In our present information environment, there is news coming from every direction, at every angle, all the time. Due to this overabundance of information, it is often hard to tell reality from fiction. This can be especially difficult when opinions and fake news have also been interjected into the media landscape. Fake news is far from a periphery player too, in fact, it is splashed across some of the most popular websites on the internet like Facebook and Google. It may even have played a role in the outcome of the presidential election. Read on to learn more about the fake news phenomenon, its place in history, how popular websites made it mainstream, and the consequences of its rise.

The origin of “Fake News”

So what is fake news exactly? As its name suggests, fake news is literally made-up news about events that did not happen. In many cases, the creation of fake news is done by people from all over the world seeking to spread misinformation or looking to promote something and get rich doing it. One of the most egregious examples comes from a few writers in Macedonia who claim they made between $5,000 and $10,000 a month publishing fake stories. These people create extremely partisan pieces for the sole purpose of drawing the most eyeballs. The goal is to get readers interested because more traffic means more ad revenue.

But intentionally fabricating false stories isn’t the only way fake news spreads. It can also be the result of a person’s earnest, yet inaccurate beliefs such as this one example chronicled by the New York Times. Eric Tucker, a Trump supporter, posted a picture on November 9 of what he believed were charter buses bringing in paid protesters to dispute the election. While that was just how he interpreted what he saw, and something he later determined was not true, that did not stop his tweet from going viral. Tucker was a private citizen with a small Twitter following, yet his post was seized upon by several Trump supporters and conservative websites to justify their belief in a conspiracy. The way individuals interpret an event, often without full information about what actually happened, has become increasingly important.

Facebook and Google

Two of the companies that end up promoting (and profiting) from fake news the most are Facebook and Google. So how are these two tech titans attacking this problem? Before this question can be answered it is important to look at why these websites allow fake news in the first place. The issue of fake news on Facebook came to the forefront after a major incident earlier this year. In May, a member of a team that curated the “trending news” section for Facebook said that the group regularly avoided featuring conservative stories. This admission created a political firestorm that led to the end of the trending news team within Facebook and news curation on the site altogether.

In its place, Facebook installed an algorithm that would determine which news stories are being shared the most. However, shortly after its debut, the new section began elevating stories that were completely false. While the company still has some human oversight of the new trending section, they are told to exercise less editorial control over the articles that are featured, leading many fake stories to slip through.

While fake news on Facebook may not seem like a major issue on its face, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans get news on Facebook. In another, more recent poll, Pew found that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe fake news created confusion about basic facts. Facebook and other social media sites provide a way for articles to quickly go viral and reach a remarkably large audience. While most agree that the spread of fake news is a problem, finding an appropriate solution is not particularly easy. Facebook has been cautious in its response out of fear of censoring legitimate news outlets or once again projecting an anti-conservative bias.

How Companies Have Responded

The nature of Facebook’s business makes fake news a difficult issue to approach. At its core, Facebook relies on its large user base to sell advertising to. If the site eliminated fake news it could run the risk of seeming biased or alienating people and losing their engagement and possibly lucrative advertising revenue.

Despite this challenge, Facebook has said that it plans to address fake news. The CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has stated that Facebook is already working on blocking or flagging completely false articles and recently announced a partnership with third-party fact checker sites to help accomplish that goal. Ultimately, Facebook and other companies must walk a tight line. The most blatantly false news stories may be somewhat easy to identify, but in an era of polarized politics even some facts are contested, making it hard to create a clear rule.

For Google, the approach is slightly different because its search engine is predicated on reliability–if it is just showing fake news articles it would lose the trust of its users. However, that is not to say Google has avoided fake news altogether. The most significant example of fake news on Google is a result of the way the search engine ranks results. While search results often feature articles from the company’s curated Google News section, the “Top Stories” at the top of many search results include a broader range of articles that in some cases include fake news. It is particularly confusing because when you click to “read more” articles, it takes you to the Google News section, which is editorially vetted. This stems from the fact that Google Search and Google News are viewed as separate entities by Google. This distinction really becomes problematic because Google News does not accept ad revenue whereas Google Search does. A similar issue exists on Google’s mobile platform, which features AMP stories–web pages that are optimized to load almost instantly on mobile devices–at the top of the results page. This is yet another way for fake news to sneak into the top of the results page.

Google uses an algorithm to weed out spam and fake news websites, although it is not 100 percent foolproof. In light of the recent debate, Google has promised to fight fake news by restricting fake news sites’ access to its AdSense platform, which is often their source of revenue–fake news sites make money by generating a lot of traffic and serving viewers ads, often using Google’s advertising tools. Facebook also made a similar move to prevent fake news sites from using its advertising network.

The following video looks at fake news online and what companies are doing to stop it:

The Impact of Fake News

As many realize the extent to which fake news has spread online, some wonder whether it could have impacted the outcome of the recent election, as news reports indicate that fake news tends to have a conservative bias. Although it is impossible to show the exact impact of fake news on the election–and although Mark Zuckerberg dismissed the notion that fake news was consequential in the election–widespread false information is almost certain to have some sort of impact on people. In fact, according to an article from Buzzfeed News, there was actually more engagement with the top fake election news articles on Facebook than with the top content from traditional media sources in the last three months of the campaign. But, like many factors used to explain the election results, it’s impossible to say whether or not fake news actually tipped the election one way or another.

The video below features a PBS NewsHour discussion of fake news and its potential impact.

The effect of fake news has also been felt outside of the United States. An example would be in the Philippines, where a spokesperson for the president posted graphic images to justify the country’s violent campaign against drug dealers, even though fact checkers later realized that the images were actually taken in Brazil. Fake news also spread widely in the lead up to elections in Indonesia and a fake article about the Colombian peace deal with the FARC went viral shortly before the referendum vote. The problem was so disruptive that some African nations shut down social media sites after unconfirmed security threats spread before elections.

Fake news certainly has precedent in the United States. From the late 1890s through to the 1920s something known as Yellow Journalism reigned. During that period, competing newspapers would publish sensational and often false stories, each more so than the last, in an effort to win eyeballs. The scourge of Yellow Journalism became so bad at one point that many believe it contributed to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Conclusion

So what is to be done about this problem? Some suggest that Google and Facebook could help create a crowd-sourced list of news stories that can be peer-reviewed. Others argue that big companies should not have the power to determine what is true. Recent efforts to reduce fake news sites’ access to the biggest advertising networks may help get rid of their financial incentives, but alternative ad networks may not follow suit.

The example of Yellow Journalism may also be a model to look at. The exaggerated and fabricated news stories at the turn of the 20th century were ultimately undone by waning public interest, court cases that protected the privacy of individuals, and a code of ethics adopted by many newspapers. But in the modern news environment centered around internet, and the abundance of media that comes with it, it may be difficult to weed out these stories altogether.

In the meantime, identifying fake news is a case by case effort that requires everyone’s diligence. It requires a balancing act of separating reality from fiction, but also a tolerance for information that you may not agree with and a skepticism for that which confirms your existing beliefs. Efforts of this nature are already underway on the platforms where most fake news is found. Now it is up to readers to determine if what they see is legitimate or not. If anything, the rise of fake news may drive people to become more critical news consumers.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Reality Behind Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

About a decade ago, public health researchers started advocating for implementation of a soda tax to combat consumption of sugary drinks. Soda intake has long been linked to the exacerbation of a series of potentially avoidable health problems including: obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. After the recent election, four more U.S. cities voted to adopt a soda tax, spreading this new “sin tax” to more areas across the country. With more than one-third of American adults currently classified as obese, soda taxes could become a go-to method for combatting obesity, while simultaneously generating revenue for state budgets to fund local programs.

What are Sin Taxes?

Sin taxes are state-sponsored taxes that are added to specific products that are generally seen as vices, such as gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. In essence, by utilizing financial means, the government attempts to discourage individuals from engaging in a specific activity or using specific products without actually making those products or services illegal. Sin taxes are often compared to Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that generate negative externalities. In tax policy, a Pigovian tax is a fee assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in a specific activity; a negative externality occurs when an economic actor does not fully internalize the cost of activity. A simple example of a Pigovian tax is a pollution-related tax.

Currently, sin taxes are employed in a variety of sectors. Typically, they are added to liquor, tobacco, gambling, and other non-luxury items. There tends to be a decent amount of public support for sin taxes, as they are indirect and only affect those who use the specific products. Sin taxes are also extremely popular when trying to close large state budget gaps. Employing sin taxes for soda and sugar-sweetened beverages can help generate revenue and encourage public health initiatives. One research economist from the Research Triangle Institute has modeling data that suggests a six-cent tax on a twelve-ounce bottle of soda would lead consumers to drink 5,800 fewer calories from sugary drinks per year.

Using Soda Taxes to Combat Obesity

In 2014, voters in Berkeley, California passed the nation’s first soda tax, which went into effect in 2015. Additionally, in 2014, Mexico passed its own soda tax. After one year, sales of soda in Mexico fell as much as 12 percent, while bottled water purchases rose four percent. The researchers also found that while decline was seen across all socioeconomic groups, it was greatest among those who were low-income, with consumption falling 17 percent.

In the U.S., Berkeley’s tax was largely successful; research showed that soda consumption dropped in the city a staggering 20 percent. Philadelphia was the next city to follow suit, passing a soda tax earlier this year–thus becoming the first major city in the U.S. to do so. The tax, which is expected to generate $91 million annually, will be spent on pre-kindergarten programs in the city, creating community schools, improving parks and recreation centers, and libraries.

The beverage industry has fought extensively to keep soda taxes from passing elsewhere in the country. Advocates from the American Beverage Association, which represents all major soda brands, responded to the Philadelphia policy by arguing that the tax was regressive and unfairly singled out “low” and “no-calorie” beverages. In an effort to combat the tax, companies in the roughly $100 billion industry have focused their efforts on reformulating existing drinks to make them more healthy for consumers. However, even “diet” sodas are experiencing a sharp decline in sales, particularly because of increased suspicion regarding artificial sweeteners.

Soda Taxes Passed in November 2016

The World Health Organization recently recommended that governments impose soda taxes in order to combat a variety of diet-related diseases exacerbated by high soda consumption. Soda taxes were on the ballot in early November of this year in  three California cities–San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland–as well as Boulder, Colorado. The soda taxes passed in all four cities with fairly large margins of support, much to the dismay of the beverage industry. The American Beverage Association spent upwards of $9.5 million on an ad campaign opposing the measures entitled “Don’t Tax Our Groceries.”

The amount of tax in each city, however, varies. In San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland, the tax is one penny per ounce of soda. In Boulder, the tax is two pennies per ounce of soda, and the soda tax that passed earlier this year in Philadelphia was set at 1.5 cents an ounce. The disparities in the amount of tax per ounce are likely to continue as more jurisdictions follow suit.

