”

“States are not allowed to make an end run around voting rights by forcing burdensome changes to election law and then failing to provide the required funding for proper implementation,” said Sophia Lakin, an attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.
 
Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are among the states that have already been reprimanded by the courts for disastrous implementation of their voter ID laws and inadequate, confusing voter education.

The case, Missouri NAACP v. Missouri, was filed in Cole County Circuit Court.

###

It ain’t a pretty image.

Sen. David Pearce (r): poor, poor, pitiful me

31 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

21st Senate District, abortion, ACLU, David Pearce, governor, HB 1307, Jay Nixon, missouri, seventy-two hour waiting period, veto

The republican cult of the victim.

Previously:

Sen. David Pearce (r): fundamentally, a useful idiot (August 30, 2014)

Call yourself what you want, obscure and manipulate language, it still doesn’t change the reality of what you are….

SB 519, HB 1307, HB 1313: wait, wait, wait (January 12, 2014)

On the right to privacy:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

[….]

Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs….

[emphasis added]

ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

….This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation….

[emphasis added]

Last Thursday morning there was a meeting in Warrensburg with Senator David Pearce (r), requested by some constituents, on the subject of HB 1307 and the upcoming override vote concerning the Governor’s veto of the imposition of seventy-two hour waiting period for an abortion. An individual in attendance provided us with audio from that meeting.

Senator David Pearce (r) [file photo].

About thirty-two minutes into the meeting there was this remarkable set of statements:

Senator David Pearce (r): ….Some of you have probably seen, um, the Internet, uh, campaign against me. Uh, maybe you’ve gotten the robocalls.  And let me tell you who’s behind that. ACLU. And, uh, it’s not, there’s nothing that talks about pro life or abortion in that. It just says, uh, David Pearce should not, uh, be involved in your personal decisions. You want to talk to him? And then they, they automatically filter those phone calls to my office. Nothing [emphatic] about a seventy-two hour waiting period, nothing about babies being aborted. Nothing like that, so it’s a terribly misleading, um, uh [interrupted by a constituent question]….

Oh, the horror of having to explain yourself to constituents.

Apparently, just mentioning the ACLU is supposed to strike terror in the hearts of your constituents. Think about that for a moment – a politician in a room with a group of constituents that probably includes a significant number of ACLU members and sympathizers relates an anecdote that’s supposed to elicit, what, a negative opinion about the ACLU?

Really? As if anyone engaged in politics is required to use the language and memes of their opponents when they’re engaged in the rough and tumble struggle over issues?

The outrage could maybe be funny under other circumstances. In this case it’s just narcissism.

Uh, the ACLU is concerned about personal privacy. The issue of privacy and abortion was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court over forty years ago. Stare decisis.

Joe Lieberman

10 Wednesday Jun 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACLU, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, photos, torture

Ah yes, the “Dick Cheney Doesn’t Want To Visit The Hague On A Really Extended Trip Act”:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2009

…Lieberman, Graham Pledge to Fight to Adopt Detainee Photo Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC — Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today issued the following statement on the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill:

“We strongly believe that the first responsibilities of government are the nation’s security and the protection of those brave Americans who go into harm’s way to defend it.

“The President has said that the release of the photos of detainees in US custody would ‘put our troops and civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.’ We agree with the Commander in Chief.

“We will employ all the legislative means available to us including opposing the supplemental war spending bill and attaching this amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate, to every piece of legislation the Senate considers, to be sure the President has the authority he needs not to release these photos and any others that would jeopardize the safety and security of our troops.

“The release of the photos will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to attack American citizens at home and abroad. We should strive to have as open a government as possible, but the behavior depicted in the photos has been prohibited and is being investigated. The photos do not depict anything that is not already known. Transparency, and in this case needless transparency, should not be paid for with the lives of American citizens, let alone the lives of our men and women in uniform fighting on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“Let it clearly be understood that without this legislation the photos in question are likely to be released. Such a release would be tantamount to a death sentence to some who are serving our nation in the most dangerous and difficult spots like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is this certain knowledge of these consequences of having the photos released that will cause us to vote against the supplemental and continue our push to turn our important amendment into law.”

