A video that accompanies the report notes that children as young as 13 are subject to this treatment, with 22 hours or more a day spent in total physical and social isolation, “usually in a small cell with a solid steel door.” According to the report:

Sometimes there is a window allowing natural light to enter or a view of the world outside cell walls. Sometimes it is possible to communicate by yelling to other inmates, with voices distorted, reverberating against concrete and metal. Occasionally, they get a book or bible, and if they are lucky, study materials. But inside this cramped space, few contours distinguish one hour, one day, week, or one month, from the next.

This bare social and physical existence makes many young people feel doomed and abandoned, or in some cases, suicidal, and can lead to serious physical and emotional consequences. Adolescents in solitary confinement describe cutting themselves with staples or razors, hallucinations, losing control of themselves, or losing touch with reality while isolated. They talk about only being allowed to exercise in small metal cages, alone, a few times a week; about being prevented from going to school or participating in any activity that promotes growth or change. Some say the hardest part is not being able to hug their mother or father.

Solitary confinement is considered cruel when applied even to adult prisoners. But it can have particular long-term impacts on youth, who have an even more difficult time recovering from this traumatic experience during development.

The youths at issue in this report were convicted as adults and placed in adult jails where conventional solitary confinement is practiced, although some media reports suggest that juvenile facilities also have forms of solitary isolation. The placement of juveniles in adult facilities is a recent phenomenon that has grown over the last 30 years, and in these facilities, they are too often subject to treatment like any other adult, without regard to their vulnerability, particular needs, and heightened potential for rehabilitation if their age is taken into account.

While many of the juveniles subject to this punishment were accused or convicted of violent crimes like murder, others were convicted of non-violent offenses like burglary or drug possession. Sometimes they are placed in isolation as punishment; other times it is ostensibly for their own protection from the adults with which they are sharing cells, or as a purported form of treatment for mental health issues. Below are quotes from some of the more than 125 youths interviewed:

“In seg[regation] you either implode or explode; you lose touch with reality, hear voices, hallucinate and think for hours about killing yourself, others or both. The anger and hurt gets so intense that you suspect everyone and trust no one and when someone does something nice for you, you don’t understand it.” – “Douglas C.” Colorado, April 2012.

“I just felt I wanted to die, like there was no way out – I was stressed out. I hung up the first day. I took a sheet and tied it to my light and they came around … The officer when she was doing rounds found me. She was banging on the window – ‘Are you alive? Are you alive?’ I could hear her but I felt like I was going to die. I couldn’t breathe.” – “Luz M.,” New York, April 2012

“Me? I cut myself. I started doing it because it is the only release of my pain. I’d see the blood and I’d be happy … I did it with staples, not razors. … I wanted [the staff] to talk to me. I wanted them to understand what was going on with me.” – “Alyssa E.,” Florida, April 2012.

“If I would describe isolation to another person I would tell them it’s bad. … They say it’s to protect us but I think it puts us in more danger… [H]ow could we be charged as men but be separated from men. It makes no sense. If that’s the case, keep our cases at juvenile if they want to protect us.” – “Charles O.,” Pennsylvania, April 2012.

Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court again recognized that children are fundamentally different from adults and must be treated differently. As ACLU/Human Rights Watch fellow Ian Kysel explains, juveniles should not be in adult facilities to begin with. But if they are there, it’s hard to justify widespread use of solitary confinement.

CO Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R)

Denver Westword reports that Gessler’s office claims it has identified hundreds of non-citizens who are or were registered voters. But far fewer of those people ever actually voted:

Gessler’s office says that of 141 registered voters who aren’t citizens according to a federal database, 35 of them have voted in past elections — though some critics dispute how accurate and up-to-date that data might be. Still, of the fourteen voters who were recently removed as a result of that federal check, none actually have vote history, meaning there is no overlap with the 35 voters.

While clearly those 35 voters should not have voted if they were indeed non-citizens, this is not a significant percentage of the Colorado voting population. Indeed out of the 2,401,462 total votes cast in the state in the presidential election, even if all 35 illegally voted in that election, they would have accounted for less than 0.0015 percent of the vote.

Like Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) failed purge effort in Florida, Gessler spent a lot of time, money, and resources to find only a handful of potentially ineligible voters. And while his office focused on this, technical glitches with their online voter registration system caused 779 Coloradans voter registrations to be lost.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court decision striking down an Arizona law making it more difficult to register to vote, an announcement that was someone surprising because the justices recently denied an attempt to stay the decision blocking the Arizona law. This decision, however, is only the first of at least three major cases the justices are likely to hear this term which could turn the 2014 election into even more of a free-for-all for big money donors and vote suppressing lawmakers than the 2012 election:

• Voter Registration Roadblocks: The Arizona lawsuit concerns a ballot initiative requiring voter registrars to “reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” A federal appeals court struck down the law on the grounds that it conflicts with federal voter registration law. The case does present a genuinely interesting question of whether state elections law is more likely to be preempted by federal law than other state laws, so it is possible the the Supreme Court will simply resolve that question without upholding the Arizona ballot initiative. One thing is clear about this Arizona law, however, and that is that it raises unnecessary barriers to voter registration without addressing any real problem. Both Florida and Colorado initiated voter purges this year seeking out non-citizen voters, and they turned up virtually no non-citizens who vote.
• More Election Buying: Currently, federal law caps an individual’s contributions to candidates, political party committees and similar organizations at $117,000 every two years. A lawsuit brought by the Republican Party seeks to eliminate this cap, and it is almost certain to be heard by the Supreme Court. If the justices strike down this cap, it will move the country a significant step closer to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s preferred regime, where Wall Street billionaires can write unlimited checks directly to his campaign.
• Gutting The Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act, which forbids laws that disproportionately prevent racial minorities from voting, currently requires certain states to “pre-clear” any new voter laws with a federal court or the Department of Justice before those laws may take effect. For this reason, it has prevented some of the worst recent attempts to limit the franchise from taking effect, including some states’ voter ID laws. The Court is widely expected to hear a challenge to this part of the Voting Rights Act, however, and appears more likely than not to strike it down.

Mitt Romney has wavered between the extreme anti-immigrant positions he staked out during the GOP primary and moderating his views on immigration to appeal to Latino voters in the general election.

For instance, the GOP presidential candidate recently said he would not take away deportation deferrals that DREAM Act-eligible young adults have received under President Obama’s deferred action policy, but confirmed that he would end the temporary work permits if elected president. The tone is a stark contrast from the Romney who attacked rival Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) for supporting in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants in Texas, calling it a “magnet for illegal immigration,” or argued that immigrants should “self deport.”

But at least one Latino leader isn’t buying Romney’s suddenly centrist position. Ahead of tonight’s debate in New York — where undocumented immigrants are allowed to pay in-state tuition at state universities — state Sen. Adriano Espaillat (D) is calling out Romney for his harmful, far-right immigration stances:

“Mitt Romney has committed to the most extreme, xenophobic positions on immigration, including the promise that he will veto the Dream Act,” Mr. Espaillat said in a statement to explain his protest, which took place in front of Hofstra University where tomorrow’s debate will be held. ”When he comes to New York…Mitt Romney should explain his hypocrisy on immigration and why he’s used immigrants as a piñata to appeal to extremists in his party.

Last spring, Espaillat said Romney had become twisted into a “xenophobic pretzel.”

About 1.7 million undocumented immigrants could benefit from Obama’s deportation deferrals that Romney would stop. And despite the GOP presidential candidate’s promise to veto the DREAM Act, it could add $329 billion to the U.S. economy.