These laws are also coming into effect at a time when soda consumption is down among Americans. In a 2014 Gallup poll, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans reported avoiding soda in their diet; in 2002 that number was only 41 percent. Moreover, over the last 20 years, sales of full-calorie soda have dropped by more than 25 percent. “Big Soda” is experiencing a substantial and sustained decline, while bottled water remains on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category. The changing soda consumption patterns are noticeable in schools, where cafeterias and vending machines have stopped carrying regular sodas, and in many workplaces and government offices that have similarly limited sales. Soda, it seems, has now become the new tobacco: an unhealthy product that should be limited, if not outright banned, and taxed significantly.

“Soda” Image Courtesy of Rex Sorgatz : License (CC BY 2.0)

Issues with Soda Taxes

Not everyone is a fan of soda taxes. While the American Health Association has touted the win as a huge victory, many argue that the taxes affect low-income populations the most. Sin taxes arguably have a disproportionate effect on poor and less educated communities. Since sin taxes are typically regressive in nature, the less money a person makes, the larger percentage of his or her income the taxes take. Essentially, if comparing two “pack-a-day” smokers–one lower-income citizen and one high-income citizen–one can see that the two are spending the same amount of money on cigarettes and taxes each year. The taxes on those same cigarettes, however, are taking up much more of the lower-income citizen’s paycheck.

Additionally, the beverage industry contends that more taxes are not ideal when pursuing public health initiatives. Susan Neely, CEO of the American Beverage Association, stated that consumers don’t want these taxes. She also added that the industry is committed to reducing the amount of calories and sugar in these beverages and combating diet-related issues in a variety of manners. This includes partnering with Alliance for a Healthier Generation in order to try to change behaviors of people who may be receiving far too many calories from beverages. Other strategies include an ad campaign called “Balance What You Eat, Drink & Do” that encourages people to think more readily about the calories they are consuming. The beverage industry is also working with retailers to put more low-calorie choices at eye-level, so consumers will be more likely to pick those choices.

Conclusion

Whether you see soda taxes as a necessary movement or not, the U.S. is certainly grappling with an obesity epidemic. Educating the public about calorie and sugar consumption is critical to combating this public health crisis, in addition to making a myriad of low-calorie, no-calorie, and low-sugar choices more readily available in a variety of communities across the country. Sometimes, the easiest way to help people make changes is by utilizing financial means, and soda taxes may be an effective way to incentivize healthier behaviors. The law of demand works in practice, not just theory: when prices go up, people buy less.

For now, soda taxes seem to be here to stay, as they find their way into more cities across the country. “Big Soda” does appear to be in serious decline, and unless the industry can find a way to keep up with the public’s changing preferences, the downward trend may continue into the future. While the amount of a given tax will continue to vary depending on the jurisdiction, the long-term effects of taxes may be even more effective if taxes are increased and become more widespread. The amount of money generated from soda taxes has the potential to be large, and using the revenue to fund desperately-needed or underfunded programs, like Philadelphia intends to do, may be an ideal solution.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Soda Taxes the New Sin Tax to Combat Obesity? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

According to the New York Times, Facebook has been accused of helping spread misinformation and fake news stories that “influenced how the American electorate” voted.
Even though Facebook continues to defend itself as nonpartisan, the idea that Facebook had a direct role in the election is, to quote Zuckerberg, “a pretty crazy idea.”

via GIPHY

It just goes to show that there’s nothing good about getting all your news from Facebook.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Post-election coverage dominated the news cycle last week. In our top stories, we looked at who could run for president in 2020, why women are rushing to get IUDs after the election, and what Donald Trump has planned for his first 100 days in office. ICYMI–check out the top stories from Law Street below!

1. Fast Forward: Who Could Run for President in 2020?

It can be hard to focus on things other than the election results right now, but there are already speculations brewing about who will run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Read the full article here.

2. Why I Frantically Started Researching IUDs the Day After the Election

The day after the election was rough to say the least. Not only had I overconfidently assumed that I’d be spending the day celebrating a woman finally breaking through the top political glass ceiling, but I hadn’t even allowed myself–up until that point–to imagine a reality where Donald Trump actually wins the 2016 presidential election. Sleep deprived and legitimately scared for my life, I then began to mentally run through all the things that could now happen under a Trump presidency.

Read the full article here.

3. Here is What Donald Trump Says He Plans to Do in His First 100 Days

Today President-elect Donald Trump met with President Obama in the Oval Office to discuss plans for the hand-off between presidencies and the peaceful transfer of power. While the meeting seems to have been cordial, it had to have been a little awkward given that Obama and Trump are bitter political rivals and Trump plans to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama” on his first day in office–that’s if Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office is to be believed. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential win on Tuesday night, a lot of people were concerned about what a Trump presidency might mean for Americans’ civil rights. One of the biggest defenders of those rights is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a legal organization that regularly sues the government when it believes individuals’ rights are being infringed upon. In the wake of Trump’s election, the ACLU has seen record donations, so many, in fact, that the organization’s website crashed on Wednesday morning.

Between Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, the group recorded almost $1 million in contributions, from 14,000 donations. By Thursday morning, it was up to $2.4 million from 38,626 donations.

These are record-breaking donation totals. Mark Weir, the group’s chief development officer told Business Insider: “In terms of online donations in a single-day, it far exceeds anything we’ve seen before.” The ACLU’s donation website crashed on Wednesday morning, although it’s unclear for how long. According to an ACLU spokesperson who talked to Buzzfeed: “it’s hard to say how long it was down for and we’re trying to pull dollars and gift numbers. Our system is extremely overwhelmed with all of the hits we’re getting.”

The ACLU has been clear that it will sue Trump over some of his proposed policies, should he try to implement them. The organization even took out a full page ad in the New York Times on Friday, making that exact promise:

Today we published a full-page open letter in the New York Times to President-elect Trump pic.twitter.com/FOpRqn9oNY

— ACLU National (@ACLU) November 11, 2016

There are a number of policies that Trump advocated for throughout the election that the ACLU takes issue with, including proposed mass deportation, a ban on Muslim immigration and/or more targeted monitoring of Muslim individuals, changes to abortion laws, and restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

It seems that the ACLU’s promise has struck a chord with many Americans, if the donations are any indication.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLU Website Crashes After Tons of Donations appeared first on Law Street.

All across the country, students on college campuses protested the election results, which declared Donald Trump the next President of the United States.

Young voters (18-29 years old) voted 55 percent to 37 percent in favor of Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton. But for voters 65 and over, Trump held the majority of the votes.

With numbers like those it is easy to see how many college students could be unhappy with the way the election went. Students around the country, including many on the West Coast (likely due to the time difference), poured into the streets crying, shouting, and marching against the president-elect.

Some students headed to the bars, while others headed to the streets.

Students could be heard screaming “F— Donald Trump,” as mobs marched arm in arm through campuses, trying to make some sort of sense out of what had happened. Here are a few examples of protests from college campuses around the country:

University of California, Santa Barbara:

UCSB and SBCC students marching to Storke Tower in a peaceful protest in regards to the election results. 11-9-2016/2:04 AM. #NotMyPresident pic.twitter.com/G3sF40bnQh

— Saitama (@heisenchapo) November 9, 2016

University of California, Berkeley:

“The people, United, will never be divided.” UC Berkeley anti-Trump protest at Telegraph and William Street, Oakland. #berkvote pic.twitter.com/4nKvcsLJHG

— Maya Eliahou (@MayaEliahou) November 9, 2016

University of California, Los Angeles:

Sorry that these are getting repetitive. This is a huge, growing group of students. #UCLA pic.twitter.com/dxfOp8QerY

— Tanner Walters (@tannerbwalters) November 9, 2016

These are all different UC’s reacting to the Presidential Election.The revolution has started. #ucsc #ucla #usb #ucd pic.twitter.com/Au4SPFN2DJ

— Wuendy (@whendcalm7) November 9, 2016

Berkeley High School, Berkeley, California:

BERKELEY HIGH SCHOOL WALKOUT #NotMyPresident #TrumpPresident pic.twitter.com/6HAv7jVAH4

— B (@BerenabasG) November 9, 2016

University of Pittsburgh:

UPitt riots part 2 pic.twitter.com/55s46LWf0K

— reilly (@reidaddy) November 9, 2016

Students at UPitt could be heard chanting, “No KKK no fascist USA! No Trump!” and “Whose streets?” “OUR streets!” Along with “Not my president!”

University of Oregon:

Students from the University of Oregon marched through Eugene to protest America’s new president #LifeAsAJStudent pic.twitter.com/kQU97Sdv2i

— phillip (@philllup) November 9, 2016

Students in Washington D.C. went to The White House to protest.

People in Obama and Clinton shirts link arms outside the White House. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/fBx6b7eYKB

— The GW Hatchet (@gwhatchet) November 9, 2016

Anti-Trump protestors outside the White House. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/vTokvFL6Qt

— The Hoya (@thehoya) November 9, 2016

At different universities, it has been reported that professors have cancelled exams and assignments Wednesday, after students expressed their grief over the outcome of the 2016 election.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Campuses React to the 2016 Election with Protests and Anger appeared first on Law Street.

The map above will be updated on election night to reflect the election results as they come in. All results will be based on the official Associated Press state projections. Scroll over the map to see when the polls close in each state as well as how many electoral votes are at stake.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 Election Results: State by State Map appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge has ordered the Republican National Committee to provide details on what kind of agreements it has with the Trump campaign for preventing voter fraud and maintaining “ballot security.” The RNC is bound by a decree from 1982 to not engage in voter fraud prevention activities without the consent of a federal court.

The judge also ordered the RNC to give an explanation of what Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Mike Pence were alluding to when they recently said that their campaign is collaborating “closely” with the RNC to make sure there is no voter fraud going on. The order comes after a lawsuit that the Democratic National Committee filed against the RNC last week, alleging that it is supporting the Trump campaign with ballot security measures that could be illegal.

Trump has been talking at great lengths about how widespread voter fraud is and claiming that the system is rigged. On his website he urges people who see anything “suspicious” going on at the polls to personally intervene or to sign up to become a volunteer “Trump Election Observer.” This is all to prevent Crooked Hillary from rigging the election, of course.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

At a rally in Cleveland, Trump claimed that there are 24 million registered voters that are “invalid or significantly inaccurate” and 1.8 million people registered to vote who are actually dead. But there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in America and Factcheck.org debunked Trump’s statements.

This makes it extra ironic that it was a Trump supporter who was arrested for attempting to vote twice in Iowa last week. Terri Lynn Rote, 55, said that she hadn’t planned on voting twice, it was just a spontaneous idea. “I don’t know what came over me,” she said to the Washington Post. She also told Iowa Public Radio that the polls are rigged, and she was afraid someone would change her Trump vote into a vote for Clinton.

Des Moines woman Terri Lynn Rote arrested for voting twice #voterfraud https://t.co/snE3mz9Tn6 pic.twitter.com/uCS09WQmOp

— Jeffrey Guterman (@JeffreyGuterman) October 28, 2016

The decree that blocks the RNC from engaging in any voter fraud prevention that is not approved by federal authorities came about after the RNC used armed guards at the polls in 1981 to intimidate minority voters. It is set to expire in December of next year, but if the DNC is correct in its suspicions, it could be extended. The RNC has until Wednesday at 5 PM to respond to the judge.

