American Forum Op-Ed

Friday, November 21, 2008

What the Unmarried Women’s Vote Means

Posted by American Forum at 10:38 AM

By Page S. Gardner

More than a week after an historic election, political analysts still are sifting through the results, trying to figure out how different segments of society voted, why they cast their ballots as they did, and what their political preferences and patterns of participation mean for the future.

But three lessons are inescapably clear: The electorate that changed America reflects a changing America -- younger, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less likely to be married. The largest demographic group within this new American electorate -- unmarried women -- played a pivotal role in electing Barack Obama as president, building a bigger margin for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and delivering the largest Democratic margins in national politics since 1964. And, for progressives from the White House to both houses of Congress, there is no more urgent challenge than addressing the needs of unmarried women -- especially for economic security -- and ensuring that they continue to participate in the political process.

While they usually tend to register and vote less than married people, unmarried women increased their participation this year. Indeed, 20 percent of unmarried women voters cast ballots in their first presidential election this year, compared to 11 percent of all voters. Similarly, unmarried women were more likely than other voters to have recently registered to vote, with 41 percent of these women having registered during the last four years.

In addition to voting in numbers reflecting their presence in the population -- 53 million in all and 26 percent of voting-age adults -- unmarried women delivered decisive margins for Obama for president and Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, Senate, and public offices at almost every level of government. These women favored Obama over John McCain by a stunning 70-to-29 percent margin, while preferring Democratic candidates for the U.S. House by 63-to-31 percent and for the Senate. In a dramatic indication of how heavily unmarried women supported progressive candidates, Obama’s overwhelming 70 percent share of unmarried women’s votes was even greater than his 66 percent showing among young voters and his 67 percent of Latino voters.

Unmarried women’s crucial role in electing Obama is underscored by the “marriage gap” between their political preferences and those of married women. While unmarried women supported Obama by 41 percentage points, married women favored McCain by 50-to-47 percent for a marriage gap of 44 points. By way of comparison, the gender gap between the preferences of women and men was surprisingly static at 12 percent.

Even more remarkably, in spite of the fact that they overwhelmingly believe that the nation has been “on the wrong track,” unmarried women cast their votes in a spirit of hope and purpose, not anger and despair. Seventy-five percent of unmarried women agreed that “this election made me believe average people can help change the country.” For these women, change means addressing the most important challenge in their lives -- pervasive economic insecurity.

In many ways, these single, separated, divorced and widowed women really are “women on their own.” In an unstable economy, more than 40 percent have household incomes of $30,000 or less. In a discriminatory workplace, these women earn 56 cents for every dollar that a married man makes. In the midst of the healthcare crisis, these women are less likely than married people to have health coverage. In a society where it’s difficult to balance work and family, more than 10 million are single moms with children at home. And, when they are too old to work, about 25 percent rely on Social Security as their only source of income.

Now, these women are on their own in a housing crisis, a financial crisis, and a deepening recession. They are more vulnerable than married people to foreclosures, layoffs and bankruptcies.

For President-elect Obama and the newly strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, the message of their mandate from unmarried women is clear: Address the issues of creating good-paying jobs, providing equal pay, expanding healthcare coverage, and securing retirement income that motivated these “women on their own” to register and vote in record numbers. For progressives generally, the lesson is even more emphatic: Our top priority must be to keep these women involved in the political process so that a changing electorate can continue to change America.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner is president of Women’s Voices, Women Vote, a national nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase unmarried women’s participation in the political process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 11/08

Thursday, November 20, 2008

It’s Time to Look at the Way We Vote

Posted by American Forum at 2:55 PM

ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Linda Brown

More than 112,000 voters in Maricopa County were forced to cast provisional ballots on Election Day. That is 16 percent of those that went to the polls, well more than the margin of victory for several races and ballot measures. We still don’t know how many of those were counted.

Was the turnout 72 percent, or was it higher? We have no way of knowing for sure. A good number of registered voters went to the polls and left without voting at all.

Arizona has been labeled by Mother Jones magazine as one of the worst places to vote in America. Polling places frequently move. It is estimated that nearly 40 percent of polling places in Maricopa County have shifted locations during each of the last two major election cycles.

