Matt DeWilde – Law Street

We the People: Top 10 Weirdest White House Petitions

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:52 +0000

Image courtesy of [AgnosticPreachersKid via Wikipedia

As you may very well know, citizens of the United Sates can form and sign petitions on the White House Website. If a petition reaches 100,000 signatures in 30 days, the White House has to respond, though they sometimes respond to petitions with fewer signatures. For example, earlier this summer, a new petition went up asking the White House to change the name of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to the Tim Howard National Airport, in honor of Howard’s great performance as goalie for the United States Men’s Soccer team. This got me thinking, what are the wackiest, craziest, coolest, and dumbest White House petitions ever received? Well, here are my ten “favorites” (besides the Tim Howard one). This list includes a couple classics that you may of heard of before and some newer ones that you most likely have not. Enjoy!

[wooslider autoslide=”false” slide_page=”we-the-people-top-10-weirdest-white-house-petitions” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”DESC” order_by=”date”]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We the People: Top 10 Weirdest White House Petitions appeared first on Law Street.

Redrawing the Map: Florida’s Congressional Mess

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:59:38 +0000

A Florida judge has ordered the state to redraw its congressional districts by August 15th, in order to comply with the state’s Fair Districts Constitutional Amendment. This is a ruling that the Democrats have pushed for, because they feel that the state map has been drawn to give the GOP an advantage. But there is an unlikely group working against this change from within the Democratic Party–the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

The Florida Constitution states that no district shall be drawn with the intention of giving favor or disfavor to a particular political party. The law also states that districts shall not be drawn with the intent of denying equal opportunity to racial minorities to participate in the political process. Last month, a judge ruled that politics were taken into consideration for the drawing of two districts and that these districts made a “mockery” of the constitutional amendment. The districts that were ruled unconstitutional are the Fifth and the Tenth and can be seen below:

Thanks WtxlTV!

The judge, Terry Lewis, ruled that these two districts are drawn to divide up the Orlando area, and to connect African American voters from the Orlando and Jacksonville areas in order to favor the GOP. Lewis gave the GOP until August 15th to submit a new map for consideration, at which point he will decide whether to delay the 2014 midterm election in Florida in order to allow the new map to be implemented, or to wait until 2016 to implement the changed map. The Democratic Party backed this suit and is pushing for the districts to be implemented for the 2014 election. Democrats currently have 10 of the 27 seats in Florida, and could stand to gain a couple seats if the map is redrawn. But the CBC, made up entirely of Democrats, is against overturning the current map.

Marcia Fudge, the chairwoman of the CBC, sent a strongly worded letter to Steve Israel, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Fudge wrote, “per our prior discussion, we are extremely disturbed by the DCCC’s efforts to dismantle CBC districts in states that have historically proven to be difficult to elect minority members.” Her issue is that Florida’s Fifth District is represented by CBC member Congresswoman Corrine Brown, and the redistricting effort might cause her to lose her seat. This may seem a bit odd, as Democrats stand to gain seats overall with a new map, but the Fifth District is an example of packing. Packing is a form of gerrymandering where a certain group or party is packed as much as possible into one district, in order to make sure there voting power only impacts on district. In the case of Florida’s Fifth, Republicans packed African Americans from Jacksonville and Orlando together, to make sure their votes would only impact a district that would go Democrat anyways. Because of the way the Fifth is currently drawn, it is no surprise the Democratic Party nominated an African American candidate that went on to win. But if the map is redrawn and the African American voters in the Fifth are divided, it will may result in more white Democrats being elected, and Brown could lose her seat. This would occur because the Fifth currently has a majority of African American voters, but if the Orlando and Jacksonville parts of the district are split, Brown’s district will change. So while the Democratic Party stands to gain seats, the CBC has to contend with possibly losing a member.

This issue is a reflection of what is fundamentally wrong with our election system. A minority group is actually advocating to keep a district that was gerrymandered by the opposing political party. That being said, were the Fifth to be divided, it is by no means certain Brown would lose her seat. But the CBC is opposing the change because they feel like African Americans are already underrepresented in Congress. Perhaps this whole issue–a judge forcing the redrawing of a map, considering delaying a election, and the CBC opposing a change that would benefit its own party–is evidence that we need election reform that would fairly represent all Americans. We need to stop allowing mapmakers to decide who Americans are going to be represented by.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jaxport via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Redrawing the Map: Florida’s Congressional Mess appeared first on Law Street.

Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama

Matt DeWilde — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:55:38 +0000

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. The suit claims that when Obama delayed the employer mandate for ObamaCare, he changed the law, something which can only be done by Congress. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible, considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that’s the case, it’s a downright genius move.

Boehner himself has said impeachment is not being considered, but he needs to silence the calls from other Congressman and noisy pundits in his party. Impeachment is a bad option for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that Boehner knows that even if the House did impeach Obama, the Senate would never go along with it. Also, as unpopular as Obama is, he’s still more popular than the House of Representatives. The same thing happened the last time Republicans impeached a president–President Bill Clinton. The whole ordeal led to the Speaker of the House having to resign and Republicans losing the midterm elections. Boehner seems to know that it is a terrible political move to impeach the president.

But perhaps the biggest reason Boehner wants to silence the calls for impeachment is that the Democrats are using impeachment speculation to fuel their fundraising efforts. It’s an election year where the left’s base did not have much to be excited about, but the impeachment talks have riled them up. For example, you’d think that FOX news would be very excited about Obama impeachment rumors, and would be covering the issue far more than any other news organization. In fact, they have mentioned impeachment a respectable 95 times so far this month. But MSNBC, the liberal bastion, has mentioned impeachment a whopping 448 times. Both organizations claim to deliver unbiased news, but I think we all know that FOX and MSNBC are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the fact that the liberal news station mentions impeachment so much more shows how they want to get their base riled up. Boehner knows every time a Republican calls for impeachment on TV, it becomes a sound bite at the next Democratic Party fundraiser.

The lawsuit is also largely symbolic. It is doubtful that a court will say the House has standing to sue, and even if the House somehow wins the suit, the result would just be that Obama would immediately have to enforce the employer mandate. But odds are the case wouldn’t be decided until after the mandate begins enforcement in 2015 anyways.

There’s nothing for Boehner to gain legally, but there’s a lot to gain politically. This allows him to show he is doing something for those calling for impeachment. It allows conservative representatives to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they have taken action against Obama. It is a symbolic gesture against Obama that will come to nothing in the long run–exactly what Boehner needs right now. This move also buys Boehner precious time. He can argue that impeachment would be pointless before the court makes it ruling. He’d be able to stretch out that excuse until the 2016 elections, at which point the whole impeachment argument would become null and void anyways.

Boehner has let the conservative end of his party control him before. For example, he could not get them in line nine moths ago, leading to a government shutdown. This lawsuit is his way of asserting control as the Speaker of the House. While the Democrats will still be able to fundraise by slamming the lawsuit, it gives substance to Boehner’s claim that impeachment is not being considered. The media will also focus on the lawsuit instead of impeachment rumors. This lawsuit has allowed Boehner to appease his conservative base, while limiting Democratic fundraising talking points. He found the narrowest of lines and is balancing on it beautifully. It will only take a slight breeze from his right to knock him off, but until that happens, this is an excellent move on Boehner’s part.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel

Matt DeWilde — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:33:21 +0000

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

Featured image courtesy of [eskimojoe via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

How to Fix the House of Representatives

Matt DeWilde — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:49:41 +0000

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Law Street Media | First Past the Post vs. Proportional Representation in Massachusetts

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

—

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.