But individual presidential candidates are not bound by the decree, which means the Trump campaign is free to go ahead with whatever plans it has uphold “security” at the polls. And according to Slate, Republican officials all over the country are engaging in illegal measures to prevent Democrats from casting their votes. So why are the Republicans so sure that voter fraud exists? Maybe because in some cases they are the ones behind it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders the RNC to Explain What it Means by “Ballot Security” appeared first on Law Street.

During a stop in Charlotte, North Carolina last week, presidential candidate Donald Trump laid out his plans to a predominantly white crowd, for what he is calling a “new deal for black America.”

His platform calls for better education, an increased police presence, proposed designation of “blighted communities” with a “disaster designation” to spark change and rebuild these communities with an emphasis on bringing back businesses.

Trump has said previously that black communities are at their worst in history, a comment that didn’t sit well with many people of color. At this rally he echoed those concerns, describing the cities as places where “you walk to the store to buy a loaf of bread, maybe with your child, and you get shot, your child gets shot,” but discussing it in a way that lumps all African Americans into one group.

He also prefaced his discussion on inner cities and African Americans by saying that “we’re going to work on our ghettos.”

Help me out there. Did Trump just say “we’re going to work on our ghettos” before mentioning inner cities, violence and African Americans? pic.twitter.com/v9KqZSLbh6

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) October 27, 2016

Some of his new proposals included tax holidays used to help cities, arguing for foreign companies to invest in these blighted communities, and bringing in direct funding to urban areas.

While discussing the need for more police patrolling the streets, Trump said that the problem is a lack of police for African American communities rather than too many police, connecting the former to a increase in murder rate in cities.

“Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion,” Trump said. “We live in a very divided country, and I will be your greatest champion.”

Additionally, he blamed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for starting a “war on police,” but did not discuss the other side, police brutality, an issue that carries importance for black voters.

After 70yrs of ignoring our struggle, Trump’s got a “new deal” for African Americans?
Hmm.Let’s examine some old deals he/GOP have shared pic.twitter.com/E2YYJ5rvkw

— T. Fisher King (@T_FisherKing) October 27, 2016

In a recent CNN/ORC poll, Trump has attracted just 20 percent of the nonwhite vote. According to Gallup, in the 2012 election, Barack Obama garnered 95 percent of the black vote.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Unveils “New Deal for Black America” appeared first on Law Street.

The voters of Tokyo made history this month, voting in Yuriko Koike as their first female governor. Koike ran as an independent, which isolated her from her former allies in the Liberal Democratic Party, but ultimately served her well, as she won in a landslide. Koike’s political attitudes fall in line with that of the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) but her frosty personal relationships with party leadership kept her out of favor for years. Koike has been a trailblazer in her time, serving as Japan’s first female defense chief and not shying away from feminism, encouraging female politicians to be involved in more than “women’s issues” and challenging her male peers to place women on an equal level.

Koike is now tasked with managing the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, a task that is always challenging but which will be especially difficult in the wake of the Rio Games, which were labeled a disaster before the Opening Ceremonies even began. But the LDP will have control over Koike’s budget for the 2020 Games, and there is suspicion that it will use its financial power to punish her for her break with the party.

During her campaign for governor, Koike pledged to review the budget for the Olympics, suggesting that her predecessors were overspending–a feasible assumption considering that governor Masuzoe stepped down earlier this summer after allegations of massive misappropriations of political funds. Masuzoe denied breaking the law but did admit to several ethical violations regarding the funding of the Games. As Koike takes office, the 2020 Games have been forecast to cost at least double if not more the original budget of $7 billion. It is not uncommon for nations to spend over $14 billion to host the Olympics, which raises questions about why Koike’s predecessors set the original budget so low. The games already face difficulties, as construction of the central stadium has been pushed back and the original logo was left behind after accusations of plagiarism.

There is already chatter in the political world about Koike running for Prime Minister, but that bid can likely only come after she proves herself as governor. At this moment, with Olympic pride at fever pitch, the 2020 Games are central to her success not only as a governor but as a female politician in an arena dominated by males. She will need to manage the building of new infrastructure, a massive influx of tourism and coordination across dozens of different athletics organizations–all the while protecting Olympic sites from terrorist attacks and staying away from the human rights abuses that have plagued Rio.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s recently impeached president, may not have set a high standard to live up to but Koike will need to deliver an excellent Olympics if she wants to push back against both personal criticism against her from the LDP and larger prejudices against women in offices of power. Japan has long undervalued its female population, and Koike seeks to integrate more women into the workforce, simultaneously stimulating the economy and changing attitudes about women’s value. Koike has pledged to improve daycare and care for the elderly, freeing up women from caretaker roles they have historically occupied out of duty and pushing them into the workforce. She has not yet announced major appointments to her organizational team, but imagine the potential: an Olympics where the decision-makers are women. Koike will need to work with only the most qualified advisors, but if she chooses to open the door to more female politicians and organizers, she may deliver the most equitable Olympics yet.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The 2020 Olympics and Feminism: Yuriko Koike in the Spotlight appeared first on Law Street.

Has Bernie Sanders finally given up? It appears that might be the case, as he announced on C-SPAN this week that “it doesn’t appear that [he’s] going to be the nominee.”

After admitting that he probably won’t be the nominee, Sanders mentions that his campaign’s goal is still to push a progressive platform. He notes that he isn’t giving up on transforming the Democratic party just yet.

On top of the C-SPAN bomb drop, Bernie also announced on MSNBC that, come November, he will be voting for Clinton.

JUST IN: @BernieSanders says “yes,” he will vote for @HillaryClinton in November https://t.co/6FT0ZLi0JG

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 24, 2016

Although Sanders seems to be giving a lot of hints at the fact that he won’t be president, he has yet to drop out of the race. With a Sanders win essentially mathematically impossible–barring any election fraud accusations–it’s hard to say why he hasn’t pulled the plug yet. Perhaps staying in the race is the best way to push Clinton’s agenda further left. Perhaps he enjoys the political limelight. Perhaps he’s saddened by the fact that ending the campaign will be the end of his last legitimate chance at becoming the leader of the free world. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that Sanders is prepared to step back any day now and put his weight behind Clinton.

Of course, there are still die-hard Berniebros holding out hope that Sanders will win the nomination–swearing they won’t vote for “$hillary” under any circumstances. In fact, there are many conspiracies on exactly how Sanders will become our country’s leader. According to some YouTube commenters, Sanders will storm into the lead after Clinton is indicted by the DOJ.

Bernie Sanders can’t say it yet publicly, but he’s waiting as many of us are for the FBI to recommend criminal indictments against Hillary Clinton and then for DOJ head Loretta Lynch to indict her. Then the super-delegates will wisely defect from Hillary over to Bernie when they vote at the convention in Philadelphia next month.

According to other commenters, Sanders actually has the votes to win but election fraud is making it look like Clinton is in the lead.

There is a lawsuit going on to set the record straight. BERNIE THEY SAY YOU WON. These are the same guys who made sure the record was straight so that Obama rightfully won in 2008 and 2012. Don’t lose hope because we haven’t!!!!!! #BernieorBust!! And if they don’t get the lawsuit together before the general election, then I will be voting for Ms. Jill Stein. #ThankYouBernie

Best of all, some commenters just think Sanders has something up his sleeve. They claim that he winks in the C-SPAN video right before he says that it doesn’t appear he will be the nominee. What could this wink mean? Some are taking the wink as a sign of his resilience, claiming it means he isn’t giving up quite yet.

Whatever the results of this election are, it’s pretty clear President Bernie Sanders is almost certainly not one of the possible outcomes. It’s nice to know that, after months of what has been a pretty one-sided Democratic race, Sanders has finally come to terms with his campaign’s inevitable end. Plus, with what was essentially an endorsement of Clinton this week, the Democratic party may actually have a shot at keeping the White House this fall, which could mean another four years of progressive policies, even if the country doesn’t quite seem to be #feelingthebern.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bernie Sanders May Be Backing Down appeared first on Law Street.

When you’re making a crossword puzzle, it’s very easy to create a difficult puzzle with next-to-impossible clues. It is also incredibly difficult to make a crossword puzzle that is easy to solve, fitting only common words into the grid. Conspiracy theories work pretty much the same way–with a lot of careful effort, you can create a theory that just might be easy to swallow. It sounds totally crazy but maybe, just maybe there actually was a second shooter behind the grassy knoll. It would be completely bananas, but it’s possible that the NBA rigged the championship because of a blood-oath with LeBron. These are conspiracies, but there’s enough fact surrounding them to give them the veneer of truth.

Since politics can get boring, let’s take a break from all the facts and figures for a moment and have some fun crafting our own conspiracy theory. But what type to choose?

When it comes to current-day political conspiracies, no theory is more widespread or worse-explained than the Illuminati. In case you’ve been living under a rock, or have been brainwashed into sheeple by the mainstream media, the Illuminati were essentially members of a really nerdy book club in the 1770s that lasted for about ten years before being shut down. To conspiracy theorists, the Illuminati is still alive, and its members are pulling all of the world’s strings behind closed doors. They’re meeting in person in top-secret locales and exercising unimaginable influence over world leaders. They also leave fun hints and clues for us to find, because apparently they prefer fun I-Spy games more than actually staying secret.

Actual footage from the moon landing, cut from broadcast for suspicious reasons.

So what does this have to do with the 2016 Presidential Election? I’d tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.

Only joking. You might have seen thumbnails in your recommended videos section on YouTube featuring Hillary Clinton dressed in demonic fashion, or perhaps George W. Bush surrounded by pyramids, and wondered where they come from. Essentially, Americans who are frustrated with our political system, or likely confused by it, concoct clandestine backdoor reasons for every major event in history, claiming that it is all part of a grand scheme for “New World Order.” That’s basically a spooky way of saying a world government designed to oppress all people.

Why should we let the crackpots have all the fun? Here’s a step-by-step guide to creating your own conspiracy, and getting one step closer to the “ultimate truth.”

1. Pick an event you didn’t like.

Feel free to choose something like a famous atrocity, or something like alleged voting discrepancies from North Dakota’s democratic caucus. Explain that the explanation the general public has been fed is not only untrue, but supported by false-flag evidence planted by someone important, like the Koch brothers, or Oprah.

2. Diagnose the real cause

Clearly the BP oil spill and Vince Foster‘s death were both decided in a boardroom by old men in suits. There’s an underlying reason for every random, senseless event, and it’s usually a stepping stone to the ultimate plan.

3. Tie it back to a easily vilified celebrity figure

Either go for the typical “Kenyan Muslim President” route, or think of something more interesting. If you need inspiration, I still trust this conspiracy site I found–I know the source is from 2 years ago–that says Clinton is “a 6th level Illuminati witch & sadistic Monarch slave handler.”

A rare glimpse into the bunker below the White House where the real meetings happen.