We have also instituted an ID requirement that confuses poll workers and voters alike. We place tremendous demands on the temporary workers that run our polling places, asking them to be the linchpins in our democracy, but barely giving them what they need to succeed. They receive two hours of training on every aspect of running a polling place, including setting up complicated equipment and making sure it runs properly; understanding and complying with federal, state and local laws; understanding what ID is needed for a regular ballot, when voters must cast a regular provisional ballot, when voters should be given a conditional provisional ballot, and how to properly process each ballot type.

Arizona needs to take steps to make the voting process easier for everyone. It’s time to consider appropriating the best practices from other jurisdictions around the country to avert problems that continue to disenfranchise voters here in Arizona.

Take the ever-shifting polling places. Every two years Arizona’s elections officials scramble to find schools, churches, or other private facilities that are willing to serve as polling places. Many Arizonans moved here from states where polling places never change—they are always located at neighborhood schools. Arizona voters are expected to check elections department mailings before every election to confirm where they should vote. But it’s easy to miss the small type ink-jetted onto the one sample ballot that all voters in a household must share. It’s also easy to miss the polling place notification card, which doesn’t look all that different from junk mail. Even voter registration cards do not include the names and addresses of voters' polling places.

In Arizona, votes cast at the wrong polling places do not count. Other jurisdictions count ballots cast at the wrong precincts, taking care not to count votes for offices outside of the voters’ precincts.

If Arizona voters reach their correct polling places, poll workers sometimes have difficulty finding their names in the voter rolls. Or poll workers may mistakenly send voters to get more ID when they have sufficient ID to vote a regular ballot or a regular provisional ballot. One county in Washington doubled the length of poll worker training, increased poll worker pay, and required them to pass a certification test. They saw poll worker mistakes plummet.

Political parties, candidates and grassroots groups spend a considerable amount of time and money to get voters to the polls. They know well that every vote is precious. Together we should take a look at how we run elections in Arizona. With sensible changes and adequate funding we can ensure that every citizen that makes the effort to vote is successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown is executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation, a group that leads efforts for electoral justice and increased civic participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Arizona Editorial Forum. The Forum is an educational organization that provides the media with the views of state experts on major public issues.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Remembering The War To End All Wars

Posted by American Forum at 1:28 PM

By Mike Ferner

At the stroke of the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 the roaring guns fell silent. Our holiday that marks the end of “The Great War” is now called Veterans Day, yet it’s worth taking a moment to recollect when it was called Armistice Day and meant more than midnight madness sales at department stores.

Thirty million soldiers were killed or wounded and another 7 million were taken captive in that war. Never before had people witnessed such industrialized slaughter. Congress responded to a universal hope among Americans that such a war would never happen again by passing a resolution calling for “exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding…inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.” Later, Congress added that November 11 was to be “a day dedicated to the cause of world peace.”

While it is a good thing to honor the country’s military service veterans, the original intent of Armistice Day -- promoting peace -- has gotten lost over the years. One veterans’ organization is trying to recreate that original intent. Its name, appropriately enough, is Veterans For Peace.

Of the many veterans’ organizations in the U.S., Veterans For Peace (VFP) exists specifically to carry out the original purpose of Armistice Day. With 120 chapters across the country, the St. Louis-based organization has as its chief goal “to abolish war as an instrument of national policy.”

Founded in 1985 at the height of the Reagan administration’s support for the "contras" in Nicaragua and death squads elsewhere in Central America, VFP includes men and women veterans of all eras and wars -- cold or hot -- from World War II through the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the things of which the organization is most proud is helping form Iraq Veterans Against the War in the summer of 2004, but Elliott Adams, VFP’s president and a former paratrooper who served in Vietnam, will quickly tell you they are not interested in repeating that accomplishment. “I’ll be happy if this generation of veterans is the last,” he says.

Having seen the reality of war and understanding its true cost, VFP members will tell you that war is not the answer. However, coming to that conclusion is as much a spiritual journey as a political one, they acknowledge, because making peace in your heart can sometimes be as difficult as making peace in the world.

