A whole host of Latino celebrities released an open letter this week, asking Americans not to vote for any of the current 2016 Republican candidates. While many of the celebrities who signed on to the letter have been speaking out against the Republican candidates’ various stances on immigration and other relevant social issues for a while, this letter takes the debate to a whole new level.

The celebrities who signed the letter, which was released on Thursday by the liberal advocacy organization People for the American Way, are: Yancey Arias, Esteban Benito, Benjamin Bratt, Peter Bratt, Raúl Castillo, Ivonne Coll, Wilson Cruz, Giselle Fernandez, America Ferrera, Mike Gomez, Lisa Guerrero, Dolores Huerta, Eva LaRue, George Lopez, Rick Najera, José-Luis Orozco, Aubrey Plaza, Steven Michael Quezada, Judy Reyes, Zoe Saldana, Miguel Sandoval, Carlos Santana, and Lauren Vélez.

The celebrities who wrote the letter particularly attack Donald Trump, and understandably so, given his consistent use of xenophobic rhetoric throughout the primaries. The letter states:

Of course, this downward spiral began with Trump. From accusing Mexicans of being rapists to kicking Jorge Ramos out of his press conference, Trump has spent the entirety of his presidential  bid stoking unfounded anti-immigrant fears and deeply offending our communities.

However, the letter also has issues with the other candidates as well, “including supposed “moderates” like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.” It reads:

We must not, though, let Trump’s xenophobia overshadow the extreme policies being pushed by every single one of the GOP’s leading presidential candidates. Latinos should understand that Donald Trump embodies the true face of the entire Republican Party. Sadly, he speaks for the GOP’s anti-immigrant, anti-Latino agenda.

[…]

The candidates cannot come back from these hardline stances. Trump is certainly an outlier for his racist remarks. But the rest of the Republican presidential candidates went off the deep end with him.

Given how large a part the debates over immigration, citizenship, and amnesty have played in the 2016 primaries, it’s not surprising that prominent Latino voices are coming forward. But the letter goes further than just decrying the 2016 potentials’ rhetoric, it also encourages Latino voters to work together defeat the possible Republican nominees–which could be a major issue for the GOP come the general election. If you want to read the entire letter, check it out 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 Latino Celebrities Pen Anti-Republican Open Letter appeared first on Law Street.

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching and the New Hampshire primary not too far behind, recent poll results on both sides of the aisle have become all the rage. The slow but steady rise of support for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has certainly been a phenomenon to watch as he works on closing the gap between the support for his campaign and the support for Hilary Clinton’s–the other likely option for Democratic presidential nominee. But why has Senator Sanders been rising in the polls? And who has been boosting these numbers? Recent polling shows that it may actually be millennial women who are blowing up Bernie’s ratings, rather than the “Berniebros” that many have assumed were his main supporters.

Hillary is still polling better nationally, but recent numbers suggest that Bernie may not be too far behind, and the support he has been garnering among young voters may be just what he needs to have a shot at the nomination. In a recent USA Today/Rock the Vote Millennial Poll, people between the ages of 18 and 25 were found to show strong support for Bernie Sanders. Men under 35 are supporting Sanders over Clinton by four percentage points, but the real kicker happens to be (you guessed it) millennial women. They favor Sanders by just under 20 points, possibly disappointing their mothers who belong to the baby boomer generation currently mostly in favor of Clinton.

So why are these millennial women so into Sanders? It all comes down to the issues that they care about. The USA Today poll also reported that some of the issues younger voters cared most about were related to gun control, welcoming refugees, fixing police corruption, and getting rid of extreme poverty. These hot button topics that are worrying liberal-minded millennials are the same issues Sanders’ campaign is focusing on: racial justice, living wages, humane immigration politics, and so much more. In addition, some of the issues Sanders is most passionate about are problems directly influencing young women today, such as expanding Planned Parenthood and making college tuition lower or–dare I say it–even free. This young generation of voters is thrilled with his willingness to engage in some of the most prevalent issues in our country and the solutions he proposes to fix them. Fewer young women are buying into the idea that this opportunity for a woman president has to be seized in order to promote the feminist agenda.

Even with the upward trend in Bernie buzz, there’s still a challenging road ahead for his campaign if he wants to win the Democratic nomination. The biggest roadblock is predicted to be a lack of voter turnout amidst Sanders’ most avid supporters, as millennial voter turn out has been particularly weak in the past few years, with an all-time low in the 2014 midterm elections. But, if these voters do show up, Clinton could be in for yet another presidential nomination upset, and everybody running her campaign seemingly knows it. Clinton’s campaign has gone from practically ignoring Sanders’ presence to directly engaging with him in debates and acknowledging him as a serious opponent.

