Tennessee’s new voter identification law, which goes into effect in 2012 after it was passed by Republicans and signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam (R) this year, will require prospective voters to show one of five forms of identification at the polls: a Tennessee driver’s license, valid photo ID, a passport, an employee photo ID, or a military photo ID.

Noticeably absent from that list, however, is a student identification card from any of Tennessee’s colleges or universities, which had been included as an acceptable form in earlier drafts of the legislation. Despite the fact that many states with voter ID laws accept student IDs as valid forms of identification, state Sen. Bill Ketron (R) — the law’s original sponsor — said student IDs were intentionally omitted from Tennessee’s version of the law because they are “easy to manipulate,” according to the Daily Helmsman, the student newspaper at the University of Memphis:

Senator Bill Ketron, who sponsored the law, said it was passed to prevent voter fraud, and student IDs were excluded as an acceptable form of identification because they are easy to manipulate.

“Well, between the public and the private universities, we felt there probably was not enough control on the issuance of those IDs as there would be in the state,” he said. “In the bill, you can even have an expired driver’s license or passport to vote. There are 14 or 15 articles you could use with a photo.”

There are also students who attend college who are underage and illegal immigrants, Ketron said.

Republicans across the country continue to assert that voter ID laws are aimed at protecting the integrity of elections, not at disenfranchising subgroups of voters that tend to favor the Democratic Party. But while evidence of rampant voter fraud that could be prevented by such laws is lacking, evidence that the laws primarily target demographics that traditionally vote Democrat continues to mount. Such laws predominately effect low-income Americans and minorities, both traditional Democratic constituencies. Now, Tennessee has explicitly drawn a form of ID issued to all of the state’s college students — another traditional bloc of Democratic voters — out of the law.

Republicans in Maine also sought to crack down on student voter fraud, only to find out from a two-month investigation that student voter fraud didn’t exist. Meanwhile, voter registration isn’t available for underage students or undocumented immigrants, making Ketron’s second justification for such an exception completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Tennessee already saw evidence that its law would make it harder for some of its residents to vote last month, when 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper was originally denied a voter ID in Chattanooga because she couldn’t produce a marriage certificate. That experience, Cooper said, was worse than under Jim Crow laws, and prompted a statewide review of the ID process. Unfortunately, it seems Tennessee Republicans have remained intent on making it harder to vote for as many of its residents as possible.

Yesterday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the number of deaths from overdoses of legal prescription painkillers had more than tripled over a decade, killing a shocking 15,000 people in 2008 — more than died from heroin and cocaine overdoses combined. This “epidemic” of pain killer abuse is troubling in its own right and demands public policy answers, but it also helps to underscore the incongruity of the current drug policy.

The report comes as a growing number of states and the federal government debate the prohibition of marijuana. Just this week, the White House rejected several marijuana legalization petitions.

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, giving the highest level of restriction possible. Painkillers like OxyCotin are Schedule II, while others like Vicodin are Schedule III. Yet while these less restricted drugs killed 15,000 people last year alone, “There are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans,” a widely-cited study from the National Institute of Mental Health found. Studies on animals have found lethal doses practically impossible to achieve, as a human physically could not consume the required volume.

As spelled out in the Controlled Substance Act, there are three requirements for Schedule I classifications, according to the DEA:

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Of course, 16 states and the District of Columbia now recognize medicinal benefits of marijuana and have established safety standards. And while there is no doubt that marijuana has the potential for abuse, advocates say it is not high enough — on par with cocaine and heroin — to merit Schedule I status, and no higher than prescription drugs, the danger of which the CDC report clearly demonstrates.

In fact, when marijuana was initially classified as a Schedule I drug in 1970, its placement was intended to be only provisional pending the findings of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, also known as the Shafer Commission, as it was led by then-Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer (R). Two years later, the commission released its findings, concluding: “Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety.” Nonetheless, the Nixon administration did nothing and let the drug remain classified as Schedule I.

In a letter sent just last week, nine congressmen, including Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA) — called on President Obama to reschedule marijuana as either a Schedule II or III drug — the same status as Vicodin or Oxycontin. Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have also introduced a bill to do just that.

Yesterday, the Justice Department sent a letter to superintendents in Alabama to ensure their school districts were still abiding by a federal law that students may not be denied access to school based on immigration status. After HB 56, Alabama’s harmful anti-immigrant law, went into effect, absenteeism among Hispanic students increased because they were too scared to go to school.

A portion of the law that has been temporarily blocked by the Eleventh Circuit asked schools to collect information about the immigration status of newly enrolled students. The letter from DOJ’s civil rights division said focused on the effect the law had on students:

It has come to our attention that the requirements of Alabama’s H.B. 56 may chill or discourage student participation in, or lead to the exclusion of school-age children from, public education programs based on their or their parents’ race, national origin, or actual or perceived immigration status, or based on their homeless or foster care status and consequent lack of documentation.

As you know, in Plyler v. Doe…the Supreme Court held that a State may not deny a child equal access to public education based on his or her immigration status. [...]

Because this matter may implicate the civil rights laws that we enforce, we request that the District provide information to assist us in determining what further action, if any, is warranted.

In the letter, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez asked for information ranging from the number of students who had withdrawn and their national origin, absenteeism rates, and the number of students students participating in English Language Learning programs before and after HB 56 went into effect.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said the letter was a sign that “the Justice Department is being very aggressive. South Carolina was just sued yesterday on a bill very similar to Alabama’s.” He added, “I have not had a chance to review the DOJ letter in detail, but I can assure you that we’re not going to deny any child an education.”