Interior Checkpoints in Arizona Draw Complaints

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:13:24 +0000

In Arizona, if you are within 75 miles of the Mexican border, you might just come across a “temporary” border control checkpoint. The goal of these checkpoints is to help control drug trafficking and stop illegal immigration. But the legality of these checkpoints, and what the Border Patrol agents are actually allowed to do is far from clear. The American Civil Liberties Union has now filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 15 individuals who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated at checkpoints in Arizona.

Of the individuals involved in the ACLU complaint, the majority say they were never asked about their identity, the supposed purpose of the checkpoints. Some of the complainants claim they were held for over half an hour for not giving the Border Patrol officer consent to search their cars. Other complaints include a gun being pulled on a individual, and the Border Patrol agents attempting to take someone’s cell phone. If these allegations are true, they most likely violate the existing laws on checkpoints.

The highest court of the land has only ruled on interior checkpoints once, almost forty years ago, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Amado Martinez-Fuerte was transporting two illegal immigrants when he was stopped at a fixed interior checkpoint in Southern California. When asked, the two illegal immigrants admitted to their status. Martinez-Fuerte reacted by suing, saying that the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. SCOTUS ruled that his rights were not violated, because if there is a reasonable collective suspicion, then individuals can be searched in the interest of public safety. The court stated that Border Patrol agents could briefly question and ask people for identification, without individual suspicion, if they’re at reasonably located checkpoints. The court did not give the Border Patrol the right to search vehicles or occupants without probable cause. The question in Arizona today is if the Border Patrol is abiding by this ruling.

It seems like this administrative complaint may lead to a new look at our laws. These checkpoints have expanded their focus to include more work in drug control, instead of just looking for illegal immigrants. This is problematic because Martinez-Fuerte only serves as a precedent for checkpoints searching for illegal immigrants. Currently at checkpoints, vehicles are examined by drug-sniffing dogs. In Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dogs could be used during a routine traffic stop, but no court has explicitly ruled that they can be used at Border Patrol checkpoints.

Furthermore, in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that using these checkpoints for general law enforcement acts violates the Fourth Amendment. James Duff Lyall, the attorney who filed the complaint stated:

The restrictions in the Martinez-Fuerte ruling don’t mean that agents have to turn a blind eye to obvious evidence of drugs or crime, but if you have cases where people are not even being asked about residency status, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of these checkpoints.

In 1976, the Supreme Court made the Martinez-Fuerte ruling because they felt that in an area with a high number of illegal immigrants, it was not unreasonable to have ID checkpoints on major roads. Using that logic as precedent, I think that it could be argued that due to the large amount of narcotics crossing the border, it is not unreasonable to have cars drive through a checkpoint where drug-sniffing dogs are present. However, there’s no legal basis for that argument yet, and this is not an excuse for the unreasonable searches that the ACLU is alleging are taking place. If the point of these checkpoints is to find drugs, a car should only have to stop for a few moments while the dog sniffs, and then be allowed to move on. Anything beyond that, or a simple examination of a person’s ID, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol in Arizona needs to realize this if they want to keep operating their checkpoints.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ken & Sharon Lotts via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Interior Checkpoints in Arizona Draw Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:08:32 +0000

“We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” That must be what Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is thinking right now, after over 100 Republicans defected and offered their support to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis. The defectors are mainly moderate Republicans that have been bullied by Brownback and the Tea Party movement. This major political defection is their way of striking back. In the continuing war between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, this sends a powerful message–a centrist Democrat is closer to moderate Republican values than a Tea Partier is.

This defection comes partly as a form of political payback and partly from an actual belief that Paul Davis is the better choice for Kansas. Early in his governorship, Brownback led a charge to purge moderate Republicans from the state government. For example, Steve Morris, former president of the Kansas State Senate, was ousted by a primary challenger whose political beliefs fell further to the right. He has said that Brownback privately told him that he could have stopped the upset but chose not too, as Morris and Brownback often fought over policy. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Morris is now supporting Davis. In a recent interview, in reference to Brownback, Davis commented, “he essentially declared war with moderate Republicans during the last State Senate election. Many moderate Republicans saw that, and they are coming to support my campaign.”

Many of the other 100-odd defectors, including state legislators, mayors, and delegates to the Republican National Convention, broke from Brownback for ideological reasons. The list of reasons why is long, with many focusing on the consequences of Brownback’s extreme tax cuts. The tax cuts have caused an increase in deficit spending, massive cuts in education spending, a depletion of Kansas’s highway funds, and have offered none of the promised job creation. Other reasons for the defection include Brownback offering judgeships as political prizes and pushing extremely socially conservative legislation.

Even before this defection, Brownback faced a challenging reelection bid. Nate Silver’s prediction on fivethirtyeight.com gave Brownback only a 60 percent chance of winning based on polling data. Though still favored, 60 percent was a relatively small margin for a state as red Kansas. Now with this defection, I have to imagine his chances have shrunken significantly.

In many ways this election is not a Republican versus a Democrat, nor is it an election where voters have to decide between traditional Republican or Democratic values. It is an election where voters have to choose between Tea Party values or very centrist values; a continuation of the war between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party. Davis is setting himself up to win by opposing Brownback on hot issues such as taxes and spending on schools and highways, but has taken a more conservative view on issues that could rile up Brownback’s base–the religious right. For instance, Davis has said he would leave Kansas’ very strict abortion laws in place. This election is now about moderate Republicans striking back at the Tea Party, not a Democrat challenging a Republican.

Brownback would probably deny the moderate legitimacy of his challenger, saying voters do not know who Davis is, and that he is just an Obama-style Democrat. Brownback has said that voters will have to choose between a Reagan approach or an Obama approach to government. What Brownback may be failing to realize is that moderate Republicans would never abandon someone who governed like Reagan, but they may not fall in line with someone who governs like a Tea Partier.

As much as I would love to think that this will become a trend and we would see moderate Republicans defect across the country, that is probably not going to happen. Kansas had a perfect storm of conditions that led to this rebellion. One is that Kansas has a particularly inept governor that went out of his way to exile moderates and pass much-maligned laws. Another is that there was a very centrist Democratic candidate that already had a chance to win. This was important because it gave the Republican defection substance; it was not merely symbolic. It is unlikely that this would happen under any other conditions–we really shouldn’t expect moderates from either party to defect anywhere else, anytime soon. Which is unfortunate, because our country sure could use movement towards the center of the political spectrum like we are seeing in Kansas.

—

Featured image courtesy of [mar is sea Y via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas appeared first on Law Street.

Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

Matt DeWilde — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:55:31 +0000

“Don’t call me illegal, because I am not, illegal are your laws, and that’s why I’m not leaving.” A group of thirty undocumented youth chanted this rallying cry in the city of McAllen, Texas, while wondering if they had left behind their families and traveled hundreds of miles for just a fleeting glance of America. Jose Antonio Vargas is a reporter who traveled to McAllen to cover this vigil, and for him, it’s personal. He has had much more than a glance of life in America, calling himself the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant in the country. He has written for the New York Times Magazine and TIME Magazine about his experiences, and directed a recent documentary on the immigration issues facing this nation. He has traveled around the country for over three years, with his seemingly American identity and the media recognition he draws keeping him safe from deportation. But now, in McAllen, he may be no different than the undocumented children whose stories he is reporting.