One of the simple truths on which Veterans For Peace is founded states, “Our collective experience tells us wars are easy to start and hard to stop.” With a weary nod of the head the doughboys of WWI, shivering in the soggy, rotten trenches of Europe in November 1918, would surely have agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferner is a National Board Member of Veterans For Peace and author of Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 11/08

Friday, October 24, 2008

One Consequence of Question One

Posted by American Forum at 10:34 AM

MASSACHUSETTS FORUM

By Leo V. Sarkissian

Meet Caitlin Hadley. She is proof of how well individuals with Down syndrome and other special needs succeed when given the chance. She's also just one example of why we should not eliminate income taxes through Question One as doing so would severely hurt services to children and adults with disabilities and others.

Caitlin was hired as an assembler at Milton Roy in Acton. She performed well there with an outstanding record. When a quality control position became available, Caitlin was a natural fit. After a short time on the job, she was promoted to quality control specialist. In this role, she checks pump subassemblies for accuracy. But Caitlin doesn't stop at her job description. She is extremely helpful and occasionally mentors substitute assemblers who are learning the job.

The Minuteman Arc assisted Caitlin in making the transition to her new role. This was made possible through our tax dollars. A staff person helped her succeed by reviewing the job with her and coaching her initially so she would develop the skills and confidence. The coach also assisted her in establishing a daily routine including breaks, lunch and transportation.

Now Caitlin is a taxpayer. This is no accident. It's something that her parents wanted for her and that she has worked for. She got her diploma from Arlington High. She was able to get a good education through a regional school collaborative which receives public dollars through cities and towns. If she was born a decade earlier, she would have experienced a different world and perhaps she would not be working at Milton Roy.

Funding for special education did not begin until the middle 1970s, and there were few employment programs until the 1980s. Past investment through tax dollars has made a difference for Caitlin and if we increase that investment, it will make a difference for future generations. Like the rest of us, Caitlin is more than just an employee. She has a pretty full life and schedule. She enjoys performing in a chorus, bowling, going out to eat and stays active with friends.

Caitlin is now making a transition from her parents' home to a group home. At her new home she will receive support services. Someone will help her learn how to live on her own and teach her things like money management, cooking and maintaining a routine. It is a step that will take hard work on Caitlin's part and support from her parents. They are up to the task.

Recently, Massachusetts has struggled to find opportunities for individuals such as Caitlin. In the past six years, we have seen a 200-student increase in the number of graduates with disabilities who need some type of adult services. But we haven't been able to increase the funding to meet that rise in need. As a result there are fewer employment opportunities, and fewer taxpayers. And now Question One threatens to slash that funding further.

If Question One passes, Caitlin and thousands like her may not get the supports they need. Individuals with disabilities want to work and want to participate in their communities. Individuals and their families make the effort on a daily basis. But to ensure individuals have the opportunities to succeed, we need the investment in services. It's an investment that has paid off in taxpayers and full lives in our communities. That is why we must say no to Question One.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarkissian is executive director of The Arc of Massachusetts, whose mission is to enhance the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Massachusetts Forum. 10/08 Letters should be sent to the Forum, P.O. Box 121066, Lafayette Station, Boston, MA 02112

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A Rescue Package for Working Women

Posted by American Forum at 11:56 AM

By Ellen Bravo

Wall Street tycoons behave irresponsibly, bring the country to financial brink, hold out their hands for an eleven-figure bailout -- and lobbyists applaud that as a rescue.

Women achieve daily miracles fulfilling responsibilities to their employers and their families, ask for modest protections so they won’t be fired for having a sick kid -- and lobbyists denounce that as mandates.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Not so long ago, we were surrounded by ashtrays and smokers wherever we worked, ate or traveled. Babies sat on our laps in the car. Most paints were lead-based.

In each case, public health experts alerted us to the dangers. Values shifted; what once seemed normal no longer met the test of public acceptability. Groups of concerned citizens petitioned government representatives to do their job and set new standards.

Action on these items was nothing unusual. From child labor to Jim Crow to excluding those with a disability, our government has stepped in to end long-time practices. Each time they did so because popular sentiment said, “Enough.”

Once again, there is a need for the government to protect its citizens. This time it’s to make sure that workers are not penalized for being good parents.

We have a giant disconnect between what family members need and what the workplace provides.

It flies in the face of our values, and hurts our families and businesses, when workers can’t afford to take time to care for a new baby or a seriously ill family member. And it jeopardizes us all when people are compelled to go to work and cook our food or care for our children when they themselves are sick.