-30-

[emphasis added]

Rough translation – Joe will hold his breath until he turns blue red if he doesn’t get his way. Filibuster! All in response to a court ruling:

Leading Rights Groups Call On Obama To Release Prisoner Abuse Photos (6/1/2009)

ACLU Calls On Court To Adhere To Mandate Requiring Release Of Abuse Photos

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE…

“…The disclosure of these photographs serves as a further reminder that abuse of prisoners in U.S.-administered detention centers was systemic,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Some of the abuse occurred because senior civilian and military officials created a culture of impunity in which abuse was tolerated, and some of the abuse was expressly authorized. It’s imperative that senior officials who condoned or authorized abuse now be held accountable for their actions.”

Also today, the ACLU asked a federal appeals court to uphold its earlier ruling that the government must release the photos. On May 28, the government filed a motion asking the court to recall its mandate ordering their release, and today the ACLU filed its opposition to that motion.

“The public has an undeniable right to see these photos. As disturbing as they may be, it is critical that the American people know the full truth about the abuse that occurred in their name. The government’s decision to suppress the photos is fundamentally inconsistent with President Obama’s own promise of transparency and accountability,” said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. “The government has failed to show any good cause for the court to recall its mandate that the photos be released, and we are confident the court will uphold its original order.”

In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the government to turn over the photos in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The Obama administration originally indicated that it would not appeal that decision and would release the photos, but abruptly reversed its commitment to do so shortly before the agreed-upon deadline…

The letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (and other groups) to President Obama:

June 1, 2009

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our profound disappointment with your decision on May 13 to block the release of photographs depicting abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel overseas. We urge you to reconsider that misguided decision and to renew your commitment to our nation’s most fundamental principles.

On your first full day in office, you eloquently proclaimed your administration’s commitment to the principle of open government. You said: “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.” That is exactly right. The hallmark of an open society is that we do not conceal information that reflects poorly on us – we expose it to the light of day, so that wrongdoers can be held accountable and future abuses prevented.

These photographs will no doubt be disturbing, as they should be. And we understand your concern about reaction to them overseas. But suppressing information to prevent public anger is inconsistent with democratic principles. The Pentagon should release the photos while reaffirming to the world that the U.S. repudiates such barbaric behavior and is committed to dismantling the culture that allowed it to occur. In the end, full disclosure of the crimes committed by our government will make us all safer.

The last eight years have demonstrated all too painfully that excessive secrecy creates a fertile environment for grave abuses. Those abuses have tarnished our nation’s reputation and damaged its security. We will restore our standing as a leader on human rights not by hiding images of our failures, but by demonstrating that those failures will not go unpunished.

As you yourself have stated, “the Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” Suppressing photographs of abuse places your administration on the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of history. We hope you will reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Alliance for Justice

American Civil Liberties Union

Amnesty International

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for Constitutional Rights

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of Law

Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

CREDO Mobile

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Feminists for Free Expression

Government Accountability Project

Human Rights Watch

International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA)

Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School

National Security Archive

OMB Watch

OpenTheGovernment.org

PEN American Center

Physicians for Human Rights

Progressive Librarians Guild (PLG)

Reporters Without Borders

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

Veterans for Common Sense

Veterans For Peace

cc: Gregory Craig, White House Counsel
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

Eric Holder, Attorney General

[emphasis added]

Public disclosure of the evidence of systemic wrongs allows the public the opportunity to change the system which allowed such. Once that information is public, what we do with it is an ultimate test of our worth as a society. Maybe that’s what scares some people so much.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Campaign Finance: “NO” on Proposition A
  • Donald Trump’s (r) Russian Diesel
  • Campaign Finance: “…It’s the only way to be sure.”
  • Campaign Finance: all that right wingnut money, just to vilify a tiny minority
  • Campaign Finance: shifting into high gear

Recent Comments

Campaign Finance:… on Denny’s Dirty Ball
Campaign Finance:… on Justice Brett Kavanaugh…
Campaign Finance:… on HB 1: Gerrymander this
Campaign Finance:… on Campaign Finance: Next
Campaign Finance: al… on Campaign Finance: Next

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,092,252 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...