Vargas went to McAllen to cover the vigil for the undocumented children, and to report on shelters set up by citizens of the town. Shortly after his arrival, he began receiving emails from friends asking him how he planned to get out, considering the checkpoints that were set up outside of the town and the airport. Vargas usually flies on his Filipino passport, but these checkpoints require proof of citizenship to pass. Vargas has now been arrested, and like those undocumented children, what will happen to him remains to be seen.

The crisis in McAllen

There are currently waves of undocumented immigrants flooding into Texas, mainly composed of children. McAllen, one of the cities most hard hit, has responded to this crisis in a way that should make Americans proud. Long before the federal government stepped in to help aid the massive influx of immigrants, the people of McAllen answered the call. Local residents began giving out supplies and aid to immigrants at the local bus station, where the children would often be stranded for hours or even days. Makeshift shelters began operating out of the trunks of cars and the basements of churches. The Rio Grande valley, where McAllen is located, has seen a 178 percent increase in the number of migrant workers the past few months. The federal government was not prepared for this and still is not–shelters remain a poorly met necessity in McAllen. But McAllen has answered the call, with volunteers exceeding the number needed on some days.

But the great work the people of McAllen are doing is not without protest. Outside the shelters housing these children are signs declaring that they should be sent home. It is currently legal for the government to send children to live with relatives, family friends, or a foster family until the children face a deportation hearing, which can sometimes take years. At these hearings the judges will have the authority to allow the children to stay or send them home. But many are saying that Obama has the authority to send these children home and should do so. This crisis has quickly become a frantic flashpoint in American politics, with politicians, pundits, and the media all chiming in.

One politician arguing for deportation is Texas Governor Rick Perry. He says, “allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group of individuals to undertake this dangerous and life-threatening journey here.” Others have said the children should be allowed to stay, especially considering the dangers they face back home. In a surprise move, conservative pundit Glenn Beck has been a huge advocate for allowing the children to stay. In perhaps the one of the wisest statements Beck has ever made, he said, “I’ve never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this.”

A change does need to be made because the current system is far to slow to deal with the influx of child immigrants, but that does not mean the solution is to send them back. These children have left places that are ravished by poverty and gang violence. Sending them back could be akin to authoring their death sentences. It’s clear that the people of McAllen have put politics aside to help these children. It would be nice if politicians would do the same.

Jose Vargas: the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant

So back to Jose Vargas, the celebrity journalist whose story is now inextricably linked with the children who have arrived at our borders. Jose Vargas is now being detained in the McAllen Border Control Headquarters. He was arrested trying to fly out of a local airport. Vargas, almost better than anyone, knew the risk he was taking, as the Border Control was publicly checking IDs at the airport. He tweeted the incident as seen below:

About to go thru security at McAllen Airport. I don’t know what’s going to happen. For updates follow @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

The only IDs I have for security: Philippine passport and my pocketbook US Constitution @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA pic.twitter.com/IFH0Vb4oX7

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

Here's a photo of @joseiswriting in handcuffs, because the Border Patrol has nothing more pressing to do apparently pic.twitter.com/dN8KewqeZr

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) July 15, 2014

Considering what Vargas knew, combined with the way he tweeted before going through security, it seems as if he expected to get arrested. It seems that he is trying to prove a point, or perhaps is just trying to draw attention to the situation. If that is the case, he has succeeded–social media and news networks have been all over his arrest. And if he were to be deported, that would be a even bigger story and rallying cry for his supporters.

If this was done on purpose, Vargas has positioned himself to have a huge political impact on the current humanitarian crisis. He may be able to be the voice that these children don’t have. He is showing the world that undocumented immigrants don’t all look the same. It’s an issue that affects all of us. Hopefully his actions have a real world impact–because something needs to be done in Texas.

Update: Jose Antonio Vargas has been released by the Texas Border Control, with an order to appear in front of an immigration judge. There has been no notable progress on the statuses of the thousands of children in McAllen.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Otzberg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

LGBT Rights Groups Pulling Support for ENDA in Light of Hobby Lobby Ruling

Matt DeWilde — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:35:45 +0000

Several LGBT rights groups have withdrawn their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would ban employers from refusing to hire or discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. A coalition of groups that support LGBT rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is leading the charge away from the ENDA. This comes as a surprise, given that ENDA previously had strong support from these same groups. They are pulling support from a bill they have long worked to pass for only one reason–the recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. The problem is that they may be overreacting.

Since the ruling was handed down in the Hobby Lobby case, there have been misinterpretations of the case from both sides of the aisle. The liberal side of the debate has rallied behind Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, saying that the “floodgates” have been opened for religious freedom suits. That argument is the reason why so many LGBT groups have removed their support for the ENDA. They fear that corporations who wish to discriminate will be able to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the same way that Hobby Lobby did. They are scared that the Supreme Court could rule that a religious corporation not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality is a violation of RFRA. I understand this fear, excellently articulated here by our blogger Chris Copeland, but I think that they are simply overreacting to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. The ruling itself was very narrow and will likely never serve as a precedent for sexual discrimination.

How am I so sure of this? Let’s put it this way, these suits will almost definitely not happen as long as Justice Anthony Kennedy remains the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Kennedy did vote with the majority on Hobby Lobby, but it is clear from his concurring opinion that his vote came with some serious strings attached. Kennedy implied that he only voted the way he did because of the narrowness of the case. He believed in this specific instance that the least-restrictive means test was not met, and pointed out that the government already allowed exceptions for non-profit corporations. The court’s ruling made it clear that the decision only applies to a religious exception for the contraceptive mandate, and that all other potential religious exceptions must be evaluated individually. Simply put, Hobby Lobby is not an invitation to use the RFRA to allow sexual discrimination.

If a case arguing that job discrimination should be allowed under the RFRA ever made it to the Supreme Court, there is no way Kennedy would vote to allow it. There are several reasons for this. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that ruled any law prohibiting sexual acts between members of the same sex in private was unconstitutional. He also authored the opinion in United States v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy has long defended the rights of the LGBT community and I do not think he would change his mind if a corporation sued to use RFRA as a basis for legal sexual discrimination. The government banning sexual discrimination would meet the least-restrictive means test, while the contraceptive mandate did not, a distinction that would surely be important to Kennedy.

It’s sad to see these LGBT groups end their support for the ENDA. It is still a law that could do a lot of good. Any challenge to the ENDA under the guise of religious freedom would almost certainly turn out differently than the Hobby Lobby case, but with support being pulled from the law, it will probably never become an issue.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post LGBT Rights Groups Pulling Support for ENDA in Light of Hobby Lobby Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t Go to Law School…Yet

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:46:46 +0000

We’re having a debate here at Law Street over whether or not now is a good time to go to law school–this is Matt DeWilde’s argument against taking the leap, click here to read Brittany Alzfan’s opinion on why law school right now may be a good choice.

When it comes to the question of entering law school right now, unless you like gambling with over $100,000 on the line or you got into Harvard Law, you might want to hold your horses. Going to law school now will still most likely result in massive amounts of debt and only a small chance to get a job at a top law firm when you get out. I do believe that law school will one day be a smart choice again, but that day is at least several years down the road.

There are many reasons why now is not a good time to go to law school. For one, law school prices have started to trend downwards, but are still high across the board. You will most likely end up in massive debt, especially if you haven’t finished paying off loans you took out for your undergraduate degree. The best law schools are still going to set you back close to $150,000 and it is very hard to find a respectable school that will cost you less than $100,000. All that being said, it would be totally worth it if you could make six figures right after graduating, but you most likely won’t luck out in the job market. In fact, you will probably be happy if you can find a job that pays marginally better than one you could get with just your undergraduate degree.