So why do people believe in these theories? Illuminati conspiracy theorists are typically people who find it frustrating to believe that either hard work or luck is good enough to propel someone to powerful positions. They take comfort in the idea that there is no hope changing the status quo unless you’ve been pre-selected by the chosen few. Plus, by virtue of “knowing the truth,” you’re smarter than all of your friends.

The most disappointing part of conspiracy theories like this is that it looks remarkable similar to the real non-conspiracy world we live in now. The idea that a select few meet to discuss powerful changes to the world is already true, and it happens all the time. Of course Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Xi Jinping control what happens around the world–that’s their job! Hillary Clinton is smart enough to orchestrate secret society cover-ups and rig an entire election, but apparently not smart enough to become as powerful and influential as she currently is by virtue of her own actions.

“Silly Season” is meant to only last a few weeks during the primaries, but given the tone of the 2016 General Election so far, silly season has been extended indefinitely. Why not amp up the chaos a bit more, and introduce some really crazy ideas? It’s not enough to say Trump might be a plant by the Clinton family to ensure a Democratic victory–make sure it’s part of a world-wide conspiracy as well.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Anatomy of An Illuminati Political Conspiracy appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the big moment that people anticipated (and feared) finally happened: Donald Trump became the apparent GOP nominee for President of the United States. While this development brings no surprise to anyone who had been following the polls for the last few weeks, it still was a huge blow to the GOP establishment, who have seemed absolutely lost and completely divided on how to approach the hijacking of their party by a narcissistic megalomaniac.

While talks of a contested convention and a potential Paul Ryan bid provided a glimmer of hope to the establishment wing of the party, any hopes seemed dashed after Trump’s win in Indiana last night. The elimination of Ted Cruz from the GOP race made it clear that the Trump train could not be stopped–and many in the party had to make a decision about whether or not to get on for the ride.

The reactions to Trump’s impending nomination from party members were varied: while some in the GOP demonstrated that they would back the party’s nominee, no matter who it was, others declared that they would choose Hillary over Trump. Then there were those who just seemed confused about what to do now…as well as those who won’t be voting for either candidate.

The “anyone is better than Hillary” camp (aka #NeverClinton)

GOP chairman Reince Priebus never seemed super-enthusiastic about the potential for a Trump nomination, but he declared last night in a Tweet that the party needed to unite in order to prevent a Clinton win:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton#NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

Some former presidential candidates, many who were once rivals of Trump, changed their tone as well, including Bobby Jindal, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that Republicans who didn’t support the candidate would only be helping Hillary.

Other prominent Republicans provided a (less than) ringing endorsement for Trump, including former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:

There’s a lot about Donald Trump that I don’t like, but I’ll vote for Trump over Hillary any day.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 4, 2016

While there were few enthusiastic responses from the establishment GOP after Trump locked the nomination, it looks like many members will still be casting their vote for him come November, as long as it keeps Clinton out of the White House.

The “we can deal with a few years of Clinton if it means no Trump” camp (aka #NeverTrump)

The #NeverTrump movement did not die with the elimination of Cruz from the race. Many prominent party members expressed the sentiment that, when it came to Clinton vs. Trump, Hillary would be the lesser of the two evils. Others did not clarify whether they would be voting for Clinton or abstaining completely after last night’s results, but indicated that their #NeverTrump stance wasn’t changing now that there were no other options in the party.

As a conservative, i would always rather lose to a democrat, than support a racist and sexist with my party’s nametag. #NeverTrump

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 4, 2016

Ben Howe, contributing editor at RedState.com, tweeted his endorsement for Hillary yesterday and demonstrated his solidarity with the #NeverTrump movement.

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), tweeted that last night’s results didn’t change his #NeverTrump stance.

Another tweet that picked up steam showed the burning of a voter registration card by Lachlan Markey, a writer for The Free Beacon, who also expressed that he was “Never Trump. Still.”

pic.twitter.com/L0hQvfBSvS

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 4, 2016

The “I need some time to figure things out” camp (aka #denial)

Many party members had yet to speak out on their choice, likely confused on how to proceed. A poll conducted  by the Morning Consult said that a quarter of Ted Cruz supporters were still unsure on whether or not to support Trump over Clinton. Cruz himself has yet to speak out on whether or not he will be backing Trump, nor has Kasich, who backed out today.

Basically, this camp of the GOP establishment refuses to endorse Hillary, but also hasn’t yet expressed any sort of desire to vote for Trump. Time will tell how (or if) these party members vote.

The GOP must spend the next few months grappling with the fact that Trump will be the representative for the party in the general election. Meanwhile, Trump must figure out how to woo the establishment wing of the GOP away from a Hillary vote while maintaining the “anti-establishment” message that has brought him so much support. One thing’s for certain: these next few months will certainly defy traditional two-party politics and make for an unpredictable presidential race.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump is the Apparent Republican Nominee, and the GOP Establishment Is Confused appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

The leading ladies of Shonda Rhimes’ three current hit shows–“Grey’s Anatomy,” “Scandal,” and “How to Get Away with Murder” are starring in an ad for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The spot is called “Real Life,” and will air in the states that have March 15 primaries.

Check out the spot here:

It stars Shonda Rhimes herself, whose shows dominate ABC’s Thursday night lineup. Also in the spot are Ellen Pompeo, the star of “Grey’s Anatomy,” Kerry Washington, the star of “Scandal,” and Viola Davis, the star of “How to Get Away with Murder.” The ad was directed by Tony Goldwyn, who also stars on “Scandal” as President Fitzgerald Grant.

The ad makes a direct reference to the fact that strong, independent women are a strong theme throughout Rhimes’ shows–Pompeo, Washington, and Davis’s characters all certainly fit that bill. They refer to Hillary Clinton as a real life version of the “brilliant, complex, overqualified, get-it-done woman” they play on TV. In the ad, the three women state:

Our characters are on television. … But the real world has Hillary Clinton — a bonafide rolls-up-her-sleeves, fights-for-what’s-right, in-it-for-you, won’t-back-down, champion for us all

There are other parallels between Rhimes’ shows and Clinton’s campaign. For example (“Scandal” spoiler alert) the first lady on the show, Mellie Grant, goes on to become a Senator and run a presidential campaign.

It’s not really a surprise that the stars of Shondaland are supporting Clinton. Shonda Rhimes has been endorsing Clinton for a while–in fact, she joined with a number of other feminist female celebrities in a separate spot back in February. The video also included Jamie Lee Curtis, Lena Dunham, Amber Tamblyn, Rosie O’Donnell, Amy Poehler, Jemima Kirke, Katy Perry, Retta, Gina Rodriguez, Mary Steenburgen, Tracy Anderson, Constance Wu, Zoe Kazan, Shannon Woodward, Katie Lowes and Uzo Aduba. The women all explained “why I’m with her.”

The next big contest between Hillary Clinton and fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders will be on March 15, when Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio all take to the polls to case their votes. We’ll see if the Shondaland endorsement has any affect on the turnout.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shondaland is With Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we cover the big issues that matter to our readers–from entertainment, to politics, to the law. ICYMI, check out our top issue briefs of the last year, and make sure you start 2016 just as informed as you were in 2015.

#1 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Image courtesy of eric pakurar via Flickr

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem? Read more here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Issues of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Rand Paul started to bid farewell to 2015 with a special edition of his “Waste Report,” a regular roundup of government spending that he considers wasteful. Paul releases these reports as part of his unending effort to cut the federal deficit, but this edition commemorated the, objectively speaking, most underrated holiday in the United States: Festivus.

If you don’t know what Festivus is you should, aside from being ashamed of yourself, watch this YouTube clip for some background. Festivus is a fictional holiday created by the TV show “Seinfeld” and its celebration involves multiple different parts. The most notable part is the “airing of the grievances,” in which people share the problems they have with, well, everyone and everything.

Paul seized on Festivus, which is celebrated each year on December 23, to share some of his own grievances with his fellow candidates and the government in general–and he did so with an epic Twitter rant. Here’s a sampling of the best Tweets:

“I’ve got a lot of problems with you people and now you’re gonna hear about them!” #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

He, of course, started off with the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump referencing his extremely questionable use of the term “schlonged.”

Where to start but @realDonaldTrump. If u bring the Yiddish, know what it means. Guess that’s more of a kvetch than a grievance #Festivus — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

After the debates, @realDonaldTrump always trying to give us parting gifts of his made in China ties. Weird. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

Next he moves on to his fellow Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. For context, Cruz was born in Canada.

My friend @tedcruz has still not pledged to issue exec order declaring Canadian “bacon” is not real bacon. Makes me suspicious. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

He offered some critiques of his GOP competition:

to my absentee friend @marcorubio, I didn’t put your $170k+ salary in my waste report today. But I could have #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

.@JebBush is always trying to change the debate rules to allow extra time for awkward pauses in answers. Not gonna happen. #Festivus

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

And he was sure to make it a bipartisan affair, taking shots at his competition on the other side of the aisle.

.@CarlyFiorina has ZERO trouble making it back from commercial breaks @HillaryClinton. Just saying. #Festivus #waronwomensrooms

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

to my comrade @SenSanders: Unless you’re Santa Claus, Socialism runs out of other people’s money #Festivus — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

When he finished with his competition he, naturally, took a brief pause to ask for money.

While you wait for more grievances this #Festivus considering standing with me and helping our campaign right now https://t.co/78WPMctrVp — Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 23, 2015

Finally, he went through some of the highlights from his Waste Report. He highlighted public housing projects, which he claims give housing subsidies to people who don’t need it. Because people only need to qualify as low-income when entering housing programs, they can continue to receive subsidies after they no longer meet that criteria. He also criticized the use of federal funds for a study on why “Americans don’t want to use the metric system.”

Not everything in Paul’s report would be universally categorized as waste, like a study that sought to understand the role of emotions in decision-making, but you have to give him credit for cataloging a long list of spending that he deems questionable, not to mention the glorious way in which he chose to expose them.

While it’s fair to say the use of Festivus and ad-hominem attacks on his competition are an effective way to get media attention (I admittedly fell for the trap), Paul stayed true to his fiscal conservatism and had fun while doing it. I generally criticize campaigns’ often gimmicky use of social media, but this time, I have to give Rand Paul some credit.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rand Paul Wins Twitter with Festivus Rant appeared first on Law Street.

Sources today are saying that Vice President Joe Biden is about to jump into the race for the Democratic nomination.

Fox News correspondent Ed Henry appears to have broken the story, and has had three separate sources confirm to him that Biden will be throwing his hat into the ring.

Three sources close to @VP telling me he's expected to announce he is running but the sources are all urging caution on 48-hr timeline

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) October 19, 2015

Henry was even more specific about a supposed date and time, tweeting:

The three sources say @vp telling supporters in calls planning to jump in race but not rushing — watch Sat Jefferson Jackson dinner iowa

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) October 19, 2015

Other prominent voices have also come forward to claim that Biden is ready to announce. A Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, Representative Brendan Boyle, also tweeted that Biden is likely to jump in soon.