Each time we try to advance, opponents rise up to tell us the sky will fall, business will flee. Consider this statement:

“[This bill] would create chaos in business never yet known to us… Let me make clear that I am not opposed to the [goals of reform]… What I do take exception to is any approach … which is utterly impractical and in operation would be much more destructive than constructive to the very purposes it is designed to serve.”

That’s Ohio Congressman Arthur Lamneck, arguing in 1937 against proposed rules outlawing child labor and establishing a minimum wage. More than 70 years later, these standards clearly aren’t what threaten the American economy. But lack of minimum standards really is harming American families.

I’ve been thinking a lot about parents I know of three lovely children. Let’s call them Scott and Kate. After Scott’s job was outsourced to Taiwan, the couple lost their home. Since then, Scott got another job. Recently, they learned their daughter has cancer. Both parents have family leave and understanding employers. The problem is the leave is unpaid. They don’t know how they can make ends meet with the double whammy of losing income while on leave and having to cough up the 20 percent health insurance co-pay.

There are many heartbreaking parts of this story. But what hit me the hardest was when Kate said, “I feel like I failed my family.”

Kate and Scott have done nothing but work hard and take good care of their children. That should be enough. The failure here is a government refusing to bring the workplace into sync with 21st century realities.

Providing incentives to employers who move jobs overseas rather than those who grow them here -- that’s the failure. Allowing health care providers and insurers to jack up prices without regard for the impact on workers and their families, or on employers struggling to keep their heads above water -- that’s the failure. Opposing legislation that would bar employers from firing a worker who needs to take a day off to care for a sick child or parent -- that’s the failure. So is blocking progress on bills that would provide income for workers during family leave. And even worse, telling workers these are personal problems they have to work out on their own -- that’s an outrage.

The current bailout of irresponsible financial actors makes one thing crystal clear: those who demand smaller government are quite happy to have government intervention in their own behalf.

It’s high time we demand government do its job: set and enforce rules that benefit not just the rich and powerful, but the vast majority of American workers and their families.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo is an author and activist who teaches women’s studies at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by American Forum.

What’s Wrong with the Civil Rights Initiative?

Posted by American Forum at 10:31 AM

By Margaret Martin Barry and Penny Berger

Make no mistake – the so-called “Civil Rights” Initiative currently on Nebraska’s ballot has only a negative connection to the Civil Rights Movement in our country.

The initiative is intended to put an end to what remains of affirmative action. Discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race and gender have made a mockery of our democratic ideals. Affirmative action has been the principle means of achieving the inclusion that was the goal of the Civil Rights Act.

Affirmative action as a tool to achieve equality is admittedly an imperfect instrument. It is also the only tool that has shown any capacity to address the issues of racism and gender discrimination across America.

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented progress toward the goals of our democracy, most people understood that the new law, by itself, could not achieve racial and gender equality. Specific steps were needed to change the habits and institutions of discrimination and exclusion. Affirmative action became an enforcement mechanism designed to give meaning to the Act. It required employers and educational institutions to act in ways that would ensure participation and acceptance of minorities and women.

However, through a series of recent decisions the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the reach of affirmative action. Currently, race or gender can only be one of a plurality of factors considered in meeting narrowly stated diversity goals. An acceptable diversity standard under current law cannot contain quotas or fixed goals.

Nonetheless, opponents of affirmative action claim it is merely a system of racial preferences. This is not only misleading, it’s an outright fabrication. Arguments in favor of anti-affirmative action initiatives should be recognized for what they are: calculated cynical misappropriations of the vocabulary of the Civil Rights Movement to end America’s commitment to remedy past and continuing prejudice and discrimination.

Affirmative action programs are the only proven, effective means of increasing opportunities for women and minorities. This “Civil Rights Initiative” undermines polices that are meant to promote inclusion of minorities and women. In California where a measure similar to the initiative was passed, a simple requirement that successful contractors demonstrate that they had not excluded minorities and women from the bidding process was struck down by the California Supreme Court; meanwhile, from 1996-2006, minority enrollment at the University of California at Berkeley fell by 65 percent.

Official race and gender “neutrality” has the same attraction as “gradualism.” It sounds fair because it is does not endorse racism or gender bias. All the same, it makes both forms of discrimination easier and more likely.