Median pay out of law school is around $60,000 a year, $10,000 lower than it was in 2008. Also check out this graph from the Association for Legal Career Professionals. While it is true that there is a sizable percentage of graduates making good money–about $160,000 a year, they’re still in the minority. In fact, there was a high concentration of graduates making between $45,000-$55,000 out of law school in 2012, which is only marginally better than the $44,000 graduates averaged their first year out of undergrad.

The counterargument to these facts is that the job market has stabilized, and with a smaller law school class more students will get good jobs. But there are problems with this logic. One is that the best paying jobs are still only available to those who graduate from elite law schools, which have not had to drop class sizes to the same extent as mid-level law schools. So while it may now be less likely that you will be unemployed when you graduate, do not expect the big bucks. Also, just because the job market has stabilized now does not mean it will start improving over the next three years while you’re in school. Going to school with the assumption that the job market will improve is an incredible gamble.

While going to law school today might not be as bad as enrolling in 2009, it is still not a great option. But there are signs that we could only be a couple years away from a law school rebound. One is that law schools are starting to lower their prices. There could very well be wide-scale tuition decreases over the next few years, meaning it would make sense to wait until those have come to fruition. As prices go down, so does the gamble.

So if your dream is to be a lawyer and you really want to go to law school, do not give up hope, but be patient. Prices should go down and the legal job market is likely to improve a bit–albeit in mainly lower paying jobs. Perhaps try to find a job as a paralegal for a few years, then go to law school. Paralegals can earn up to $50,000 out of undergrad and it’s great experience to put on law school applications. Gain work experience, and in a few years take advantage of lower priced law schools. While it may be better to apply to law school now than it was a couple years ago, it’s still a risky decision. Waiting a few years could very well improve your prospects.

—

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Don’t Go to Law School…Yet appeared first on Law Street.

Guns Everywhere: New Law Takes Effect in Georgia

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 15:12:01 +0000

On Tuesday, a new Georgia gun law went into effect, despite 70 percent of Georgians disagreeing with the law. The law is officially called the Safe Carry Protection Act, but is better known as the “Guns Everywhere” law. Sadly, its nickname is only a slight exaggeration.

So what exactly is this new law, and what’s in it that’s so controversial? Well here are the highlights:

1) Those who have a license to carry a concealed weapon can take guns into places of business including, restaurants and bars, although these businesses can technically opt out.

2) School officials and appointed staff members can carry guns in schools and religious leaders can allow guns in their places’ of worship.

3) Guns can be carried up until the security checkpoint in the airport.

4) Guns can be carried into government buildings that do not have metal detectors, with the exception of the Georgia Capitol Building.

5) No individual, including a police officer, can ask to see a person’s permit to carry unless they have cause.

Let’s walk through this incredibly far-reaching law’s many problems. First of all, restaurant and bar owners are very concerned about how this law will affect business. Many bar owners have come to the very logical conclusion that providing alcohol to someone who is carrying a gun is not a bright idea. But in order to opt out of this law, bar owners must place an official sign outside the restaurant saying guns are not allowed. This makes owners concerned that gun rights groups may protest their business if they ban guns. Alice Johnson, the director of Georgians for Gun Safety, says, “bar owners will be targeted for boycotts and all kinds of public relations problems.” She also believes that bars will face lawsuits for not allowing guns. Georgia’s bars are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can either serve people with guns alcohol, or risk losing business.

But my favorite logical fallacy of this law is the fact that you cannot ask to see a person’s permit to carry a concealed weapon without cause. This means a person must be doing something suspicious for even the police to demand to see a permit. I could go buy a gun and carry it around with me in Georgia and as long as I don’t do anything ridiculously stupid, like wave my gun in someone’s face, the police would not be able to ask for my permit to carry. This is effectively an “anyone can carry a concealed weapon if you aren’t a moron” law. Of course, if you are a moron or an actual dangerous person, by the time you commit said suspicious activity that will allow cause, the damage will most likely already be done. A man has already drawn his weapon in a shop after a fellow customer asked to see his permit.

There is so much more stupidity in this law that I could discuss, but I think you get the picture. So, I am going to move on the political aspects of this law. There is speculation that this bill was put to a vote to get Jason Carter, the Democratic challenger for governor, to vote against a gun rights bill. Carter did not take the bait, and voted with the overwhelming majority of the legislature to pass the bill. This meant that current Republican Governor Nathan Deal had to sign it, or appear to be less pro-gun than his Democratic challenger. The bill was voted down three times before it got passed, lending some credence to this theory. So there you have it, this new gun law may exist just because of a political game of chicken.

Seventy percent of Georgians being against a law that expands gun rights is almost unfathomable, unless of course, the law goes way too far. Let’s face it, that’s exactly what’s happening in Georgia right now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Boris van Hoytema via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Guns Everywhere: New Law Takes Effect in Georgia appeared first on Law Street.

Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose

Matt DeWilde — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:07:18 +0000

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, when applied to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority, which also included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion was a narrow one–Justice Alito made it clear that they were ruling on the specifics of this case–not opening the floodgates for other religious challenges. His opinion also stressed that this ruling only applies to closely held corporations with fewer than five majority owners. But despite the narrow ruling, this is a clear victory for Hobby Lobby.

The Background

In order to understand how the court arrived at this opinion, we must first understand RFRA, the law under which the contraceptive mandate was challenged. That law states that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception to this law can only be provided if it shows a compelling governmental interest and that governmental interest is achieved using the least restrictive means possible. This means the interest must be achieved in a way that least violates our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Therefore, in order for Hobby Lobby to win this case they had to:

1) Show that a corporation could practice religion and be considered a “person” under this law;

2) Show that Hobby Lobby’s ability to exercise religion had been substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate;

3) Either show that the contraceptive mandate was not a compelling governmental interest or prove that it was not achieved in the least restrictive means possible.

The Decision

The majority opinion held that a corporation could practice religion because its administration could make business decisions based off of religious beliefs. The majority also claimed that because companies do donate to charities, they are capable of caring about values that transcend profits–such as religion. Finally, they pointed out that in certain cases, Congress has specifically added clauses into laws specifying that corporations would not qualify, and would have done exactly that if they did not intend for corporations to be covered by RFRA.

On the other hand, the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that a corporation cannot exercise religion because there is no clear way to decide who determines its religion. Would it be 51 percent of the shareholders? Or the majority shareholder? The CEO? This objection is why the majority applied this ruling only to closely held corporations with five or fewer owners, such as Hobby Lobby. These are often family-owned and can feasibly run their company based off of religious issues.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, believe the contraceptive drugs they were required to include in their employees’ health coverage are similar to abortions. Their religious beliefs state that life starts at conception. Therefore, their ability to exercise their religion is substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate.

Once the majority established that Hobby Lobby could be considered a person under RFRA and that it faced a substantial religious burden, they had to determine if the contraceptive mandate could be considered a legal exception. The majority conceded that providing contraceptive coverage was a compelling government interest, but also said that it was not done in the least restrictive way. They assert that because there is a penalty for not providing the contraceptives, the Greens were forced to either act against their religion or pay a significant fine. The majority opinion says that this is not the least restrictive way to provide contraception coverage, as the government could just provide the contraceptives itself and allow the Greens to respect their beliefs.

Another argument brought up in the dissent is that this ruling could lead to religious exemptions for other issues, such as coverage for immunizations and blood transfusions. However, the majority held that they were only ruling on the contraception mandate, stating that this ruling does not mean they would rule the same way for any other health care challenge under RFRA. The opinion specifically cites immunizations as an example of governmental interest that is compelling and is reached by the least restrictive means possible.

