ThinkProgress Logo

Security

International Election Monitors: Good Job, America, Despite Your States

By Hayes Brown on Nov 10, 2012 at 4:50 pm

Polling board members in Arlington, Virginia, demonstrate touch screen voting machines to OSCE observers in 2004

Election monitors from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have released their preliminary findings on the U.S. 2012 elections, determining they “took place in a pluralistic environment and were administered in a professional manner.” The monitors — subject of mass hand-wringing by the right-wing — completed their observations despite numerous threats and instances of non-cooperation by state-level officials.

As part of a mission they have undertaken every two years for the past decade, the OSCE observers were spread across the country to study the election process from beginning to end, taking note of the role of campaign spending, how the media influences voting, and the ease in which citizens could access the polls. The observers were not hesitant to point out the ways in which their job was made harder by certain states:

Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia explicitly provide for international election observation, while other states interpreted their laws in a way that permits access or delegated the decision to county officials. In several states OSCE/ODIHR observers were not provided full and unimpeded access to polling stations. In some cases, OSCE/ODIHR observers were publicly threatened with criminal sanctions if they entered polling stations. This is in contravention of paragraphs 8 and 10 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.

Each of the states listed by the OSCE as acting to impede the monitors’ mission — Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas — have a Republican Secretary of State overseeing the election process. The criminal sanctions noted by the OSCE were not hyperbole, having actually faced the possibility of arrest. Texas Attorney-General and Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schulz both threatened to arrest international observers who entered polling stations.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland roundly dismissed the idea of state officials being able to hold observers, due to the reciprocal protected status granted to Americans during observation missions. The OSCE still did not appreciate the sentiment, as Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a letter.

The report as a whole noted the well-run nature of the election and the competitiveness of the various campaigns, while pointing out that “further steps should be taken to improve the electoral process, in areas such as voting rights, the accuracy of voter lists, campaign finance transparency, recount procedures, and access of international election
observers.” In the midterm elections in 2002, 2006, and 2010, as well as the Presidential elections of 2004and 2008, the OSCE has issued a mostly positive final report on the U.S. elections. The 2012 final report will likely be issued in the next two months.

Justice

After Passage Of Legalization Initiative, 220 Marijuana Cases Dismissed In Washington State

By Judd Legum on Nov 10, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Following the successful passage of a state referendum legalizing small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, two county prosecutors in Washington state have dismissed hundreds of misdemeanor marijuana cases. Although, the effective date of the referendum is not until December 6, the prosecutors used their discretion to apply the new rule retroactively.

The move underscores how, even though marijuana possession remains illegal under federal law, state initiatives legalizing possession for recreational use in Washington and Colorado could have far-reaching consequences. As a practical matter, virtually all arrests and prosecutions for marijuana possession occur at the state level.

The Department of Justice could sue to block enforcement of the law. Thus far, the federal government has not indicated if they will directly challenge Colorado and Washington.

In 2010, over 750,000 people in the United States were charged with possession of marijuana only.

Climate Progress

Let’s Put Climate Change At The Top Of The Agenda

By Climate Guest Blogger on Nov 10, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Credit: FEMA

by Joe Mendelson, via National Wildlife Federation

The election is over—now what on the climate change issue? Hurricane Sandy, the nation’s fiscal situation, and the election results have combined to create three key things that I think compel Congress to action on climate change.

1. Climate Change Impacts are Costing the Federal Government Too Much Money

Congress returns in mid-November to the fiscal cliff debate. Hurricane Sandy should put the issue of climate change squarely within this discussion.  Sandy’s estimated costs are $10–$20 billion in insured losses with at least another $50 billion in economic damages. The $12 billion in government money set aside for disaster relief this year will be easily gobbled up in the recovery. Congress will be forced to seek additional money to help effected citizens. The federal price tag for the recovery from Hurricane Katrina reached $120 billion. Sandy may not reach that total, but the amount of federal money spent on the relief will be significant.

Hurricane Sandy, however, is only one piece of the climate impact puzzle. This year the country has also experienced record drought, widespread wildfires, and the worst West Nile virus outbreak ever. Munich Re put the cost of the first six months of 2012’s extreme weather events at over $14.5 billion. All of these impacts have required a federal government response. Lawmakers sought $800 million in additional funds this year to deal with wildfires and new legislation for over $300 million in drought assistance to livestock producers hit by the drought is expected soon.

But wait there is more.  Sandy has shown that the country needs a crash course in preparing for and adapting to the changes and impacts that will occur in the future (read NWF’s prescription here). This is not cheap.  For example, Norfolk, VA—home of Naval Station Norfolk and on the frontline of climate impacts—has a comprehensive adaptation plan that will cost about $1 billion. This is roughly twice the city’s entire annual budget and cannot be undertaken without federal dollars.

So, if we are serious about addressing the federal budget crisis, lawmakers need to look at the exploding costs of climate change impacts and how much it will take to better prepare for such events.

The choice Congress will face is who picks up the tab.

The past failure to put price on carbon pollution means that the costs of dealing with these “externalities” (read: impacts) have never been borne by the polluters. Instead, the federal government and taxpayers like you and me foot the bill. The looming fiscal crisis and the costs of climate change demand this equation be changed.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. President Obama, 2012 victory speech

2. Big Oil and King Coal’s Money Play Was A Costly Failure

Read more

Climate Progress

Are California’s Medical Weed Farms Hurting The Environment?