There’s a little under a month until all the polls and predictions will start giving way to actual results and the Democratic Party will start to find out who their presidential nominee will be–all of the candidates need as much help as they can get. At the end of the day, whether it stems from millennial women’s residual dreams of their own shot at being the first female president, or their honest faith in the Bernie Sanders platform, this support could be just what Bernie needs to snatch the nomination right out from under Hillary’s nose.

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 Millennial Women are Feeling the Bern appeared first on Law Street.

America is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy, but can it possibly live up to that promise if its people don’t vote? This article attempts to explain which Americans vote, which don’t, how Congress can fix the issue, and why they probably won’t anytime soon.

Who votes?

If you are rich, old, white, have a college degree, and go to church often, you probably vote. This is the demographic that is most likely to turn up to the polls on Tuesday. According to the Pew Research Center, whites are disproportionately represented at the polls: 37 percent of white people are voters, as opposed to only 29 percent of non-whites. Forty-two percent of those who are over the age of 50 vote, while only 22 percent of those between 18-29 regularly vote. Almost half of all college degree holders vote, while those without degrees turn out at a measly 28 percent. Strangely enough, attending church makes you eight percent more likely to vote.

While the youth vote is low, it has been on the rise recently. Forty-four percent of young people voted in the 2008 election, the highest turnout since 1972. While that number did go down slightly in 2012, it was a still a higher turnout than 2000.

Find more information about who votes from this infographic couresty of Takepart.com.

Via: TakePart.com

How many Americans vote overall?

Not that many– in the 2012 election, only 58.2 percent of the nation voted for President. To put that in perspective, the turnout in the most recent Afghani election was about the same. Even though, the Taliban was threatening to blow up polling stations and conducted suicide bombings two months before Election Day.

In the 2010 midterm elections, it was even worse with only 41 percent of voter turnout. Less than a majority of American citizens voted for their representation in Congress in 2010.

The United States is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to voter turnout. Between 1945 and 2001, American voter turnout averaged at 66.5 percent. This means we ranked 120 out of 169 countries. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Hungary all had higher voter turnouts than United States.

More embarrassingly, as this video points out, America has the lowest voter turnout amongst developed nations:

Why don’t more people vote?

A plurality of non-voters cite apathy as the main cause. According to the Census Bureau, 26.4 percent of those who did not vote in 2008 chose not to exercise this right because they were uninterested in either candidate. This means that four million registered voters were not going to the polls no matter how easy it was to vote.

However, a significant number of registered voters did not make it to a polling station even though they wanted to vote. Almost 18 percent of registered voters did not cast a ballot because they were too busy, most likely because they were at work that Tuesday.

Why does the Constitution require Election Day to be on a Tuesday?

A video from the appropriately named organization “Why Tuesday” explains this odd rule:

It all goes back to the days of horse and buggy. There was no national electoral date until 1845, when Congress passed a law making it Tuesday. You see, Election Day could not be on Monday, because that would require voters to travel to the polls on horse and buggy on Sunday, which was the Sabbath day. And since Wednesdays were Market Days for farmers, Tuesday was the date that made the most sense.

There have been efforts to change the date, however, there has not been enough support. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-D) has introduced the Weekend Voting Act in multiple Congresses. In the 113th Congress (the current Congress), there has been no meaningful action on the bill and it only has four cosponsors.

So why are no leaders supporting a change? There is a policy explanation and a political explanation.

The policy explanation comes in the form of a study that shows that a change to weekend elections does not significantly improve voter turnout. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), early voting would, at most, improve voter turnout by only four percent. The GAO admitted that reporting on potential benefits and downsides of weekend voting was difficult since there was no American case to study, but they did go over 24 independent studies on the topic.

The report also included quotes from state and local officials expressing concern that they might not be able to find volunteers to work the polls if they have to compete with fun weekend activities.

Of course, like all things in Washington, there is a political aspect to this issue.

Weekend voting would disproportionately help the poor get to the polls. Single parents and those who work multiple would benefit from the move to the weekend. So, what’s wrong with that? Well, poor people tend to vote for the Democratic Party, making Republicans unlikely to pass any legislation that would make it easier for them to vote.

If we can’t change the date of Election Day, how else can we boost turnout?

Make Election Day a holiday

Instead of moving Election Day to the weekend, Congress could just declare Election Day a federal holiday, giving everyone the day off of work so that they can vote.

Rainn Wilson from The Office supports that idea in this weird video featuring a 19th century sharecropper voting in modern day America

On the flip side, making Election Day a federally recognized holiday solves none of the problems associated with moving Election Day to a weekend (makes it difficult to attract poll workers, doesn’t guarantee turnout), and it creates the problem of losing a workday in the middle of the week.