The Impact

Now that we understand the ruling, let’s examine its impact, particularly on the Affordable Care Act. If we look at the ACA’s overall ability to provide healthcare, the impact is minimal. The ruling only strikes down one mandate, and says the government can still provide contraceptives itself. So in a way, it could expand governmental coverage of healthcare. Where this hurts the ACA is in the political battlefield, where the fact this was a very narrow ruling means almost nothing. All that matters is that the Democrat’s health care law overreached. This issue could very well serve as a rallying point for conservatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Already there are headlines popping up that make it seem like the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA. But at the end of the day, all the Supreme Court did was curb a small portion of the contraception mandate. They didn’t rule any mandate unconstitutional. They just provided a religious exception, while still leaving routes open for women to get the coverage the ACA promises.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Nate Grigg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose appeared first on Law Street.

The World Cup of Drinking Laws

Matt DeWilde — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:45:45 +0000

Last week, Germany edged out a win against the United States in an intense soccer match that ultimately qualified both teams to the next level of competition. Here at Law Street, my coworker Trevor Smith and I decided to use this exciting World Cup game as an excuse to exercise our nerdy legal sides and compare drinking laws in the two nations. After interviewing the crowd at a watch party in DC’s DuPont circle, and researching each country’s laws, we think it is safe to conclude that Germany also wins the drinking law matchup.

In Germany, there are very few restrictions on public alcohol consumption. Most cities ban drinking in their public transit systems, but other than that, they allow drinking on the streets and in their parks. In the United States, there are a few states that allow public drinking in specific entertainment-designated areas, but that’s pretty much it. In DC, where we interviewed people viewing the Germany-U.S. game in a public park, the law states that alcoholic beverages cannot be open in any street, alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area.

The viewing party was the perfect place to interview soccer fans, as many had watched games in a similar locale in Germany, where they were able to have alcohol present. One onlooker told us that in Germany people would typically drink only to get tipsy because of the high alcohol prices at such events. He told us that the presence of alcohol at the events had no negative repercussions and that it made for a better experience. Another man, while motioning at the entire crowd, told us that in Germany, it was “this times 100,” and that it was one “big long party.” Another individual told us that this was “the perfect setting for a beer.”

All but one individual we interviewed told us that they would buy alcohol if it was for sale at the event. With hundreds of people present at the event, the city could have easily made thousands of dollars from alcohol sales, and would also have been able control the flow of alcohol present. That control is important, because there were clearly people in the crowd who brought their own alcohol. We saw beers emerging from bags and many people drinking from bottles that could have been filled with pretty much anything. Many of the people we interviewed said that they considered bringing their own alcohol from home, but decided not to for fear of getting caught by the police or fired

A couple of individuals weren’t so keen on alcohol being present at these kinds of events. An older gentleman told us that, “if alcohol is out of the system, everyone has more fun.” He also said that there was a different mindset abroad towards drinking. He thought that Americans would not be able to handle public drinking very well and that, “chaos would probably ensue, we tend to overdo it.” Another woman expressed concerns that Americans would not be able to adapt to open container laws at first, but said, “in the long run it would be a positive change, as people got used to their newfound freedom.”

One question that we asked every individual was if they thought open container laws should change or stay the same. Not surprisingly, all those we interviewed who have been abroad thought the United States should change its open container laws. There were also those who thought serving alcohol at public events should be reserved for viewing parties like the one we attended, but were hesitant to commit to the broad kind of laws Germany has.

Although there was no legal alcohol present at the viewing party, it was clear that everyone still had a great time. But, we do agree with the majority of the fans that were watching–alcohol could have both improved the game’s atmosphere and brought in revenue for the city. The stereotype of Americans as too rowdy, or too rambunctious, or too destructive is sometimes true, but only because we put alcohol on such a pedestal. There are high school kids in Germany who are able to buy a beer, and then walk down the street while drinking that beer, but many American college students can’t even walk into a bar. A more relaxed and normalized attitude towards drinking might keep people from overdoing it.

So maybe one day this will be the norm!

Check out the bracket below to see which countries that made it to the knockout stage have the most relaxed drinking laws. We created our bracket by examining which countries have the most generous laws when it comes to drinking in public and drinking age!

Round of 16:

Brazil vs. Chile

Winner: Brazil. In Brazil you’re allowed to drink in public places. Chile’s laws are a bit stricter–it’s usually illegal to drink publicly.

Colombia vs. Uruguay

Winner: Colombia. Both countries allow you to purchase and consume alcohol at the age of 18, but Uruguay loses this round because they’re trying to enforce stricter alcohol laws, like a ban on happy hour

France vs. Nigeria

Winner: Nigeria. In France you cannot drink in public, but Nigeria has much looser open container laws!

Germany vs. Algeria

Winner: Germany. Germany has a lower drinking age and more relaxed open container laws.

The Netherlands vs. Mexico

Winner: The Netherlands. The Netherlands has no national laws against drinking in public–although some cities have individual laws against it. Many areas in Mexico do not allow public drinking, so the Netherlands comes out on top.

Argentina vs. Switzerland

Winner: Switzerland. While open container laws don’t vary much between the two countries, you’re allowed to start drinking beer and wine at the age of 16 and spirits at 18.

Belgium vs. USA

Winner: Belgium. In Belgium you’re allowed to start drinking beer and wine at the age of 16, and liquor at 18. The United States requires an age of 21 for every type of alcoholic drink. Also public drinking is allowed in Belgium, unlike in the United States.

Greece vs. Costa Rica

Winner: Greece has open container laws allowing drinking outside. Costa Rica does not.

Quarter-Finals

Germany vs Nigeria

Winner: Germany. Both have open container laws, but the drinking age is two years earlier in Germany.

Greece vs. Netherlands

Winner: Greece. In Greece, you can buy alcohol at 18 in a bar, but there is no age limit to buying alcohol at liquor stores. The Netherlands has much stricter laws.

Switzerland vs. Belgium

Winner: Belgium. While both have similar drinking and open container laws, it is more socially acceptable to walk down the street with a beer in Belgium.

Colombia vs. Brazil

Winner: Colombia. Both are lenient when it comes to drinking, but some cities in Brazil, for example Recife, have started to crack down.

Semi-Finals

Greece vs. Belgium

Winner: Belgium. Belgium wins because in some places in Greece, public drinking is not socially acceptable, even if it is lawful.

Colombia vs. Germany

Winner: Germany. Germany wins, because you can buy and drink alcohol publicly at a younger age

Finals

Belgium vs. Germany

Winner: These two countries often debate who makes the best beer. But Germany wins this particular contest because of their lower drinking age.

Go forth and have fun! But make sure that you always follow the local drinking laws, regardless of where you are, and stay safe whenever you consume alcohol!

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Trevor Smith (@TSmith1211) is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Neil Cooler via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post The World Cup of Drinking Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Scott Walker on a Legal Tightrope

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:48:56 +0000

In 2012, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker became the first American governor to survive a recall election. But it was recently discovered that he may have won that election illegally. In court documents released last week, prosecutors argued that Walker was involved in a “criminal scheme” that involved coordinating with outside groups. Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz also alleges that Walker collaborated with “a number of national groups and prominent figures,” including Karl Rove.

Campaign Finance Law: A Primer

To better understand what Walker is accused of, let’s walk through the basics of campaign finance law. Ever since the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court Ruling, which allowed corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures for political purposes, Super PACS have been on the rise. Super PACS are allowed to raise as much money as they possibly can and spend as much as they like on politics. The only catch is that they cannot coordinate with actual political campaigns. This means a Super PAC can advocate for a candidate, or for a candidate’s issues, but they cannot have any communication with the candidate’s campaign. Walker is accused of coordinating with Super PACs–generally referred to as outside groups.

