It has been one year since Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed HB 56, the nation’s most harmful immigration measure, into law. He praised the bill after signing it on June 9, 2011, calling it the “toughest bill in the country.”

Shortly after some of immigration provisions went into effect in September, the widespread damage from the law was obvious. By December, even Bentley admitted that HB 56 “need[s] revision,” although it would be months before lawmakers took action. Courts temporarily blocked parts of HB 56, but not before students were too scared to go to school and families were denied utilities:

• Attack On School Children: Politicians readily admitted that the goal of HB 56 was to make Alabama a hostile place for undocumented immigrants, but as a result, families have fled the state out of fear, leaving schools with high absenteeism rates among Hispanic students. HB 56 required schools only to check the immigration status of all newly enrolled students, and 13 percent of Latino students dropped out by February, likely out of fear.
• Families Denied Water, Food Stamps: Because of a provision of the immigration law preventing contracts between the state and undocumented immigrants, public utility companies have denied service to anyone who cannot prove they are a citizen or legally in the United States, effectively making it a felony for undocumented immigrants to take a bath in their own homes. No other state or developed nation has a ban this extreme on contracting with undocumented immigrants. Beyond public utilities, this “business transaction” ban led some U.S.-born children to be denied food stamps simply because their parents were undocumented immigrants.
• Economic Damage: After families fled the state out of fear, farmers watched their crops rot without enough workers to help harvest, and some said they were at risk of losing their farms. And owners of poultry processing plants and catfish farms said they have lost workers and are having trouble replacing the workers who left. It’s estimated that HB 56 could cost Alabama as many as 100,000 jobs and billions in GDP losses, but the law’s author still said it has no “negative impact.”
• Embarrassing Arrests: HB 56 turned into a PR nightmare for the state when police arrested a German Mercedes Benz employee for not having the right documents when he was pulled over in November. The charges were later dropped, but almost two weeks later, police also arrested a Japanese Honda employee for being in violation of HB 56 while driving even though he reportedly had his passport and international driver’s license. Charges were later dropped as well.

During the 2012 legislative session, Alabama legislators finally had the opportunity to address these glaring issues. But instead of repealing HB 56 or even taking out the worst provisions, like asking school children about their immigration status, lawmakers doubled down and made the immigration law even worse. Undocumented immigrants are still barred from renting property, and law enforcement officials can still check immigration status based on a “reasonable suspicion.”

Briefly, Alabama’s governor stood up to the anti-immigrant supporters of HB 56 and threatened to veto the proposed changes if they did not take out the requirement that schools check immigration status. But he eventually caved and signed the changes, which have one bright spot: legislators clarified what is a “business transaction” so that people are not blocked from having water in their homes.

Alabama did not learn the lessons of Arizona about the problems that result from these extreme immigration laws that do nothing but hurt the state. Now it’s serving as a lesson for other states who do not want to make the same mistake as Alabama’s lawmakers.

The filing deadline for state races in Kansas passed earlier today, just four days after a federal court had to redraw the state’s legislative maps because two factions of the state Republican Party could not agree on which maps they wanted to pass. With only a few short days to round up candidates for the new districts, both political parties spent the weekend in chaos:

There are 25 open House seats, fully 20% of that branch of the legislature. Forty-six incumbent members have been tossed into potential races with other incumbents (not counting the spouse of the late Bob Bethell.)

Kansas law requires filers to “reside” in the district they wish to represent at the time of filing. That means the political parties mush work all weekend to find candidates for the open seats, and/or convince incumbents to establish residence in the new open districts before Monday at noon.

Yet, while the legislature’s failure to draw districts led to a hectic weekend for politicians across the state, the true victims are the people of Kansas. In some districts, it’s likely that only one candidate will manage to file, leaving the voters with no choice regarding who will represent them. It’s even possible that some districts could have no candidates at all.

Even members of the legislature themselves appear to be disgusted with the entire process. Leading moderate Republican Sen. John Vratil announced his retirement in response to the ordeal, claiming to have lost interest in the being part of the Senate and taking a shot at his fellow Republican Gov. Sam Brownback in the process. House Minority Leader Paul Davis (D) expressed similar concerns, telling ThinkProgress “the redistricting situation was caused by Governor’s Brownback desire to oust members of his own political party from the Kansas legislature. He is very intent on trying to drive out Republicans that don’t support his agenda – that’s really the root cause of why the legislature was not able to successfully complete the redistricting process.”