The logic of the initiative is seductive, but it is faulty. It rests its legitimacy on the fallacy that there is only one “right” person or “best qualified” applicant for a job, or a place in school, or on the team. The truth is that every person brings a combination of assets and liabilities, some of which cancel out others. In the past, the “ties” created by this reality were resolved by the historical affirmative action employed for most of human history: Is the applicant a member of my fraternity? Is he related to me or my friend or another member of my family? Do I play golf with his Dad?

The Civil Rights Act replaced the old affirmative action with a system intended to focus on increasing the participation of historically neglected or affirmatively excluded groups in the society, instead of those who are privileged by class, race or connection.

Nebraskans must not fall for anti-affirmative action propaganda. Instead, we must improve the tools used to achieve equality of opportunity and not work backwards to eliminate those that have proven their worth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry is co-president of the Society of American Law Schools and an associate professor at Columbus School of Law, at The Catholic University of America. Berger is a volunteer staff attorney for Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Amendment 48 Goes Too Far

Posted by American Forum at 12:45 PM

By Patricia Schroeder

My very first job after graduating from Harvard Law School was as a part-time lawyer for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver. I was working on cases related to expanding access to birth control to all couples regardless of their marital status. At the time the birth control pill was recently approved as safe, but it was not yet legal in all states for all women. The Supreme Court in 1965 established basic privacy rights to birth control, but only for women who could produce a marriage license.

Fast forward to 2008, 40 years later. In my worst nightmare, it never crossed my mind that voters in Colorado would be considering a constitutional amendment that could outlaw birth control pills. Emergency contraceptives could also be illegal under Proposition 48, a form of birth control that if taken up to 72 hours after intercourse can prevent an unwanted pregnancy, especially used by rape and incest victims.

If you need more reasons to Vote No on 48, chances are you or your own family will be affected if this crazy proposal passes. Like thousands of living women in Colorado in the 1970’s, I struggled with difficult pregnancies. I lost twins during my second pregnancy and almost died during childbirth. It was a painful time for my family, as it is for all families. I can only imagine how devastating it would have been if government officials had shown up on my doorstep, asking questions about what had happened, was it really a miscarriage? Yet, couples could face that kind of unthinkable government investigation if Colorado voters allow Amendment 48 to pass.

If you don’t believe it could happen, just take a look at the plain language of the Amendment. It would amend the Colorado constitution to grant, for the first time, inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law to fertilized eggs. Even the proponents of the Amendment admit they don’t know all the possible ramifications.

Would couples struggling to get pregnant be allowed to use in vitro fertilization, which depends on fertilizing more eggs than a woman can carry to term? Would common birth control methods, such as the Pill, IUDs, the Patch, and the Ring, be outlawed because they operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus?

Could child welfare agencies be called to investigate abuse of a fertilized egg? Would a fertilized egg have standing to sue a for getting chemotherapy for cancer because it might be harmed? Amendment 48 would open more than 20,000 statutes and regulations to re-interpretation by the courts and lawyers. Almost every area of the law would be affected, including criminal law, family law, trusts and estates, elder law, tort law, juvenile law, health law, and business law.

In this presidential election year, Coloradans will decide one of the most competitive senate races in the country, several strongly contested congressional races, and as many as a dozen statewide ballot initiatives. There are a large number of questions on the ballot this fall, and many of the issues are complicated. But it doesn’t take a constitutional scholar, a medical ethicist or a genius to see that Amendment 48 is ridiculous. Coloradans have rejected these extreme positions before and must do so again.

Amendment 48 is not a homegrown initiative. National groups such as The American Life League, Lifeguard, and the Thomas More Law Center are carrying out a multi-state strategy with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. In addition to Colorado, they tried to get similar amendments on the ballot in Georgia, Montana, and Oregon, but failed. These outside groups are hoping, in Colorado, that the Amendment will sneak through the clutter of a crowed ballot. They are counting on you to be distracted and not to focus on the full implications of Amendment 48.

Well, they are forgetting that Coloradans are independent thinkers. Coloradans believe that they and their neighbors should have the ability to plan when they want to start a family, decide when they are ready to become parents, and make other important life decisions. By establishing constitutional rights from the moment of fertilization, Amendment 48 would eliminate a woman’s right to make personal, private decisions about her own health care, in consultation with her doctor and her family.