I have a very good source close to Joe that tells me VP Biden will run for Prez — US Rep Brendan Boyle (@RepBrendanBoyle) October 19, 2015

Additionally, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (Biden’s home state), also said earlier today that Biden is expected to “decide about entering the race soon.” While that’s a less definitive statement than those made by Hardy and Boyle, it’s indicative that an announcement is probably coming soon. As expected, there have been a lot of reactions to the most definitive news yet that Biden is going to be jumping into the race.

Breaking: A very good source close to @VP, told me Joe Biden likes Pumpkin Spice latte.

— Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) October 19, 2015

And here comes Joe Biden! pic.twitter.com/tfHJutYzSw — Irv (@thisisIRV) October 19, 2015

Fun Fact: Joe Biden has been considering running for president for 11 weeks, which is how long Canada’s entire election has lasted. — Ryan Teague Beckwith (@ryanbeckwith) October 19, 2015

Overall, this pre-announcement drama isn’t surprising–questions about Biden’s candidacy have been floating around since this spring. Sources leaking that a candidate is going to announce also aren’t new. It allows the buzz about the particular candidate to build in the days before he actual makes an official announcement. That’s exactly what appears to be happening with Biden. 

Given that Biden hasn’t officially announced yet, this is a breaking story, so make sure to check back for updates.

But for now, the waiting time is upon us: 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Rumorville: Joe Biden is in….Maybe? appeared first on Law Street.

Well hello there strangers! Long time no see. It has been a busy few months for me, but I’m happy to be back and contributing to Law Street once again. Especially as we are well into presidential campaign season, and that provides endless fodder for social commentary–which of course I enjoy watching and participating in from the safety of my desk.

Given that it is 2015 and the Internet plays a larger role than ever in the day-to-day lives of American voters, it is no shock that the 2016 election will be one for the history books. That fact is already evident, as the front-runners on either side of the political divide are a woman, a Democratic Socialist, and a hairpiece!

Don’t even get me started on him.

Heated political debates run rampant across social media platforms, as they always do, but are joined by viral videos, .gifs and even memes of candidates that are strategically released to try and sway voters one way or another.

The key word here, of course, is “voters,” and if you are over 18 and a United States citizen–that means you! You, the person sitting on their couch watching Netflix, who shared that video of Bernie Sanders on “Late Night with Seth Myers,” or followed the Texts from Hillary Clinton tumblr account. You, weighing the pros and cons of jumping in a Facebook comment feed about the difference between Socialism and Communism. You, an average American citizen, who might not be a Democrat or a Republican, but falls somewhere in between.

It does not matter who you support or what you believe in; if you don’t back those beliefs up by using your right to vote at caucuses, primaries or general elections, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a difference. I know it sounds cliche to say this, but it is not a lie that every vote counts.

Now, I have to back up my “go vote!” message with a word of caution: do your research. Since the Internet is such an enormous tool for the 2016 elections, it follows that NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ONLINE IS TRUE.

I know, shocking. *Calls for smelling salts.*

Beware before you share, my friends. Take a closer look at that website with the article called “PROOF!  [insert candidate name here] IS A NAZI!”. Does it also have a bunch of other articles about conspiracy theories with no actual facts backing it up? If you search for it on Snopes.com, does it say “FALSE” in big red letters? Exactly. Instead of searching for inflammatory information on candidates you dislike, focus on the candidates you do like, and don’t believe everything your Facebook friends post. What issues are the most important to you? Which candidates support your opinion on those issues most thoroughly? These are the types of questions you must ask yourself. Being an educated voter is just as important as being a voter in the first place.

So go, register, and enjoy your right to have a say in who runs our country. I certainly will.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter appeared first on Law Street.

The latest celebrity to jump into the political fray is probably one you wouldn’t expect–Ricky Martin. The Hispanic crooner wrote a pretty scathing op-ed about Donald Trump’s views on immigrants, published this week in Univision. But despite his unexpected entry into the conversation, Martin is just the latest celebrity to weigh in on what already has been an exhausting presidential primary season.

According to the op-ed, Martin was seemingly inspired to write the piece after the showdown between Donald Trump and highly respected Univision reporter Jorge Ramos. Ramos asked Trump about his new hot campaign position–ending birthright citizenship. After Ramos asked a question apparently out of turn, Trump got hostile and told Ramos to “go back to Univision.” A video of the altercation is below:

Martin took issue with the way Trump treated Ramos, saying:

Jorge Ramos was doing his job as a journalist in a press conference, which he attended representing one of the world’s most important television networks for Hispanics and exercising his right of freedom of the press. Yet, Trump verbally assaulted and removed Jorge from the event without any apparent reason.

Then, Martin continued his piece by arguing that the Hispanic people need to stand together and fight back against individuals like Donald Trump who consistently degrade the Hispanic community. Martin stated:

We have to stop the power that Trump feels he has over Latinos, and the xenophobic speech that he and his campaign team seem to be convinced will be successful.

Martin certainly isn’t the first Hispanic celebrity to speak out against Trump’s attitude in recent weeks, and he almost certainly won’t be the last.

Eva Longoria, of “Desperate Housewives” fame and an ardent supporter of Obama in the last two election cycles, commented on Trump’s arguably most inflammatory comments to date–when he called Mexican immigrants rapists–pointing out the power of words:

What I think he doesn’t understand and what people don’t understand is words create emotional poison. Hitler moved a nation with words, just words. So you have to expect this backlash. If you say something like that, as he has said, you must expect a backlash.

America Ferrera, an actress who is also well known for her activism, published an open letter in the Huffington Post also condemning Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists, entitled “Thank You, Donald Trump.” Her reasoning for “thanking” Trump was because he would help get out the vote. She wrote:

You see, what you just did with your straight talk was send more Latino voters to the polls than several registration rallies combined! Thank you for that. Here we are pounding the pavement to get American Latinos to the polls, while your tactic proves most effective. Remarks like yours will serve brilliantly to energize Latino voters and increase turnout on election day against you and any other candidate who runs on a platform of hateful rhetoric.

Singer Shakira also tweeted her contempt about Trump’s statements:

No one living in this century should stand behind so much ignorance. 2/2 http://t.co/jsx0KHdmzO

— Shakira (@shakira) June 30, 2015

Trump is leading in the Republican polls right now, but that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t made some powerful enemies in the process. While Ricky Martin, Eva Longoria, America Ferrera, and Shakira aren’t necessarily political powerhouses, the fact that they’ve spoken out so quickly about Trump shows that they aren’t going to sit through an election cycle in which the Hispanic community is consistently degraded and maligned.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Continues to Piss off Hispanic Celebrities appeared first on Law Street.

Last week at Law Street, our top stories included a look at the top 10 quotes from the first Republican presidential primary debate, Kim K’s latest legal troubles, and some familiar faces running for political office. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories of the week.

#1 Top 10 Quotes from the First Presidential Debate

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. Read the full article here.

#2 Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes with an FDA Warning

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight. Read the full article here.

#3 Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The crowded 2016 election may get yet another face, but the newest candidate might run on a uniquely one-dimensional platform. Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and government reform advocate, launched a presidential exploratory committee this week, but unlike most candidates, Lessig’s potential campaign will focus on reforming politics by removing the influence of money. If elected, he will consider his presidency a mandate to fix the political system–and then promptly step down.

In a video released this week, Lessig announced that if the leading Democratic candidates do not make government reform the single focus of their campaigns, and if he is able to raise $1 million from small donors by Labor Day, he will declare his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. But what truly makes the possibility of Lessig’s campaign unique is his promise to hold the presidency only until meaningful reform is passed, after which he would resign–allowing the elected Vice President to assume the presidency. See the video below for Lessig’s announcement:

So what are Lessig’s ideas for government reform? His three-point plan, which he calls the Citizen Equality Act of 2017, involves “the equal right to vote,” “equal representation,” and “citizen funded elections.” This plan combines existing reform policies to, among other things, remove voting barriers, stop gerrymandering, and institute a voucher or public fund matching system for campaign donations.

The underlying problem that Lessig emphasizes is the idea that in the current American political system, every citizen does not enjoy equal representation from elected officials–or in Lessig’s words, “the system is rigged.” Much of this hinges on his issues with the current campaign finance system, in which wealthy donors are able to pour unlimited amounts of money into Super PACs and Social Welfare Organizations (for more information on campaign finance see LawStreet’s explainer here). According to Lessig, all current political issues pale in comparison to what he calls “citizen equality,” because absent this equality, Congress’ agenda will remain controlled by the small number of people who fund their campaigns.

One of the most interesting aspects of Lessig’s announcement is his idea of a “Referendum President,” who would hold office only as long as it takes to enact reform, then promptly resign–allowing the elected Vice President to assume office. If Lessig does run, he intends to make his campaign about his reform package rather than his capacity to carry out the duties of the Presidency.  In his announcement video, Lessig said, “The candidate is the referendum. The campaign is for that referendum.”

This isn’t the first time Lessig has attempted to use novel methods to reform politics. In 2014, he created the Mayday PAC, which spent close to $7.5 million to support Congressional candidates who favor campaign finance reform. While the PAC was not particularly successful–only two of the eight candidates that it supported won their elections in 2014–the idea of using a “Super PAC to end all Super PACs” was certainly unique. This time, however, Lessig seeks to gain a much broader base of support, rather than soliciting support from “50 billionaires.”

Lessig’s campaign may seem like a long shot, and it likely is, but there is a good chance that he will at least launch a campaign. There are two conditions that must be met in order for him to declare his candidacy after Labor Day. First, he must raise $1 million in the next 26 days–he has currently raised nearly $150,000 so far this week. Second, he will only run if no leading Democratic candidate promises to make his reform agenda the primary purpose of their campaign. While several of the candidates have called for campaign finance reform, and some even want a constitutional amendment along those lines, Lessig says that they must do more to make their goals credible.

Another remaining challenge for Lessig is the upcoming Democratic debate. If he does run, he will almost certainly need to participate in the debate in order to have a reasonable shot at the Democratic Nomination. Per the Democratic Party’s rules, candidates must poll at over one percent in at least three national polls to qualify, a threshold that Lessig believes he will be able to reach. In an interview with the Washington Post, Lessig said, “If we can be in the debates and frame this issue in a way that becomes compelling, then I think there’s a chance to see it take off.”

While his campaign might be a long shot, if you think campaign finance and political reform are important you may want to keep an eye out for Lessig’s campaign. He may fail to get enough support for a successful campaign, but his efforts could elevate the issue of campaign finance as the 2016 race heats up.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawrence Lessig: Campaigning to Not Be President appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. The panel of men, 90 percent of whom are white, debated women’s health care issues as well as the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and argued about who among them was the most average, the most American, and who hates Hillary Clinton the most. The riveting debate had hundreds of quotable moments, but here are the top ten quotes, one for each of the presidential hopefuls, in the order of the candidates’ standings in the polls.

1. Donald Trump: “If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.”

America runs on Trumpin.