Even if Strange says children are not being denied an education, students were too intimidated by the law to attend school after the law went into effect, and the thousands who left school or are not showing up are unlikely to return if their families leave the state because of other parts of the law.

Elected officials often participate in religious prayer and ceremony to signal their respect for other religions, including Presidents George W. Bush and Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. But yesterday, Kentucky state senator and GOP gubernatorial nominee David Williams accused incumbent Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear’s (D) of “idolatry,” and attacked him for sitting with a “dot on his forehead” in a “polytheistic ceremony” after Beshear showed his respect for the Hindu faith by participating in a ground blessing ceremony last week. According to Williams:

If I’m a Christian, I don’t participate in Jewish prayers. I’m glad they do that. I don’t participate in Hindu prayers. I don’t participate in Muslim prayers … To get down and get involved and participate in prayers to these polytheistic situations, where you have these Hindu gods that they are praying to, doesn’t appear to me to be in line with what a governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky ought to be doing.

Hindu American Foundation’s Suhag Shukla called Williams’ comment “an affront” to Americans “as he conjures up the lowest sentiments of exclusion and bigotry.” And Shukla is right. One of the most basic principles underlying our Constitution is that all faiths are welcome in the United States. Beshear’s participation in this Hindu ceremony was an important reminder of this basic truth.

Indeed, chief executives have long signaled their respect for other religions by observing their holidays and customs. Here are just five examples of Democratic and Republican governors and presidents showing their respect for Jews, Muslims and Hindus:

– Rebecca Leber

Our guest blogger is Angela Maria Kelley, vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the Center for American Progress

Brian Williams’s new show Rock Center debuted Monday night with a segment called “Born in the U.S.A.” focusing on the obscure yet provocative “birth tourism” practice whereby foreign women come to the United States for the express purpose of giving birth so that their children have American citizenship and then return after giving birth to their home country.

I appeared in the segment and was dismayed by reporter Kate Snow’s neglectful treatment of the subject by failing to provide facts and a fair framing of the issue and my views. To the credit of Kate Snow and her producer Anna Schecter, both contacted me yesterday and NBC has updated its website with a clearer representation of my views. Still, if you tuned in to the show on Monday, and thought you got the story on birth tourism, you did not. Here is what they failed to tell you:

Let’s start with the facts: According to the most recent statistics, only 7,462 children out of the more than 4 million born in the United States in 2008 were born to people who do not reside here. Of this handful of births, (1/10th of 1 percent of all births,) many are here on legal visas like student or business visas. In the course of their studies or work in the U.S., they may get pregnant and have a baby. Some are tourists who do not intend to deliver in the U.S., but go into early labor. And yes, some, a small faction of the 7,000 annual births a year actually come to the U.S. simply to obtain citizenship for their children. I lost count the number of times I cited those statistics in the interview, but unfortunately the key facts ended up on the cutting room floor.

Next, the report makes it seem as though one of the biggest selling points of birth tourism is that “it’s an easier way for the whole family to get green cards.” Hearing the story, one would think the green cards might come in the mail to the baby’s entire family days after the baby is born. The truth undercutting the scare is that children cannot sponsor their parents or siblings until they turn 21. It will still be over two decades before relatives can enter the United States because of that child’s status, and even then, the child has to prove, among other things, that he or she can financially support the family members among other requirements. A quick Google search of family immigration requirements would have informed the show’s producers of these basic facts or they could have asked me.

What I did discuss in length was a range of ways the practice of birthright tourism could be dealt with, but the producers did not air any of my comments, making it seem as though the Center for American Progress is in favor of birth tourism — a position that neither my organization nor I hold. Again, the show failed to air my express understanding of why the issue matters to Americans and my range of approaches for addressing the concern. One option is to regulate the birthing centers. Though highly problematic at many levels, the United States could also scrutinize women of childbearing age applying for a visa and attempt to control or predict their propensity to give birth while in the U.S. –- not easy or wise to do in my view.

Finally, as Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) who was also interviewed suggests, we could change the U.S. Constitution and scrutinize the lineage of all women giving birth in the US before granting citizenship. This proposal seems like using a grenade to go after a gnat, but again, a conversation about what to do to solve the problem was given short shrift.

Rock Center’s debut was far from rock solid — we can only hope it gets on course and offers more facts and less flash.

One of the overarching themes of the 99 Percent Movement is that our democracy is too corrupted by corporate special interests. This corruption was worsened last year by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed for huge new unregulated flows of corporate political spending.

Yesterday, six Democratic senators — Tom Udall (NM), Michael Bennett (CO), Tom Harkin (IA), Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and Jeff Merkely (OR) — introduced a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the Citizens United case and restore the ability of Congress to properly regulate the campaign finance system.

The amendment as filed resolves that both Congress and individual states shall have the power to regulate both the amount of contributions made directly to candidates for elected office and “the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.”

“By limiting the influence of big money in politics, elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets,” said Harkin of the amendment. “We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy. This amendment goes to the heart of that effort.”

Passing this amendment or any other amendment to the Constitution is an arduous process. There are two ways to propose a constitutional amendment. Either two-thirds of Congress can agree to an amendment or there can be a constitutional amendment called by two-thirds of state legislatures (this path has never been taken). In order to ratify an amendment, three-quarters of state legislatures must agree or three-quarters of states must have individual constitutional conventions that agree.