Walker’s Case

If you think all that seems a bit complicated, it’s even harder to figure out if Walker is guilty or not. The prosecutors do have some pretty solid evidence, including email exchanges, that point to there being collaboration between Walker’s campaign manager and outside groups. But the prosecution is currently in an appeals battle to see if the emails will even be admissible, given that a judge has already ruled that the subpoenas used to get this evidence should have never been issued. According to Judge Rudolph Randa, Walker may have found a loophole in campaign finance law, which would render the subpoenas illegitimate.

The loophole that Walker may have taken advantage of is that the ads made by the outside group were “issue ads” and not “campaign ads.” Here is an example of an “issue ad” made by the Wisconsin Club for Growth, one of the organizations accused of collaboration:

And here is a “campaign ad” made by Scott Walker:

The main difference between the two is that in the second ad, Walker says he is running for governor and it’s clearly an ad made to get votes. But the first ad never mentioned an election. It was just raising an issue and asking citizens to call their congresswoman about it. It never asks the viewers to vote for anyone.

This may seem like a subtle difference, but it has huge implications under the law. A “campaign ad” has many more legal restrictions than an “issue ad.” So, because the outside groups exclusively made “issue ads,” Judge Randa ruled that the coordination the prosecutors claim happened is perfectly legal.

A panel of appellate judges is hearing the case now. This case may go to the Supreme Court, as it is a very important issue that requires clarification. If the appellate court upholds Randa’s decision, then it will be legal for campaigns in Wisconsin to coordinate with outside groups, as long as the outside groups only use “issue ads.” If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, they could rule that this type of coordination must be allowed in all states.

Fortunately, I do not see this happening. Though the same majority that ruled in Citizens United is still on the court, I think they would rule that this type of coordination should not be allowed. The key to the ruling in Citizens United was that independent expenditures could not be limited. They cease to be independent expenditures when there is coordination, and I do not think SCOTUS would find “issue ads” to be free of any electioneering. The Supreme Court would hopefully see them for what they are–ads to sway voters. The fact that “issue ads” never mention an election is just a disingenuous loophole. Let’s be honest, when was the last time you saw an ad like the one posted above and it wasn’t an election season?

Now, as far as the Scott Walker case goes, it is on hold until the Court of Appeals rules on whether there is even a crime for the prosecution to look into. Then they have to go back to a Wisconsin Court and see if they can even get their subpoenas re-issued. The whole process could take a while, especially if the case makes it to the Supreme Court. And even if the Court of Appeals does rule in the prosecution’s favor, there is still a long way to go before charges can be filed. All factors considered, it seems like this issue will have very little impact on Walker as a 2016 Presidential hopeful.

—

Featured image courtesy of [WisPolitics.com via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Scott Walker on a Legal Tightrope appeared first on Law Street.

Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws

Matt DeWilde — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:40:17 +0000

Update: August 5, 2014

Last night, in an incredibly heated runoff election, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeated his Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, by 6,600 votes. This was a come-from-behind victory for Cochran and practically guarantees him a seventh term that many never thought he would see. This is a win for Republican establishment figures, who are still reeling from the defeat of Eric Cantor just two weeks ago. Cochran’s victory will be finalized as soon as McDaniel decides to concede, but that could take a while given he is considering legal action.

In order to understand why a legal challenge may be fair here, it’s important to understand what exactly happened in the primary. McDaniel is upset because of the methods Cochran employed to win the race. Cochran knew he was trailing among the Republican voters, so he turned to Independents and Democrats for support. In Mississippi, that essentially meant appealing to the African American population. Cochran courted African American voters by playing up his credentials as a veteran senator who knows how to bring money into the state. At the same time, he showed them how he would be a better option overall than McDaniel. You can watch this video to see some African American voters explain their decision to support Cochran.

His strategy worked fantastically, with African American turnout up almost 40 percent in the 24 counties with an African American majority. So, the question now becomes, why does this increased African American turnout have McDaniel considering legal action?

Under Mississippi Law, any registered voter may vote in a primary election, but they must have the intention of voting for the winner of that primary in the general election. The law reads, “no person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.” Looking beyond the glaring naiveté of this law, it is easy to see McDaniel’s complaint. It is improbable that the African American voters who voted for Cochran would vote Republican in the general election. In his “anti-concession” speech McDaniel declared, “today the conservative movement took a backseat to liberal Democrats in Mississippi.” Ray Nicholson, the founder of the Mississippi Tea Party, claimed, “this is such a perverting of a fair election system that we are outraged the secretary of State has not stepped in.”

McDaniel was concerned enough about the African American vote to have supporters watch the polls to make sure fraud did not ensue, which caused the NAACP to install their own poll watchers. Thankfully, this had little effect on voter turnout for the election, but the whole ordeal felt like a battle to keep African Americans from voting. Some McDaniel supporters have called Cochran’s move dirty politics, but McDaniel’s move to limit free voting is even dirtier.

Looking at Mississippi’s primary law, it is possible to see where McDaniel could present a legal challenge, but it is very hard to imagine any way in which he could win it. McDaniel would obviously claim that many of the African Americans who voted for Cochran would not vote for any Republican in the general election, meaning that they should not have been able to vote in the party’s primary. But this is a nearly impossible law to enforce without seriously infringing on a person’s right to vote. For one, the general election is four months away. It would be easy for a voter to say they do not know who they would support for that election or to just pretend they intend to vote for the winner. There is no plausible way to enforce this law on a mass scale. Therefore, McDaniel, if he insists on blaming someone for his loss, should blame the Mississippi primary system. And then he should stop being a sore loser and just concede.

Update: A week after his loss, McDaniel still has not conceded. He is currently fundraising for a legal challenge, asserting that Cochran stole the election. In his fundraising pitch, McDaniel wrote, “last week’s runoff election was a sham, plain and simple.” A representative for the Cochran campaign brushed off the legal challenge, saying this is most likely an effort to pay off campaign debts. The representative called McDaniel’s efforts “pure sore loserism.”

Update: It’s been well over a month, but Chris McDaniel has still not let his loss to Thad Cochran go. Yesterday, McDaniel announced that he will formally challenge the results of the runoff election. McDaniel is demanding that the Central Committee of the Mississippi GOP–a sort of governing body made up of 52 members–vote at a public hearing to declare him the winner. If this does not happen, he will consider a challenge in court. McDaniel is claiming that there were 15,000 ballots cast by ineligible voters, meaning voters who did not intend to vote for the winner of the Republican primary in the general election. Voting in a primary but not intending to vote for the winner of the primary in the general election is against the law in Mississippi. McDaniel lost by 7,667 votes, so if he those 15,000 votes are dismissed, he will win.

While it is easy to understand the logic of McDaniel’s anger, it is still misplaced anger. Most of these 15,000 “ineligible votes” were cast by Democrats who did not vote in the Democratic primary. So while these Democratic voters might have no plans to vote for Thad Cochran, there is no way to prove it. In fact, many voters from both political parties may not vote in the general election, including McDaniel supporters, because Thad Cochran is going to win easily. So unless McDaniel can also prove every single person who voted for him will vote for Cochran in the general election, I suggest he focus his efforts on election reform. He should have a lot of time to do so, because its highly unlikely he is going to be a United State’s Senator.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Accused 89-Year-Old Nazi Facing Extradition to Germany

Matt DeWilde — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:33:38 +0000

Crimes against humanity such as those committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust should never go unpunished. That seems like a completely obvious statement, one that everyone can get behind. But what if the crime was committed 70 years ago by man who is now 89 years old? That’s the question at issue in the case of Johann Breyer.