2. Jeb Bush: “They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.”

Jeb! will make you an offer you can’t refuse. Literally. You can’t refuse a veto.

3. Scott Walker: “I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…”

Scott Walker: destroying women’s health centers before it was cool.

4. Ben Carson: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

So if you ever elect a Siamese twin to public office, Carson can help to make your vote count twice.

5. Mike Huckabee: “The military is not a social experiment, the military does two things: kill people and break things.”

How strong? Army strong.

6. Ted Cruz: “Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.”

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is the chosen one by divine right.

7. Rand Paul (to Chris Christie): “I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.”

Don’t ever think we don’t notice all of your awkward hugs, Christie.

8. Marco Rubio: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Velma might find her glasses before the Democrats can find a good candidate, #AmIRight Rubio? High five!

9. Chris Christie (in response to Rand Paul wanting to get warrants before tapping into Americans’ phones and emails): “Listen, senator, you know, when you’re sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air, you can say things like this.”

Look at all of these hot air balloons emanating from Cleveland during the debate!

10. John Kasich: “I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage…. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay.”

(Read: “I HAVE GAY FRIENDS I SWEAR.”)

Jennie Burger  and Maurin Mwombela also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Quotes from the First 2016 Republican Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

Politico Magazine just published an illuminating article on the money that goes into judicial elections in the United States, written by Sue Bell Cobb, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court. The article, “I Was Alabama’s Top Judge. I’m Ashamed by What I Had to Do to Get There: How Money is Ruining America’s Courts,” contains many revelations by Cobb about the state of our elected judicial system.

Cobb was a judge for over 30 years, and spent four years as the Chief Justice of Alabama’s courts. When she was elected, she was one of the candidates in the most expensive judicial race that year. She raised a grand total of $2.6 million to win, and the candidate that she beat raised over $5 million. She described the difficult process of calling up friends and acquaintances to ask for money–although laws differ from state to state, in Alabama she was allowed to ask directly for money. She could even talk to lawyers who had argued cases in front of her in the past, or lawyers who might argue in front of her in the future.

Cobb highlighted the problematic logic inherent in this system by pointing out that it’s difficult to imagine that the judges who ask for money wouldn’t feel beholden to those who give it, and that lawyers or other businesses wouldn’t feel pressured to donate out fear that a lack of donation could play out in courtroom biases. Or, as Cobb also points out, it could be less nefarious than that. Interest groups could back candidates heavily that they know would rule in their favor based on ideology alone. Cobb puts it like this:

In 2005, shortly before I joined the Alabama Supreme Court, the justices heard appeals in 18 cases in which businesses had been hit with jury verdicts. The court—dominated by Republicans backed by business interests—threw out 17 of these verdicts. I don’t think that the justices who voted to overturn these cases were corrupt. My take is that they were genuinely ruling according to their beliefs. But what this proves is how proficient special interests have become at identifying and then supporting candidates who are reliable votes for their cause.

According to the American Bar Association, 38 states currently have some type of judicial election at the state high court level; 39 states have judicial elections at the appellate level; and 39 states have judicial elections in trial courts of general jurisdiction. Those who don’t have elections appear to mainly rely on appointments to fill their courts. While those can be inherently partisan too, depending on who does the appointing, there’s less of an issue of justices being seemingly beholden to those who give them money.

Cobb isn’t the only judge to speak out against a judicial election system. Texas Supreme Justice Don Willet has essentially said that he doesn’t agree with the system of judicial elections either.

There’s also evidence to back up that judicial elections can affect justices’ behavior. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy released a study in 2013 entitled “Justice At Risk: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions.” There were multiple revelations in the study, but one of the most telling was this:

The data confirm a significant relationship between business group contributions to state supreme court justices and the voting of those justices in cases involving business matters. The more campaign contributions from business interests justices receive, the more likely they are to vote for business litigants appearing before them in court. Notably, the analysis reveals that a justice who receives half of his or her contributions from business groups would be expected to vote in favor of business interests almost two-thirds of the time.

Although Cobb’s comments are not anything new, they do shed a particularly poignant light onto the difficulties that a judge seeking reelection faces. Cobb ends her piece with a sort of call to action, saying, “judges are not, and should never be, like ordinary politicians. We cannot and should not promise anything for those who elect us, but to be fair.” Let’s hope people are listening.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Alabama Chief Justice Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections appeared first on Law Street.

I’m writing this from Washington D.C. As many of you know, as of 12:00am Thursday, recreational marijuana became legal in our Nation’s Capital. Things will never be the same. Our Congresspeople are lounging on the steps of the Capitol, smoking joints. (This hasn’t affected their productivity–it has remained dismal.) All of the CVSes are out of Doritos. The National Mall looks like modern day Woodstock. It’s the end of this city as we know it.

Just kidding. Everything is still normal. Although it did snow in D.C.–a rarity for late February–I don’t think that had to do anything with recreational marijuana becoming legal. No, everything here in D.C. is basically the same. The line at Starbucks was still too long. The metro is a fiery pit of despair. My hallway still smells like weed–although I guess we shouldn’t be as surprised by that one.

Regardless though, nothing has changed, but it is now legal to smoke, possess, and grow recreational pot in D.C., with some obviously pretty heavy restrictions. But, given D.C.’s status, it’s kind of a mess.

D.C. is a unique place, to say the least. For a long time there was almost no ability to self-govern–an attitude left over from the idea that D.C. was to be the city where our federal government was located and little else. We did receive some limited home rule in the 1970s, but there’s still a lot in D.C. that’s controlled by everyone’s favorite group of whiny toddlers–Congress.

Now, weed became legal because a pretty sizable majority of the population of the District of Columbia voted to legalize it during the 2014 midterms. The ballot measure was named “Initiative 71.” However, unlike the states that have approved the legalization of recreational marijuana, D.C. has had to wait to figure out if our votes actually allow us to control the legislation of our own city. (I’m clearly not bitter.) Basically, we had to wait and see if Congress would step in and stop the legalization of weed. It didn’t–or at least not in so many words, though we’ll get to that later–so we’re in the clear, right? If only. There are still a lot of complicated, absurd things happening here in D.C. with regard to the legalization of marijuana, and here are a few of the most pressing:

D.C. Has a Lot of Federal Land

D.C. has two kind of distinctive parts to it–there’s federal land and then there’s the land that’s occupied by the city and by private residences, businesses, and buildings. Initiative 71 obviously only legalized weed on non-federal land. Although you can’t smoke in public anywhere, you can have it on your person without it being against the law.

While that sounds pretty straightforward, it’s not. In D.C. Twenty-nine percent of the land is actually federal–including parks, monuments, and buildings. With a few exceptions, every time that two diagonal streets meet, a park, square, or circle is formed. And all of those grassy areas are federal land–meaning they’re not good “grassy” areas, if you catch my drift. Here’s what the map of D.C. looks like if you mark all the federal land–it’s in green in the map below.

Watch your step. Weed will be legal in D.C. but not on 29% of city that is federal land. Map http://t.co/5tOfIZi33Zpic.twitter.com/kKOWCKy3bN

— Mary Pat Flaherty (@marypatflaherty) February 24, 2015

So unless you want to memorize that map, be careful, and be prepared take some weird routes home.

D.C.’s Weed Legalization Expects Everyone to be Very Generous

So, what D.C. legalized is actually kind of weird–it didn’t set up any sort of parameters to sell recreational marijuana. So you can have recreational weed, but you can’t buy or sell it. You can, however, gift it, or receive it as a gift. So, there will be a lot of “gifts” happening, presumably.

Congress is Still Freaking Out

The situation with Congress right now is very complicated. There’s basically an argument over whether or not what D.C. is doing is legal. In a federal spending bill, Congress had included a measure preventing D.C. from using money to “enact” marijuana legalization. That, however, isn’t what D.C. is doing. There really isn’t any money being used–not arresting people for possessing marijuana doesn’t cost anything. Furthermore, it may have already been “enacted” when it passed in November, so that measure, passed later, wouldn’t apply. It just depends a lot on your definition of enacted. Congress could still act, but right now it’s all up in the air.

So, that’s the news from here in the District. Whether or not legalized marijuana is here to stay is yet to be seen. Everyone’s confused, avoiding public parks, and Congress is being a pain, so it’s basically just business as usual here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Absurdity of D.C. Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The passage of voter identification laws has been a popular political fire-starter in recent years. At their core they make sense–you should have to be who you say you are in order to vote. But in practice there are significantly more nuances, problems, and historical concerns that accompany voter ID laws. Read on to learn about the complicated arguments over voter ID laws.

What is a Voter ID Law?

At its core it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like–a law requiring that photo identification is shown before a citizen votes. It is used to confirm that the person voting is who she says she is, and that she is in fact registered to vote. Voter ID laws have taken a few different forms in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures delineated several different categories of these laws.

Strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least seven states have strict voter ID laws that require photo identification in 2014, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This type of law require that a voter show some sort of government-issued photo ID, usually from a list of acceptable options provided by the state. These laws also usually allow a voter who doesn’t have an approved form of identification to cast a provisional ballot, but require the voter to take extra steps after the ballot has been cast, such as return with an ID a few days later.

Strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least three states have strict voter ID laws not requiring photo identification in 2014, including Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio. Although these laws don’t require a voter to show photo identification, they do require an approved ID of some sort, such as proof of address or a birth certificate. Again, these lists are curated by the states themselves; however, if that form of identification is not provided, a voter in these states would have to return with it at some point.

Less-strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least eight states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. While states in this category do require photo ID, there are ways around showing it. For example, some states allow a voter to sign an affidavit proving his identity, or to send a letter confirming who he is.

Less-strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least 13 states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. Voters are required to bring some form of non-photo identification; however, if they don’t they can still vote by signing an affidavit attesting to their identities.

No ID law at all: At least 17 states do not require ID to vote, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states, however, have enacted or are working to enact voter ID laws for future elections.

Voter ID laws are now in 17 more states than they were in 2000. http://t.co/HaPbgUZnnz pic.twitter.com/jop0rVD8Qz

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) November 1, 2014

What is the argument for voter ID laws?

The Rock the Vote campaigns have lost a little bit of their edge as voter identification laws are increasingly enacted across the country. Supporters of voter ID laws argue that certain measures of identification are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the sanctity of the election process. They also argue that requiring a government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot is not too much too ask, as everyone has some sort of government identification on his or her person at all times.

Voter ID laws have traditionally received support from conservative politicians. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011:

I find it extraordinary that [US Attorney General] Eric Holder is, one more time, making a very serious error [in challenging a South Carolina law that requires a photo ID to vote]… The idea that people should not be able to be identified as they vote so that we can know that they are not voting multiple times. I mean, that’s the purpose here of course. We don’t want people voting multiple times and you can get a photo ID free from your state. You can get it at the time you register to vote…That’s one more lawsuit I’d end if I were president of the United States.

 What’s the argument against voter ID laws?