Years ago, when I was asked how I could be both a mother and a Congresswoman, I replied, “I have a brain and a uterus and I use both.” On November 4, I urge Coloradans to use their brains and protect women’s uteruses. Vote no on Amendment 48.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schroeder represented Colorado’s First Congressional District from 1973 to 1996.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean Energy Initiative Works for Missouri

Posted by American Forum at 12:25 PM

MISSOURI FORUM

By Erin Noble

This election Missouri voters will have the opportunity to secure clean, renewable energy and more energy independence for our state. Backed by the names of 163,000 Missourians, a statewide Clean Energy Initiative has been certified by the Secretary of State and will appear on the November ballot as Proposition C.

The initiative requires the investor-owned utilities Ameren, Kansas City Power & Light, Aquila, and Empire to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021. The initiative defines renewable energy as wind, solar, biomass (not to be confused with corn ethanol) and small hydropower.

A vast majority of Missourians support the Clean Energy Initiative because Proposition C works for our economy, for Missouri schools, for public health and for the environment, while protecting consumers from high-energy costs. Kansas City Power & Light also announced its support earlier this year, joining a diverse coalition of labor, public health, environmental and faith-based organizations that endorse Proposition C, including the United Steelworkers, Restoring Eden - Christians for Environmental Stewardship, and Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Twenty-six states have already adopted similar clean energy policies and are currently benefiting from cleaner, cheaper electricity created through renewable energy projects. Their success has paved the way for Missouri’s own Clean Energy Initiative.

With Missouri’s abundant renewable resources and strength in the technology sector, our state is poised to become a national leader in clean energy. That means developing the technology behind clean energy, building the infrastructure to support it, manufacturing the components to drive it, and providing the workforce to run it -- all jobs that will revitalize Missouri’s economy.

This opportunity comes as good news as total employment in the manufacturing industry in Missouri declines. Investment in clean energy connects our industrial base to a sustainable future and creates Missouri manufacturing jobs. Proposition C will further stimulate our state’s economy by adding tax revenue locally as well as statewide. As already evidenced by the wind farms built in Missouri in the past few years, clean energy developments have a direct, positive impact on local school districts. Last September, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote about the success of a local wind farm on in Gentry County. According to the article, “The 9,000-acre Bluegrass Ridge Farm is slated to pay more than $500,000 in property taxes next year to Gentry County, the largest share of which will go to the King City School District.”

Eighty-two percent of Missouri’s electricity currently comes from polluting coal-fired power plants. Particulate matter from coal power plants is linked to asthma and lung disease. Coal plants also emit mercury a toxic metal that causes developmental brain defects in children. In fact, women and children are warned to avoid eating fish from many Missouri waters due to mercury contamination. Under Proposition C, clean energy derived from wind and solar power will begin to replace fossil fuels for a cleaner, healthier future for Missouri families and the environment.

Because of the increasing costs of fossil fuels and the likely imposition of constraints on greenhouse gas emissions, Proposition C would produce net savings to electricity customers over time as clean energy begins to replace coal. As an added guarantee, the Clean Energy Initiative includes an ongoing rate cap that provides the best protection for consumers than any other state. The bottom line: Proposition C will protect ratepayers from impending spikes in the costs of fossil fuels, saving Missouri consumers a cumulative total of $331 million over the next 20 years.

In November, Missourians will have the opportunity to choose clean, renewable energy and take a critical first step towards a secure energy future. Proposition C, the Clean Energy Initiative, represents a true win-win situation for all Missourians as we lessen our dependence on out-of-state coal and gain critical new jobs, new businesses and new revenues for Missouri.

It’s time for Missouri to join the 26 states that have already enacted a Renewable Energy Standard and are reaping the benefits of energy independence and economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noble is Energy Policy and Outreach Coordinator for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 10/08

Civil Rights Initiative Does Not Advance Civil Rights

Posted by American Forum at 10:29 AM

By Angela Onwuachi-Willig

For years, affirmative action opponents have pointed to stigma as a reason for dismantling the policy. They have argued that affirmative action engenders feelings of inferiority and dependency in racial minorities and unfairly burdens racial minorities with others’ doubts in their abilities.