Since the end of World War II, the world has been on the hunt for members of Hitler’s administration. If a suspected perpetrator was found, he was usually extradited to Germany and put on trial there. This practice has continued all the way into 2014. But should Breyer, an 89-year-old man with signs of dementia, face trial for crimes he is accused of committing at the Auschwitz Death Camp many decades ago?

Johann Breyer has lived in the United States since 1952 when he immigrated here from Czechoslovakia. His mother was born in the United States, which granted him American citizenship. He worked as a toolmaker in Philadelphia, got married and had kids. Then, in 1992, he was accused of having Nazi ties and the Justice Department attempted to deport him.

He was ultimately allowed to stay, as the Justice Department lacked evidence to prove he took an active role in the killings. Breyer claimed he was a guard in the prison section of the camp, and since he was a minor when he served, he could not be held responsible for his actions. Basically, his argument was he took no active role in the killings and was instead forced to be there. This whole debate had little actual impact on Breyer’s life, as his name stayed out of the public eye.

After its failed deportation effort, the Justice Department attempted to persuade the German government to extradite Breyer, but the Germans didn’t act until very recently. After examining camp rosters and newly disclosed documents, the German government now claims that Breyer was not part of the prison guards, but rather a member of the infamous SS battalion, “Death’s Head,” trained to be particularly brutal to prisoners. The German government has charged Breyer with 158 counts of aiding and abetting murder — one for each train that arrived at the Auschwitz Death Camp during the six months Breyer was present. To put that number in perspective, those trains carried approximately 216,000 Jews.

Breyer faced these charges and potential extradition to Germany on Wednesday morning. Though he seemed confused, he told the judge he understood the charges against him, and he is now being held without bail until his extradition hearing on August 21.

The DOJ has charged more than 130 Nazi suspects in the last 35 years, but none were as old as Breyer. This brings us back to my original question — should a man that old, suffering from the onset of dementia, face charges for the crimes he perpetrated more than half a century ago?

My gut reaction to the thought of a nearly 90-year-old man in jail is that no, he shouldn’t be tried at this point; however, it angers me that Breyer got to live a normal, fulfilling life. He is innocent until proven guilty, but if he is proven guilty he does not deserve to die a free man. If guilty, he was complicit in the deaths of more than 200,000 people, yet has gotten to live without consequences. I would imagine that a Holocaust survivor probably feels quite enraged when he hears that a Nazi responsible for such horrific crimes has gotten to live a free life. We owe it to those victims and their families to bring anyone involved in these crimes to justice, regardless of age. Its been 70 years since Breyer committed these crimes, but time hasn’t run out yet.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Greg Heywood via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Accused 89-Year-Old Nazi Facing Extradition to Germany appeared first on Law Street.

UC Irvine Law School Accredited and Thriving

Matt DeWilde — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:30:43 +0000

At a time when law school enrollment is down across the country, it seems like it would be very difficult to open a new law school; however, the University of California-Irvine wasn’t deterred by this when it opened its own law school in 2009. This month, the University of California, Irvine School of Law received full accreditation from the American Bar Association.

The school has already accomplished much more than simply earning its accreditation. UC Irvine Law’s enrollment has increased every year since its opening, despite the nationwide decrease in demand for law school. The school has also been ranked third in student placement in prestigious judicial clerkships, behind only Yale and Stanford. In addition, the school placed seventh in Scholarly Impact, a rankings system that measures the impact professors have on the law field.

To get perspective on UC Irvine Law’s success, I talked with the Dean of the Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky. As far as seeking accreditation went, Chemerinsky says the standards that needed to be met were made clear and the school was careful to meet all requirements. But Chemerinsky stressed, “Accreditation is the minimum required, we want to go far beyond that in creating an outstanding law school.”

According to Chemerinsky, the goal from the beginning was to be a top law school, and that mentality has driven its success. When asked how UC Irvine Law is growing while so many law schools are losing students, Chemerinsky stressed that the school’s success is due to the outstanding faculty and students they have recruited, adding, “I believe that we have created a very special law school. In part, it is different and special because of our commitment to experiential learning.“

The experimental learning that UC Irvine Law is known for includes an innovative docket of classes, along with a requirement that all students participate in a clinical program. In clinics, students represent clients under faculty supervision.

UC Irvine Law has entered a saturated market and thrived. There are currently more law school seats nationwide than students to fill them, which has led to falling enrollment and some lower prices. Despite this, UC Irvine Law has attracted more students every year. Some industry experts predict it will be a top 20 law school in next year’s US News & World Report rankings. UC Irvine Law’s success presents a possible alternative to lowering prices for struggling law schools. The school has shown that no matter what shape the market is in, if you offer a unique and valuable product, people will buy it. UC Irvine Law offers its unique product by aggregating great faculty and providing innovative curriculum. In this current law school market, schools must lower prices or offer a better product. UC Irvine Law shows schools exactly what that superior product should look like.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mathieu Marquer via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post UC Irvine Law School Accredited and Thriving appeared first on Law Street.

We Need to Stop Accepting Gun Violence

Matt DeWilde — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:52:05 +0000

A man armed with a shotgun opened fire in an academic building at Seattle Pacific University on June 6, 2014. He walked up to three students and fired. One died; two were wounded. The following Friday, a man launched an assault against a courthouse in Forsyth County, Georgia. Only one person was wounded, but given the assailant’s stockpile of ammunition and bombs, it’s safe to assume he had much bigger plans. While the nation had a day off from similar violence that Saturday, Sunday was met with another shooting in Las Vegas. A couple killed two cops and a civilian before turning their guns on themselves. Last Tuesday, June 10, there was a school shooting in Oregon. Two are confirmed dead from that incident. That’s four shootings in six days with seven people dead.

Gun Rights and the Constitution

Americans have long viewed the freedom to own a gun as a point of pride, one that is staunchly protected by the National Rifle Association, possibly the most successful lobbying group in modern American history. The NRA has shaped the way Americans currently view the Second Amendment.

But let’s look at what the Second Amendment really says. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

To be fair, the comma placement makes this a difficult sentence to interpret. But the historical purpose of this amendment came from states’ concerns that there would be a federal militia but no state militias. This amendment was created to protect a state’s right to form its own militia. But in recent years, the NRA has expertly convoluted the Second Amendment into the meaning it holds today — the absolute right to own a gun. It claims any gun control endeavor is a staunch violation of individual freedoms.

Now, I am not going to suggest banning individual ownership of guns in America. Not only is that a probable constitutional violation, the public would never allow that to happen. But I do not see any reason why restrictions cannot be placed on gun ownership. The constitution is not absolute. For example, the First Amendment says Congress can make no law abridging a person’s freedom of speech. Reading this as an absolutist, the amendment can be interpreted as allowing any person to say anything he wants. But both individual states and Congress have passed laws limiting speech, such as a law declaring it unlawful to use free speech to incite violence or intimidate. According to that law, the Ku Klux Klan cannot burn a cross to intimidate an individual. If the First Amendment was interpreted as absolute, this law would not have been possible.