Those against the bill argue that voter ID laws prevent college students from going to the polls and therefore suppress youth voting, which is already an issue that many organizations work to combat. College students and other young people often don’t have government-issued photo IDs that contain their current addresses, because their permanent residence is often different from where they live during college. There are also allegations that these laws are passed merely for the sake of being passed. Some of the most controversial provisions of the bills seem to be included without much thought and even go unread by those signing them into law.

Some elected officials argue that voter ID laws prevent minority and elderly voters who lack the means to comply with them. Others argue that the laws are American conservatives’ means to subtly discriminate against minority voters. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as much as seven percent of Americans don’t have proof of citizenship, and as much as 11 percent don’t have a government-issued photo ID. The reasons for this are myriad–the Brennan Center points out that married women disproportionately don’t have anything to prove their citizenship, because they’ve changed their last names. In addition, the elderly, the poor, and those who don’t have the funds to drive are unlikely to have government-issued photo ID.

Conclusion

In a political landscape that can only possibly be described as polarized, who can vote in an election is certainly at issue. While the idea of voter ID laws makes sense in theory, there are certainly valid questions as to the actual functionality of the laws. It is as much a political issue as an ethical one–it will be interesting to see which of those two competing interests ends up winning out.

Resources

Primary

US House of Representatives: House Bill 589 – Voter Information Verification Act

Additional 

Guardian: Felon Voting Rights Have Bigger Impact Than Voter ID Laws

The New York Times: States Rush to Enact Voting Laws

The New York Times: Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

CNN: Civil Rights Struggle Far From Over

Philly: Voter ID’s Fate Now In Judge’s Hands

Brennan Center: Citizens Without Proof

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voter ID Laws: Are They Necessary? appeared first on Law Street.

If you hadn’t heard — meaning of course you had no access to television, internet, mobile data, or human contact — we had an election on Tuesday. The headlines were predictable in their predictions, telling the nation which party would most likely win the U.S. Senate. Yesterday we were accosted with news stories of the Republican takeover, states legalizing marijuana, and a few stories made their way to the front pages about the states that raised their minimum wages (finally). What the hundreds of news outlets covering the election failed to mention, though, is that women are still losing in the battle for equal rights in 2014.

Tennessee, North Dakota, and Colorado all had proposed amendments that would outlaw abortions of any kind — even those that would save a mother’s life. These measures in North Dakota and Colorado also would have banned the use of birth control methods like the pill or intrauterine devices. Had those measures gone through, women would not have access to life-saving medication or procedures. Unfortunately in Tennessee, the abortion service restrictions were approved, and by all accounts will become stricter.

Yet again, the nation has focused on abortion as a hot topic — endangering women’s health in the constant struggle between a majority of white men.

What about women’s rights?

In 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have given women equal rights under the constitution, was introduced to Congress. It was not until 1972 that it passed through for ratification, and by 1982 only 35 states had ratified it. It has been introduced to Congress again and again since then, never reaching the point of ratification in that body.

Now in 2014 we are still waiting for the Equal Rights Amendment to become law. Meanwhile, only one state in the entire United States — Oregon — had a women’s rights act on the ballot. And guess what? It went through! But where in the hundreds of news stories on major news outlets are the stories about that? And why is it that in the year 2014 only one state proposed equal rights for women? Many states have equal opportunity employment clauses, but where is the nationwide call for women’s rights?

But hey, at least we know which party controls the senate.

How is it, that for a country that claims to be so forward-thinking, we can be so backward? How is it that women are still considered less than men in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law? When will we, as a nation, get over the petty rivalries that keep opposing political parties in the news rather than the important issues that would make America better?

Stay tuned.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Still Losing the Battle for Equal Rights in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

My guess is that a lot of you out there — especially those of you in Washington — are suffering from what I call a “political hangover.” It’s a lot like a regular hangover–you wake up in the morning having indulged in a gratuitous amount of your vice (in this case politics), feel groggy and slightly ashamed, and now have to deal with the ramifications. Whether you had a good night or bad, the morning after midterms is bound to be a little rough.

So, here’s a handy-dandy guide to making it through your post-election political hangover. Fair warning, while many of these tips are bipartisan, some apply more directly to those suffering a painful-Democratic-defeat hangover right now.

• Imagine you’re somewhere else

We get to indulge in a pop-culture version of politics that is very different than what the political atmosphere actually looks like. Whether it’s the West Wing, Parks and Rec, House of Cards, or Scandal, maybe today’s the day to indulge in a little bit of fantasy.

Just an example.

• Look at dog videos. Or cats. Or babies? Really, whatever calms you down. 

There’s no better way to get over disappointment and/or exhaustion than by watching something cute to take your mind off of it for a bit. That’s definitely a scientific fact and not a theory that I use to excuse my frequent YouTube watching of puppies frolicking. Anyway, here’s my puppy video of the day for your enjoyment:

• Take a break

This is not me telling you to take a nap at your desk. Unless you work at one of those cool offices with nap pods or something. I mean more in the general sense–take a break from the political coverage. There are some recounts and run-offs, but for the most part nothing big is going to be happening for the next couple of days. Go outside. There are people there. And things to do. Stop refreshing your browser for the elections that have not been called yet.

Because as much as we all obsess over the news and politics, those real people are the reason that we do it. For each of us who sits here arguing over the minutia of education policy, there are countless kids for whom education is the only possible lifeline they might get. We parse quotes from politicians about the economy, and it’s easy to forget about the decent number of people who are unemployed or too demoralized to look for jobs. We obsess over the potential of a recount when a lot of people in our justice system don’t really get second chances.

This isn’t to say that people who follow politics don’t think about the people–I think the vast majority of the time that’s pretty far from the truth. But there is something to be said for the political sensationalism that our modern media allows. At the end of the day, politics and the media that covers it is an industry unto itself. Media outlets, pundits, observers, and sometimes even politicians make money off of their political brand. After the 24/7 media slam of  these elections, the most expensive midterm elections in the history of the U.S., and what will presumably be an exhausting 2016, I can’t imagine that a palate cleanser would be a bad thing.

• Ask, “What’s Next?” 

Many apologies for the double West Wing gif in this article, but I can’t help myself.

There’s a whole new crop of politicians coming to Washington, state capitals, and Governors’ mansions. And I think all that America wants is for them to do something. Granted, I probably won’t like what most of them do, but wow, do we all really need to do something. Partisan gridlock, government shutdowns, and petty politics are all useless.

I’m probably being overly optimistic here, but just remember this: there’s always more work to do. For those of us who were disappointed with what happened last night, we need to keep working. We can’t give up trying to make our voices heard. And for those who were pleased with the election results…show us you earned it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Deal with Your Political Hangover appeared first on Law Street.

A particular viral video has been making its away across the blogosphere and has started to creep into mainstream news. What this video purportedly displays is a man committing clear “voter fraud” in Arizona. Here’s the video if you want to watch for yourself:

Although to be completely honest, it’s quite a dull almost nine minutes. All it is is a hispanic man putting ballots into a reader that he carried in in a box. Clear voter fraud evidence, right?

Wrong. It’s actually a man named Ben Marine, who works for Citizens for a Better Arizona. CBA is a progressive group that was actually founded in response to that god-awful “Papers Please” law that Arizona tried to institute a few years back. CBA succeeded in recalling Arizona State Senate President Russell Pierce, who was the driving force behind that law. Since then, CBA has worked as a grassroots-type organization. One of its stated goals is to increase voter participation in the Latino community. One of the ways they’ve done that has included voter drives to try to bring in those who requested absentee ballots.

CBA can legally gather people together to collect their absentee ballots, and deliver those sealed ballots, which have been sent to real people, to the ballot box. Drives like this make it easier for those who work or have other commitments and can’t always make it to the ballot box themselves to vote. Given the fact that elections are on Tuesdays, this is a common problem. Absentee ballots, early voting, and voter drives make it easier for those people to make sure their voices are heard. According to Arizona law, it’s entirely legal. The Arizona elections rules state:

After they have securely sealed the voted ballot inside the early ballot return envelope,
voters may voluntarily give their voted early ballot to a person of their choice for delivery
to the Recorder or a polling place. The designated person shall not tamper with the
envelope or the ballot and shall not deliberately fail to deliver the ballot to the Recorder
or a polling place within the voter’s county of residence.

So, CBA’s ballot collection would be illegal if Marine had tampered with the envelope or the ballot, but there’s literally no evidence to suggest that. All that the video shows is someone working with the CBA dropping off absentee ballots. Furthermore, Marine is actually registered to be able to drop off ballots.

Of course, a few different stories are being told about what actually happened. A.J. LaFaro, who chairs the Maricopa County Republican Committee called Marine  “a vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug that has no respect for our laws. I would have followed him to the parking lot to take down his tag number but I feared for my life.” That must have all happened off camera, of course.

First of all, how stupid would Marine be if he was committing voter fraud in that video? He’s wearing a shirt from the organization he works for, his face is easily identifiable, and he makes no effort to hide what he’s doing. If he was legitimately committing voter fraud, it would be the lamest attempt at doing something illegal I’ve ever seen.

But more importantly it’s this kind of fear-mongering that has led people to believe that voter fraud is actually a legitimate problem, even though there’s been almost no evidence to suggest so. An incredibly extensive study this summer published by the Washington Post found a grand total of 31 cases of voter fraud since 2000. And most of it was done by individuals, not a systemic effort by a group. But when you circulate a video like this with the inflammatory headlines like, “Liberal Activist Caught on Video Stuffing Hundreds of Ballots,” it’s gratuitous clickbait, it’s fear-mongering, and it’s silly. How about we all just concentrate on winning elections by appealing to the public with popular platforms, and changes that will positively impact constituents’ lives? Apparently, I shouldn’t be holding my breath for that.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Denise Cross Photography via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona Man Does His Job Dropping Off Ballots, Panic Ensues appeared first on Law Street.

It’s officially October, which means that next month is election month, which means that shit is officially getting weird! Now, the Republican party has in recent years had a hard time connecting with a few groups of voters — namely women, young people, and minorities. In response, they’ve tried to switch some things up, and I do applaud them for that. But they might want to refine their plan a little more, because some of these ads created by Republican groups have just been plain weird. Without further ado, here are the three Republican ads I’ve seen in the past few weeks that have made me scratch my head.

Republicans are People Too

I don’t even fully count this one as any sort of political ad, but rather a…Public Service Announcement?

This spot is literally just a reminder to be nicer to Republicans. Which is nice I guess, but I feel like if the Republican party is at the point where it needs to remind potential voters that it’s composed of humans, the phrase “losing battle” may apply. The group that posted this video on YouTube was called “Republicans are People Too” and posted it with the disclosure:

It seems like it’s okay to say mean things about someone just because they’re Republican. That isn’t right. Before you write another mean post about Republicans, remember Republicans are people, too.

In a super awkward turn of events, it turns out that the “Republicans” in the video are actually stock photos. Which means I’m left with some terribly pressing question: do real Republicans actually use Macs???