Mandate Voting

Congress could also use its taxing power to mandate voting. Australia, the country that boasts the highest voter turnouts, fines anyone who does not go to the polls. While the fine is only A$20 ($18), that is still enough to convince most people to go to the polls.

Mandated voting could also have the added benefit of forcing candidates to run towards the center of American politics as opposed to attracting radicals. If everyone is voting, it makes little sense to try and appeal to people on the far end of the political spectrum. This phenomenon is explained in this video:

Of course, the American people aren’t the biggest fans of mandates recently, so it is unlikely that this will ever happen.

What other challenges do voters face at the polls?

Speaking of voting not being easy, it has actually become more difficult to vote in just the past few years. Here are a few ways that politicians and judges have curtailed access to the polls.

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. The law outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests, but, most importantly, it places the election laws of specific states and counties under the purview of the federal government. A list of these jurisdictions can be found here. That means that, if any of those states or counties passes a law altering their election format, the Department of Justice has the ability to step in and overturn the law if it is found to be discriminatory.

Well, it used to have this ability. In June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned section four of the law, which determined which states and counties had to get their laws approved by the federal government. The majority opinion stated that the country has changed dramatically since 1965 and that racism in election laws is basically over.

As a result, those jurisdictions are now allowed to make their own election laws without the review of the Department of Justice.

This report from SCOTUSblog shows what happened in Pasadena, Texas after this ruling took place.

Voter ID Laws

As a reaction to this ruling, literally days after it was passed down, states across the country started passing and implementing voter ID laws. These are laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has put together an interactive map that shows which states now require or request a photo ID at the polling booth.

Supporters claim that these laws are necessary in order to fight voter fraud. The problem? A News21 analysis shows that there have only been 10 cases of voter impersonation since 2000. That’s one out-of-fifteen million voters during that time period. This form of vote tampering has impacted exactly zero elections.

Opponents argue that these laws are thinly veiled attempts to stop poor people and minorities from voting. 11 percent of US citizens do not have a photo ID, and 25 percent of African Americans do not have voter ID. Since photo ID requires a purchase in most states, the new law prevents poor voters from voting.

Why is it important to get more people to vote?

I’ll let P. Diddy and then-Senate candidate Barack Obama from 2004 take this one:

Conclusion

Americans currently face many obstacles at the polls, and Congress seems to have little interest or stake in solving them. As long as Election Day is still a workday and states pass restrictive voting laws, voter turnout will remain low.

Resources

Primary

Census: Voting and Registration Information From the Census Bureau in 2008

Congress: The Weekend Voting Act

GAO: Improving Voter Turnout

Additional

Pew: Who Votes and Who Doesn’t?

Child Trends: Trends in Young Vote

IDEA: Voter Turnout Rates From a Comparative Perspective

Washington Post: Census Bureau Findings

NPR: Why Do We Vote on Tuesday?

ABC: Democrats Eye a New Election Day

CNN: Election Day Should be a Federal Holiday

BBC: How Australia’s Voting Mandate Works

Guardian: The Supreme Court Guts the VRA…Since Racism is Over

NCSL: Map of States That Have Voter ID Laws

ACLU: Voter ID Laws

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Elections: Americans Don’t Rock the Vote and Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon, folks! Are you ready for the weekend? I am. I’ll be organizing a march on Rush Limbaugh’s recording studio. Everyone who participates has to wear eyes over their boobs!

Anyway! Rush isn’t the only conservative doofus who has no idea how to relate to women. Apparently, a senior House Republican strategist is training the GOP on how to talk to women voters. It isn’t going well.

The unnamed strategist doesn’t seem to be hopping on the, “Tell your breasts to stop staring at my eyes!” bandwagon. Yay! But he is advising conservative, non-uterus laden politicians to be more sensitive. Yup. Apparently the gender gap in pro-GOP votes is because women have too many feelings. Cue the tiny violins.

This senior strategist, who’s remaining anonymous — probably because his strategy is terrible — is urging his trainees to refer to themselves as husbands and fathers. He’s advising them to make blanket, disapproving statements about rape. And he’s telling them to connect with women on an emotional level.

So, basically, he’s telling Republican politicians that women are a big glob of emotional basket cases, making hysterical, irrational decisions not to vote for them. Appeal to those sobbing nut jobs! Win back those votes!

Are you kidding me?

You’re all idiots.

This guy is probably the worst strategist on the planet. Which isn’t really a bad thing, because less votes for the Republicans! Yay! But seriously, what is going on here?