By Climate Guest Blogger on Nov 10, 2012 at 10:30 am

Not so green after all?

by Whitney Allen

In California’s Emerald Triangle, the nation’s largest area for growing medical marijuana, federal anti-drug laws are keeping the state from regulating the growing industry. A California state law passed in 1996 that decriminalized the use of medical marijuana has led to an influx of dispensaries and pot farms to service them. The marijuana industry is now growing unchecked by state officials because of pressure from the federal government on would-be regulators.

Maggie Caldwell from Mother Jones describes the situation:

The farming of marijuana—for medicinal use or otherwise—remains illegal under federal law. Any regulation instituted by these agencies is, in effect, legitimizing the cultivation of a federally controlled substance, and the US Department of Justice has warned local officials that they could face individual prosecution if they continue to validate the farms. Mark Lovelace, a Humboldt County supervisor, says the DOJ’s policy is actually abetting the weed farmers, allowing them to get away with unchecked land development.

This comes at a time when federal action has brought “renewed chaos” to California’s marijuana industry. The IRS and DEA punish dispensaries indiscriminately, giving advantage to those who can operate under less ethical means. The combined effect of these raids and local authorities’ inability to regulate has pushed some who want to operate ethically out of the market, clearing the path for drug cartels to set up huge operations in the region.

This inaction is spelling disaster for the region around the Emerald Triangle. Without state-level guidelines and enforcement, farms are implicitly being allowed to institute practices that are harmful to the local environment, as well as potentially dangerous for the end user.

Read more

Economy

How The New York Times Misrepresented Chuck Schumer On Taxes

By Travis Waldron on Nov 10, 2012 at 10:05 am

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) has made it clear that he doesn’t accept the parameters of Republican leadership’s idea that revenue can be raised by further lowering top income tax rates. In October, he said Congress “ought to scrap” any such plan, and yesterday, he decried the GOP’s “Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale” that cutting tax rates could drive new revenues through dynamic scoring.

The New York Times, however, reported today that Schumer had indicated a willingness to consider a tax plan that keeps the top tax rate at 35 percent, the point it reached after the Bush tax cuts:

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, extended an olive branch to Republicans, suggesting Thursday that he could accept a tax plan that leaves the top tax rate at 35 percent, provided that loophole closings would hit the rich, not the middle class. He previously had said that he would accept nothing short of a return to the top tax rate of Bill Clinton’s presidency, 39.6 percent.

“If you kept them at 35, it’s still much harder to do,” Mr. Schumer said, “but obviously there is push and pull, and there are going to be compromises.”

Schumer’s full quote, however, doesn’t seem to make that same suggestion. After Schumer told reporters that it was “counter-intuitive” to think substantial revenue could be raised by lowering tax rates, as Republicans have suggested, he was asked about maintaining current rates. Though he conceded that there may be compromise, he didn’t indicate that he would accept such a deal and restated his belief that the election was a clear mandate for raising the high-income rate to Clinton-era levels:

SCHUMER: Well, you know, if you kept them at 35, it’s still much harder to do, but obviously there’s push and pull and there’s going to be compromises. The President’s view, my view, the overwhelming view that we ran on and succeeded on-that exit polls show the American people agreed with us on is let the rate go to 39.6 for the highest-end people.

Schumer has been clear about his insistence on allowing the high-income Bush tax cuts to expire, and despite the New York Times’ report of recent remarks, his position doesn’t seem to have changed.

Justice

At Loughner Sentencing, Gabrielle Giffords’ Husband Slams ‘Feckless’ Approach To Gun Control

By Nicole Flatow on Nov 10, 2012 at 9:00 am

Jared Loughner, who pleaded guilty last year to the attempted assassination of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az.), was sentenced on Thursday to seven life terms, plus 140 years, without parole. The hearing was an opportunity for Giffords’ husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, to tell Loughner, “Gabby and I are done thinking about you.” But they are not done thinking about gun control, and Kelly also used the forum to make a powerful statement about the intractable politics surrounding this issue:

We have a political class that is afraid to do something as simple as have a meaningful debate about our gun laws and how they are being enforced. We have representatives who look at gun violence, not as a problem to solve, but as the white elephant in the room to ignore. As a nation we have repeatedly passed up the opportunity to address this issue. After Columbine; after Virginia Tech; after Tucson and after Aurora we have done nothing.

In this state we have elected officials so feckless in their leadership that they would say, as in the case of Governor Jan Brewer, “I don’t think it has anything to do with the size of the magazine or the caliber of the gun.” She went on and said, “Even if the shooter’s weapon had held fewer bullets, he’d have another gun, maybe. He could have three guns in his pocket” – she said this just one week after a high capacity magazine allowed you to kill six and wound 19 others, before being wrestled to the ground while attempting to reload. Or a state legislature that thought it appropriate to busy itself naming an official Arizona state gun just weeks after this tragedy occurred, instead of doing the work it was elected to do: encourage economic growth, help our returning veterans and fix our education system.

Meanwhile, even since the Aurora shooting July 20, there has been an endless string of mass shootings, the most recent of which was just this past Tuesday at a Fresno, Calif. chicken plant, where four were shot and two killed. And let’s not forget the regular old gun violence that in Chicago claimed 152 lives in two months, many of them teenagers.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up