Overall, this spot was a nice attempt at creating polite political discourse, but it came across a bit odd and sort of like aliens trying to communicate after observing Earth for just a few weeks.

Break up With Barack Obama

Americans for Shared Prosperity released this weird and creepy exercise in sexism a couple weeks ago.

First of all, why does he have to be her boyfriend? The message is perfectly fine! This spot is saying that she doesn’t like Obama anymore because he’s been bad for foreign policy and the economy and those are incredibly valid arguments! Why does it have to be framed like he’s an abusive boyfriend? It’s just distracting from the actual point of the ad!

To be fair, this isn’t a new tactic, during the 2012 elections, Lena Dunham starred in a weird Obama ad that compared voting for the first time to losing your virginity, and it was similarly weird and creepy.

I get that it’s supposed to be provocative or go viral or something, but it’s just weird. Also it makes it seem like you shouldn’t vote if you aren’t 100 percent sure about a candidate, which is not how democracy works.

But I digress. According to the head of Americans for Shared Prosperity, John Jordan, the goal of the ad was “to communicate with women voters in a way that outside groups and campaigns haven’t. The purpose of this is to treat women voters more like adults.” With all due respect Mr. Jordan, if you’d like to treat me like an adult, talk to me about the issues. Don’t make a creepy ad pretending that the president is my abusive boyfriend.

Say Yes to the Candidate

This ad is hands down my favorite, though. Similar to the ad above, it tries to relate to young female voters through something we can understand — DRESSES!!! Created by the College Republican National Committee for use by Rick Scott in the Florida gubernatorial race, it creates a metaphor between the candidates and dresses, say yes to the dress style.

Gag.

This is the one that has hit the news over the last few days, but the CRNC also made others for tough races, with just different candidates/facts inserted in.

There’s a big disconnect here with these three ads. The first tries to convince me that I need to realize that the Republican Party has a ton of diversity, but the next two try to target me, as a young woman, with apparently the only two things I’m interested in and can understand — boys and pretty dresses.

It is genuinely good that the Republican Party has realized that it needs to do something to win over the type of voters who have traditionally not voted for them. I hope it ends up leading to higher levels of discourse, compromise, and understanding. But these kind of ads are not the way to do it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan Heaney via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republicans May Be ‘People Too,’ But They Sure Make Narrowminded Ads appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re looking for a weird political race to follow during the 2014 elections, I have a suggestion for you: Kansas. There are actually multiple weird political races to watch there, so get ready to keep your eyes focused on the Sunflower State come November.

It’s important to point out that Kansas is a solidly red state. So red in fact, that until fairly recently, it was pretty much assumed that a Republican was going to win both the gubernatorial and senatorial races. Let’s face it, the last Democratic Senator from Kansas was a man named George McGill, who stopped serving in 1939. But the assumed Republican domination isn’t looking so certain now.

Let’s start with the current Senate race, because there’s been a lot of news there in the last 24 hours. Up to this point in the race there have been three candidates: current Republican Senator Pat Roberts, Democratic challenger Chad Taylor, and Independent Greg Orman. Pat Roberts is pretty conservative — socially, economically, and diplomatically. He’s also not that popular. He’s been a Senator from Kansas for three terms now, and has been accused of being out of touch with the average voter. He doesn’t even have a residence in the state anymore. He narrowly defeated a primary challenge from a tea partier named Milton Wolf, and after that primary he had an approval rating of 27 percent. He also hasn’t been running a very good campaign, probably because he’s never really needed to before. In 2008, he beat his Democratic challenger by more than 20 points; in 2002 he had no Democrat challenger and won with 82 percent of the vote. Through his three terms in the Senate, and three in the House of Representatives, he’s never won an election by less than 60 percent.

But now, things are getting weird. Taylor has been faring surprisingly well. The real standout start though, is Orman. He’s a good candidate — moderate, pro-business, and he’s been running a solid campaign. He has a real shot to win this race. Taylor even announced yesterday that he was stepping down, which watchers assumed would up Orman’s chances even more, given that Democratic voters are way more likely to rally around him than Roberts.

Complicated and weird enough for you, yet? Well I hope not, because there’s more fun ahead. The Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach has said that Taylor can’t remove himself from the ballot. He claimed that after reviewing Taylor’s request, his team had not found “sufficient evidence” to show that Taylor would be incapable of serving the duties of the office. This is good news for Roberts — now the liberal vote will remain split between Taylor and Orman.

So, the Democrats are suing the Republicans to get the Democrat off the ballot in order to give the Independent candidate a good chance. Yes, it’s as complicated as it sounds. And that right there is the state of politics in Kansas right now.

In comparison, Kansas’s weird gubernatorial race seems almost calm. Here’s a great in-depth look into what’s happening, but long story short, a Democrat named Paul Davis is doing pretty well against Tea Party-backed uber-conservative Sam Brownback. He’s wildly unpopular, and Davis is capitalizing on the Republican split between Tea Party and establishment. He’s received the endorsement of many prominent Republicans in the state who don’t want to see Brownback receive another term and damage the Republican reputation even more.

Only one thing is certain: Kansas will definitely be fun to watch this November.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Ganann via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year appeared first on Law Street.

Ralph Nader and the Millennials may seem like an uncommon pairing, if not an obscure band name. But the similarities between the legendary, octogenarian political activist and the youngest generation are striking; neither Nader nor the Millennials hate an active government, or despise a free market. Both believe in the powers of good governance and capitalism. Yet they reserve a deep distrust of big state intervention and corporate control. Falling in the cracks between liberal and conservative, Nader and the Millennials embody a unique American political ideology that remains unlabeled.

It’s Complicated

A study that came out last month by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, reveals the seemingly contradictory political allegiances of Millennials. The generation wants increased government spending “on welfare for the poor, even if it leads it to higher taxes.” Yet they remain split on whether or not the government should attempt to reduce the income gap. Further, “Millennials simultaneously favor policies that limit and policies that expand government.” The study also finds that Millennials trust neither Democrats nor Republicans on a vast majority of issues. Even more so than older generations, Millennials are not easily compartmentalized.

As he champions both strict regulation of dangerous business practices and a laissez-faire approach to government, Nader is equally difficult to label. In his most recent book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, he focuses on points of possible convergence between the left and right to combat the deeply entrenched corporate-state relationship.

In an interview, I questioned the optimism of the title considering the cynicism that surrounds our politics. Nader suggests that the nature of liberals and conservatives locking arms is a hopeful one, and lists a number of successful convergence movements in the past. “Cynicism,” he adds, “is nothing but the indulgence of quitters.” Even the book’s back cover is optimistic, including praise from both Grover Norquist, the Libertarian anti-tax crusader, and Cornel West, the Democratic Socialist philosopher.

Nader may not dismiss labels outright, but Unstoppable illustrates the detrimental effects they can have. When people identify with an easy label, they “don’t engage in the complexity of these traditions, they put themselves at risk of being unable to detect the hypocrisy of the leaders of their own camp.” When I asked if he felt comfortable identifying with any label, Nader neglected to assign himself a traditional political marker, instead saying he is a “seeker of justice.”

The Corporate State

Unstoppable suggests that the current state of political polarization is largely the result of intense lobbying efforts by corporations to hinder compromise and partnership; when the left and right are arguing incessantly, “they are distracted from collaborating on shared goals, which would otherwise cause serious discomfort for corporatists.” Nader denounces this and writes that, “Corporatism, which so often targets conservatives, is increasingly targeting so-called liberals and creating the opposite type of convergence than the one this book is promoting.”

Bill Curry, who served as White House counsel under President Clinton, agrees with Nader in a recent Salon piece: “Democrats today defend the triage liberalism of social service spending but limit their populism to hollow phrase mongering…The rank and file seem oblivious to the party’s long Wall Street tryst.” If Curry is right, then ties to corporate interests may be the most that Democrats and Republicans have in common these days.

The fear of corporations heavily influencing or completely dominating our government resonates with young Americans. New York Magazine conducted a small poll of Occupy Wall Street protesters in 2011, in which 60 percent of the participants were under 30 years old. That year, Paul Campos at the Daily Beast wrote on why older Americans do not understand the qualms of the young Occupiers. Sympathizing with the Millennials, he says, “Now as the protests spread across the country, the core of the Occupy Wall Street movement—young, overeducated, and underemployed—is beginning to find common cause with many other people disillusioned with a social system that continues to grant its privileged elite ever-greater rewards.”

It isn’t hard to understand why the youngest generation is skeptical of excessive government, big business, and America’s two parties. In the Salon article, Curry gives a scathing review of his own Democrats and criticizes the president for misunderstanding the recession of 2008. “Obama mistook massive fraud for faulty computer modeling and a middle-class meltdown for a mere turn of the business cycle… By buying into Bush’s bailout, Obama co-signed the biggest check ever cut by a government, made out to the culprits, not the victims,” he writes. Millennials grew up during a financial crisis created by predatory business actions and, arguably, endorsed by both parties in government.

Convergence, Not Contradiction

Are Millennials a generation especially equipped for convergence? Nader says yes, but simply because they are young and “only in the sense that they’re lacking hardened ideological rigidity.” Nader may be correct, but what seems unique is their waning trust in both government and business, in both Democrats and Republicans. It signals that Millennials’ ideologies would only calcify into an even more complex category.

Just as “Millennials simultaneously favor policies that limit and policies that expand government,” Nader’s book calls for policies that do not seem to match up at first glance. Unstoppable is carried by 25 of his suggestions including centrist, or unlabelable, reforms such as auditing the Department of Defense’s budget, expanding direct democracy, and reducing commercial influence over children.

The real triumph of Unstoppable, though, is that it rejects the notion that these proposals are impossible to reconcile. “A combination of populist conservatives, industrial unionists, and smart progressives could form the convergence alliance” and enact some real reforms, Nader argues. Not only are these reforms reciprocal, but the actors needed to make them happen are complementary. They are our best hope for some bipartisanship and comprise a prescription that falls in line with the Millennial ideology.

Nader told me his best guess for the next big convergence movement lies in the minimum wage. Listing conservative Republicans like Mitt Romney and Bill O’Reilly who actually support the idea, he believes that tying the minimum wage to inflation–number four on Unstoppable’s list of proposals–will come to fruition soon.

A New Millennium

“Millennials came of a politically impressionable age in the years shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, experiencing the steady erosion of civil liberties under two different parties, fighting in long and costly military interventions overseas, and bearing the heaviest brunt of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression.”

– Millennials: The Unclaimed Generation, Reason-Rupe

At sixty-six years old, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader made his fifth presidential run in 2000. It is argued that he stole votes away from Gore, handing the election to Bush. Whether or not that is true, the election and the ensuing 14 years of turmoil handed Millennials an ideology that is tired of the government finding more bedfellows in big business than in bipartisanship; they also want a “left-right alliance to dismantle the corporate state.” As the 2000 election designed the Millennials’ complicated politics, it created the unlabelable constituents who Nader needed.

Sorry we’re late.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [soundfromwayout via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ralph Nader and the Millennials appeared first on Law Street.