First of all, if you’re trying to appeal to a group of people by first assuming that they’re crazy, you’re not going anywhere fast. People—not just women—respond well to positive reinforcement and respect. They don’t really appreciate being treated like loony tunes. It’s condescending, insulting, and all around not fun.

So, if you want women to like you, maybe start by assuming that they’re smart? Capable of sound decisionmaking? Worthy of respect? These are the kinds of assumptions that lead to positive interactions between people—and in the Republican case—more votes.

Second, the conservative assumption that women are too sensitive to vote correctly isn’t just patronizing. It’s downright sexist. The image of the emotionally unstable woman is a gendered stereotype as old and tired as you feel after a night of super fun debauchery.

But actually. Ever heard of hysteria? It used to be a common medical diagnosis. Women would be deemed “hysterical” if they were plagued by excessive emotions. And, conveniently, since the cause of illness was a disturbance of the womb, only women could be hysterical.

So, basically, a man consumed with violent rage is just angry. But a woman in the same state is physically and mentally ill. Great! Just drop me off at the nearest insane asylum, would you dear?

Anyway! This whole “women are hysterical” crap is seriously old. Like, YAWN you’re so unoriginal I’m actually being bored back to sleep, kind of old. It’s 2013, people. Can’t you at least get a little creative with your gross and depressing sexism?

Apparently not. Appealing to women’s emotions is the foundation of the new Republican strategy to snag lady voters. And guess what? Not only does it prove that the Right still hasn’t managed to stop being sexist—it also shows that they can’t manage to come up with any new and creative solutions to old problems. Probably not the most qualified people to be running a country, am I right?

NOPE.

Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, the anonymous Republican strategist is advising his trainees to identify themselves first and foremost as husbands and fathers, and to broadly denounce rape. (You know it’s bad when you have to explain that rape is not something to be taken lightly.)

This shit cracks me up. For ages, women have been identified and valued primarily because of their relationships to other people. A woman is always someone’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter first. Is she also a business executive? A writer? A surgeon? Much less important. That comes second.

And that’s irritating as fuck! Women should be valued on their own terms, as individuals with societal contributions to make—not just as caretakers and companions. But no one’s telling the Republicans that. No conservatives are looking to subvert the sexism that assumes women are most useful when they’re behind the scenes. Nope. Instead, they’ve just decided to half-assedly stoop to a woman’s level on the campaign trail. Identify as a father first, a Congressman second. Meanwhile, we all know who’s more likely to be at home, potty training that father’s children. (Hint: Not him.)

So, ladies, the next time you want your elected official to vote against abortion restrictions, food stamp cuts, or affordable healthcare, start crying. Throw a tantrum. Get hysterical. Accuse your legislator of being insensitive.

Because apparently they’re being trained to respond to that.

–

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hermann Kaser via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Should Vote Republican Because You’re a Basket Case appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. District Court in Tampa dismissed a lawsuit filed last year to block Florida’s voter purge program. Two naturalized citizens and a Hispanic advocacy group collaborated on a lawsuit, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund v. Detzner, which claimed that Florida needed to obtain authorization from the federal government in order to remove the names of suspected non-U.S. citizens from the voter registry.

The court determined that the lawsuit was moot after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.  The Supreme Court’s decision eliminated the formula that allowed for the preclearance provision, which the federal government utilized to protect voters.

Florida’s voter purge uses a collection of driver’s licenses and voter registration files in order to create the initial list of voters who may not be citizens, which initially contained 180,000 names.  After comparison with more county records, Florida was able to compile a list of 2,600 registered voters who may not be citizens.  The state also has an agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to use the federal immigrant database in its voter purge efforts.

The obvious issue with Florida’s voter purge program is the unintended removal of suspected non-citizens who actually are citizens, such as Murat Limage and Pamela Gomez, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  In an effort to prevent non-citizens from voting, which may only happen in a relatively small quantity, the state is setting itself up for more trouble if any legitimate citizens are prevented from voting at the polls because they were incorrectly removed from the registration lists.

The state says that it is looking for ‘suspected’ non-U.S. citizens in the voter registry, which leads one to wonder what basis is being used to develop such suspicions.  The most likely explanation is that Florida is unfairly targeting Hispanic voters  suspected of voting illegally.  It is completely unacceptable for the state government to use any racial or ethnic basis in order to purge voter lists, and the Supreme Court’s decision should not change the fact that Florida’s Hispanic community must be protected from any potential violations by the state.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Atomische * Tom Glebel via Flickr]

Sameer Aggarwal

Sameer Aggarwal was a founding member of Law Street Media and he is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Sameer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democracy in Action: Florida Set to Resume Voter Purge appeared first on Law Street.