Yet, while state lawmakers no doubt deserve blame for being unable to complete a fairly basic legislative task, much of the blame for these events rests with the Supreme Court, which largely abdicated oversight over politically motivated gerrymanders in a case called Vieth v. Jubelirer. Thanks to this decision, partisan lawmakers now have no adult supervision when they set out to draw maps, and little real incentive to avoid using redistricting as a once-in-a-decade opportunity to consolidate their own power.

During the primaries, Mitt Romney declared, “I like Voter ID laws by the way… more of them,” but one of his top advisers once admitted that it’s an “undeniable fact” such laws can disenfranchise voters.

Michael Mukasey, a top Romney legal adviser, former federal judge and former Attorney General, warned about voter ID’s potential to block eligible citizens from voting. In a 2008 speech, Mukasey noted “the undeniable fact that voter ID laws can burden some citizens’ right to vote” before threatening to use the Voting Rights Act to block state measures that “are used improperly to deny the right to vote,” a move current Attorney General Eric Holder has used in South Carolina and Texas.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the undeniable fact that voter ID laws can burden some citizens’ right to vote. It is important for states to implement and administer such laws in a way that minimizes that possibility. And it is important for the Department to do its part to guard against that possibility. We will not hesitate to use the tools available to us — including the Voting Rights Act — if these laws, important though they may be, are used improperly to deny the right to vote.

Mukasey served as Attorney General in the Bush Administration from 2007 to 2009 and is currently serving as a co-chair of Romney’s Law Enforcement Advisory Group. When he joined the campaign, Romney declared that he is “honored to have” Mukasey’s “support and advice.”

Unfortunately, Romney doesn’t appear to be heeding Mukasey’s advice when it comes to potential voter disenfranchisement.

HT: Ari Berman.

One day before the fourth anniversary of Boumediene v. Bush, which held that detainees being held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their confinement in federal court, the Supreme Court denied review of seven detainee cases that were pending before the court. The decision not to review any of the cases essentially makes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the last stop for detainees seeking habeas corpus. While many detainees won their habeas corpus cases at the trial court level, no detainees have been released from Guantanamo due to these decisions because the DC Circuit has a perfect record of reversing these decisions.

Although today’s action does not have any precedential force, it undercuts the extent to which detainees can seriously challenge their detention by leaving the D.C. Circuit’s pro-detention decisions in place:

• Al-Bihani v. Obama: The D.C. Court of Appeals decided that the Authorization for Use of Military Force is not limited by international laws of war and that the government merely needs to show that an individual “substantially supported” enemy forces in order to indefinitely detain them. According to the court, staying at a Taliban-affiliated guesthouse and working as a cook for the 55th Arab Brigade, which included Al Qaeda members, amounts to substantial support.
• Uthman v. Obama: At the district court level, Uthman’s petition for Habeas Corpus was granted, but the decision was overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The court decided that going to a school that al Qaeda had successfully recruited from and traveling in Tora Bora with al Qaeda members is sufficient to prove that a detainee was “a part of al Qaeda.”
• Almerfedi v. Obama: Almerfedi’s habeas corpus petition was also granted at the district court level. However, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided that the evidence presented by the government was sufficient to prove that Almerfedi was “a part of al Qaeda,” and overturned the decision. The government’s evidence was based the amount of money Almerfedi was carrying, $2000, and on statements made by another detainee that Almerfedi had stayed at an al Qaeda questhouse and that Hussain al-Adeni, who the government contends is the same person as Almerfedi, was an al Qaeda facilitator.
• Al-Madhwani v. Obama: Al-Madhwani was denied habeas corpus and determined to be “a part of al Qaeda” based on his testimony that when he traveled to Afganistan from Yemen, his passport was confiscated and he was sent to a military training facility.
• Al Alwi v. Obama: Al Alwi was also denied habeas corpus by the D.C. Court of Appeals based on the government’s contention that he traveled with and was trained by al Qaeda operatives. The court also decided that out-of-court statements made by a detainee do not have to be corroborated to be used as evidence in a habeas proceeding, and that the court can determine whether the statements are reliable.
• Latif v. Obama: Latif’s habeas corpus petition was also granted at a lower level, only to have it reversed by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The majority of the government’s evidence against Latif was based on a heavily redacted report that Latif claimed did not accurately represent his statements. The court held that the evidence presented by the government must be afforded a presumption of regularity, rejecting Latif’s arguments that the presumption should not be applied to an interrogation report that is subject to interpretation and transcription errors, compiled in a stressful and chaotic situtation, and heavily redacted
• Al Kandari v. Obama: The D.C. Court of Appeals decided that hearsay evidence was admissible in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Taken together, these decisions seriously cripple the ability of detainees to challenge their detention in federal court. The effect of presuming the government’s evidence to be reliable, allowing hearsay evidence, and requiring only that the government prove that a detainee provided “substantial support” to al Qaeda, is a method of review that strongly favors the government in detainee cases. Indeed, one D.C. Circuit judge protested that the result of the detainee cases is that there is very little left of the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Boumediene.