There is no reason the Second Amendment should be treated as an absolute when the First is not. The government can restrict speech to protect its citizens, so it should also be able to restrict gun sales to do the same. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NRA and the most vocal gun advocates deal in absolutes. David Metcalf, an avid gun user, former editor of Guns & Ammo and member of the NRA, recently made a similar argument to the one I just made. He was called a traitor and threatened just because he argued that regulating guns isn’t an automatic infringement on gun owners’ rights.

Gun Rights and Crime

Now, regardless of the constitutionality argument, the NRA claims that regulation of guns will do nothing to stop crime. It argues that people need guns to protect themselves and that anyone can get a gun on the black market, so new restrictions will do nothing. But let’s look at some data. In 2012, Britain, a nation with strict gun laws, had a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000, while America had a rate of 4.8 per 100,000. The gun murder rate for England and Wales is 0.1 per 100,000, while it is 3.2 per 100,000 in the United States. This isn’t an isolated example — the US has by far the highest per capita gun deaths among developed nations.

Several things could be done about this crisis. We could implement much stricter background checks and require gun licenses be subject to regular renewals. These changes need to be paired with better treatment and recognition of those who are mentally ill. We need to identify those who are at risk, and then prevent their access to guns. Furthermore, assault rifles, such as the AR-15, should not be legal. A variant of this weapon was used in the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooter stole the gun from his mother’s collection. If the gun was banned, even if it was still available on the black market, the Lanzas probably would not have purchased it illegally. Finally, there is a large black market for guns, so any legal restriction of gun use must be paired with money for the FBI and ATF to shut down it down.

I began this article by highlighting four shootings that took place in the span of six days. Many Americans have reacted by saying, “well, it could have been worse.” This is an attitude of acceptance, because those deaths simply didn’t have to happen. Gun regulation is constitutional and it has worked elsewhere. We owe it to the past and future victims of gun violence to give it a try.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Savage via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post We Need to Stop Accepting Gun Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Law School is Getting Cheaper in Arizona

Matt DeWilde — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:54:23 +0000

As a student considering attending law school in a couple years, I can’t help but hope that the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law is starting a trend. The law school recently announced that they were slashing their out of state tuition by over 25 percent, lowering their yearly tuition from $38,841 to $29,000 for nonresident students. There are several reasons why this might become a trend, but the main one is that law school enrollment is down and many law schools are losing money. These schools have to respond to a changing market. And the University of Arizona is doing a truly laudable job with their response.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia certainly thinks that shifts like Arizona’s will become a trend. Scalia, in his commencement address to William and Mary Law School graduates, bluntly dismissed any “law school in two years” concept. According to Scalia, law is not a trade but a profession, and there is no way to learn all that needs to be learned in just two years. He thinks that a student must have a wide base of knowledge in the many types of law and requires three years of study. However, he also thinks that law schools are currently overvalued. The solution to Scalia, therefore, is for law schools to lower prices rather than offer two-year programs.

Scalia also has plans for how law schools will survive the loss in revenue. He thinks that there are too many law professors and that they get paid too much. Some law professors get paid twice as much as federal judges, despite a less intense workload. In Scalia’s eyes, it would be reasonable to pay law professors less and expect them to teach more.

So is Scalia right and is Arizona a part of the beginning of a trend for law school tuition decreases? It’s hard to imagine that they are not. Based on an Arizona Board of Regents report, Arizona’s law school is now 30 percent cheaper than the average cost of other law schools. Dean Marc Miller told The Arizona Daily Star that, “we’re responding to the market in changing times. It will have more students looking at us more seriously early on.” If the dean is correct, and saving over ten grand in tuition draws students to Arizona in high numbers, other schools will have to follow suit.

Arizona is not the only law school to lower its tuition recently. Roger Williams Law School, Brooklyn Law School, and Iowa Law School have all made similar moves. The cuts have ranged from 15 to 18 percent, although Arizona offered the highest cut in terms of percentage. If these schools experience an increase in applications and enrollment, all law schools, except perhaps the elite ones, will have to lower prices to compete.

As a potential law student, the two-year law degree is very tempting and if it was an option I think I would have to take it. I would imagine most law students would choose that route. It means one less year of school and saves you $30,000-$50,000. That being said, I understand Scalia’s argument and would not be disappointed if the two-year program never came to fruition, especially if costs go down. If Arizona did not reduce cost, but adopted a two year program, it would cost an out of state student $77,682. Under the new reduced cost plan, it will cost a student $87,000 for three years. That bill is still more than a hypothetical two-year program, but the overall savings might make it worth the third year, especially if it enhances your ability to be a lawyer and earn money.

The University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Law School is Getting Cheaper in Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t Count on the Supreme Court to End Racial Gerrymandering

Matt DeWilde — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:39:22 +0000

On June 2, the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to Alabama’s Republican drawn legislative map–Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. State of Alabama. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus (ALBC) is suing under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguing that that the Republican-controlled legislature has racially gerrymandered Alabama’s state legislative districts. Racial gerrymandering is the act of drawing voting districts that decrease the voting power of minorities. However, in this case race was not the only driving factor. The goal of this gerrymandering was to provide the most Republican seats possible, and to do this the Republicans needed to decrease the power of the African American vote by packing them in as few voting districts as they could.

This case is reminiscent of Shelby v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, but chose to uphold Section 5. Section 4 established that certain areas of the country needed to be reviewed and subjected to targeted remedies. An example of this section in action was the suspension of the tricky literacy test that African Americans had to pass in order to be able to vote. Section 5 provides that any change that impacted voting in these areas has to be reviewed by the federal government. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposed burdens that are no longer necessary giving current race conditions. They held that the constraints in this section once made sense, but now represents an unconstitutional burden that conflicts with a state’s right to run its own elections. They cited that the original goal of the law was to narrow the voting turnout gap, which is no longer a problem.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a passionate dissent, in which she said that the law should have been upheld, citing that racial problems still existed. She admitted that “access to ballots” for African Americans was no longer a problem, but that they faced new issues, such as racial gerrymandering. This would make me think that Ginsburg would rule in favor of the ALBC in the current case, but she also said that the ruling in Shelby crippled Section 5. This means that she might be forced to rule against the ALBC without Section 4.

It would seem very unlikely that the court would rule in favor of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus after its ruling in Shelby. Shelby was decided along partisan lines with the conservative judges voting to strike down Section 4 while the more liberal judges all voted to uphold the section. There seems to be no apparent reason why any of the conservative judges would give any power back to the Voting Rights Act, especially considering the fact that Chief Justice Robert’s opinion in Shelby took away the power of Section 5. To rule in favor of the ALBC would be to backtrack on his ruling last year. This could possibly mean that the conservative judges may have been the ones who granted certiorari as an opportunity to say that this type of gerrymandering is constitutional or to strike down Section 5. Justice Thomas had even wanted to strike down Section 5 in Shelby.

Because racial gerrymandering is not likely to be prevented by the courts, the key to stopping it will be to stop all gerrymandering. As mentioned earlier in the article, gerrymandering is not used to give a disadvantage to any particular race, but to give a disadvantage to a particular political party. So in this case, Republicans wanted to hurt Democrats by putting as many African Americans, in as few districts as possible, in order to hurt their voting power for the Democratic Party. Democrats also gerrymander in states where they control the legislature, for example Maryland, so this is not a one party issue or a race issue. Both parties limit the voting power of the minority party in the states they control. Therefore the solution to this, and the racial gerrymandering that this case is about, is to create independent, bipartisan redistricting committees, such as the one in California. This will end partisan control of state congressional districts and lead to more fair and balanced districts, with no citizens having their voting power reduced by a mapmaker.

Image courtesy of [Cle0patra via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

The post Don’t Count on the Supreme Court to End Racial Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.