–Alex Brown

The YG Network, a secret-money outside political group run by former aides to House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), launched a new radio ad campaign today designed to reward Republican Members of Congress who back Cantor and the party’s leadership on key votes. Politico explains:

The YG Network is seeking to “leverage the floor schedule and votes scheduled by Cantor to help members at home,” an aide said. If a member — specifically, an ally of Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — votes for a leadership priority, they can look forward to an ad in their district.

The YG Network hopes the effort becomes “another tool in the belt to call attention to members and help encourage cohesion on difficult-to-whip votes,” the aide said. Leadership is not permitted to offer anything in exchange for a vote.

Listen to an ad on behalf of Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO):

Essentially, YG Network is saying that it will reward members who vote as they wish with “independent” expenditures on their behalf. Because the 501(c)(4) tax-exempt group is technically independent of Cantor, it can provide a significant carrot that the Republican Leader cannot offer himself.

While likely legal, Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center told ThinkProgress “many would characterize the way Washington politics has long worked as ‘legalized bribery.’” He observed that this is exactly what the 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court made possible by its Citizens United ruling:

When you allow unlimited special interest money in politics, this type of behavior should be expected. Criticism is fair, but never the less, its predictable. This is the world that this Supreme Court majority has given us with the Citizens United decision. It’s troubling, but entirely predictable.

Even more troubling is the likelihood of conversations behind closed doors — threats of huge corporate-funded independent spending campaigns made [for those who don't act in the corporation's interest on a given piece of legislation]. And much of it, we will never hear about.

Ryan warns that he expects lobbyists will meet with legislators and say, “you saw what we did to so-and-so,” referring to a lawmaker who did not behave in the interest of the lobbyist’s client. “Do you want that to happen to you?” Ryan asked.

In the past two years, conservative state lawmakers have pushed various unconstitutional policies requiring state employees, welfare beneficiaries and other groups to submit to random drug testing. These programs are fairly consistently struck down by courts as unconstitutional. On Friday, a federal government program subjecting its employees to similar drug testing suffered a similar fate:

A federal appeals court on Friday declared a random drug testing program for government workers at 28 U.S. Forest Service Job Corps centers unconstitutional.

The centers are home for at-risk youths from ages 16 to 24 from troubled environments. Residents are housed in remote rural locations and trained in various vocations.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the small number of drug use incidents among a workforce of several thousand over many years does not establish a serious problem, much less an immediate crisis necessitating expansion of a random drug testing policy.

It’s worth noting that this recent decision presented a significantly more difficult case than the random drug testing pushed by conservative governors like Rick Scott (R-FL) or Mitch Daniels (R-IN). The Supreme Court does allow random drug testing of government employees in “safety-sensitive” jobs where “even a momentary lapse of attention [could] have disastrous consequences.” The Feds argued, unsuccessfully, that adults tasked with modeling drug free behavior for at-risk youth in remote locations present similar concerns “because a drug using employee is necessarily impaired in his or her ability to function in emergencies.”

Although this argument did not carry the day, it is a much stronger argument than the one justifying random testing of all government employees or of people receiving state assistance — where similar safety concerns generally do not exist. Indeed, Rick Scott’s program targeting welfare beneficiaries is largely a solution in search of a problem. Only two percent of these beneficiaries failed their test.