Do not believe the hype. The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, which would end affirmative action in the state, would cause a startling lack of diversity in Nebraska’s universities. In the summer and fall of 2007, I, along with Professor Emily Houh of the University of Cincinnati College of Law and Professor Mary Campbell of University of Iowa Sociology, explored the relationship between stigma and law school affirmative action admissions policies by conducting a survey of both white students and students of color at seven, high-ranking public law schools in United States.

Four of these schools—the University of Cincinnati, the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan, and the University of Virginia—employed race-based affirmative action when our subject class—the Class of 2009—was admitted, while the remaining three—UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and the University of Washington—did not use such programs. In conducting our study, we generated new descriptive evidence that counters the stigma arguments that are commonly advanced against affirmative action.

Overall, our study revealed that there was no causal connection between racial stigma and affirmative action at the seven surveyed schools. Specifically, our survey results showed that there was minimal, if any, internal stigma (feelings of dependency or inadequacy) felt by minority students at the surveyed schools, regardless of whether their schools practiced race-based affirmative action, and that there was no significant impact from external stigma (the burden of others’ doubts about one’s qualifications) felt by minority students at the surveyed schools. In fact, our survey results showed that there is overwhelming support across the entire sample for the idea that people should learn to interact with others from diverse backgrounds, and this support did not vary by school type. Also, the survey results revealed strong support among the respondents for the idea that diversity enhances education.

Most importantly, surveyed students who attended schools without affirmative action repeatedly expressed in their comments what they saw as a deficiency in their education as a result of the lack of racial diversity in their schools. For instance, one student at a non-affirmative action school declared: “A diverse student body in education is so important…I have learned a lot from many of my classmates…from large cities. Some of these classmates are racial minorities, and I feel lucky to be able to learn from them the lessons I was unable to learn growing up in a rural, all-White area…I really wish there were more racial minorities in our school to make it a truly diverse experience.”

As these students have learned, stigma (and other anti-affirmative action) arguments are simply outdated and depend upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy and its goals. During the 1860s, similar arguments were made against remedial policies when opponents of the Freedmen’s Bureau argued that the establishment of the Bureau would only make recently freed Blacks “special favorites of the law.” These arguments failed back then (for obvious reason), and they should also fail today in promoting the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative.

During and before the 1860s, there was nothing more stigmatic than being counted as merely three-fifths of a person and living under the conditions of brutal and violent slavery and oppression. Today, where education reigns supreme, there can be nothing more stigmatic than not having a meaningful chance to obtain a degree or get a job, being the only person of color in a college classroom, or quite frankly (as comments from our survey demonstrate), attending classes where there are only a few minorities.

Affirmative action helps to combat racial disadvantage by equalizing opportunities in education and work. As our history shows us, affirmative action did not create racial stigma. Racial stigma created it, and affirmative action is needed to eliminate this racial stigma and create diversity in the state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onwuachi-Willig is professor of law and the Charles M. and Marion J. Kierscht scholar at the University of Iowa College of Law and a member of the board of governors of the Society of American Law Teachers—SALT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Stop Toxic Payday Lending Interest Rates

Posted by American Forum at 10:02 AM

OHIO FORUM

By Bill Faith

Ohio partisans have set aside their usual election-year differences and have joined together to urge a “yes’’ vote on Issue 5. Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, agrees with Republican legislative leaders on this one. The two major party contenders for Ohio attorney general are also in agreement.

Issue 5 asks voters to accept or reject Ohio’s new law that caps interest rates on payday loans at 28 percent annually, down from 391 percent APR allowed under the old law. Ohio lawmakers approved the 28 percent interest rate cap after a year-long legislative debate. Ohio legislators authorized payday lending in 1995. By 2007, Ohio had nearly 1,600 payday storefronts -- and payday lenders had more than 300,000 Ohio customers trapped in a cycle of debt, contributing to everything from a rise in demand for food pantries to an increase in home mortgage foreclosures.

While it’s easy for some to blame the victim, our legislators rightly concluded that the problem with payday loans is their flawed design. They are very easy to get but very hard to repay.

Payday lenders’ internal documents show they target “single-parent households with multiple children’’ who are “financially stressed’’ or people who are on fixed incomes. Ex-payday employees said they were routinely dispatched to Laundromats, low-income apartment complexes and senior citizen centers to round up customers.

Even the men and woman who serve our country have been among the lenders’ prime targets. After the Pentagon reported that the predatory practices of payday lenders were hurting military families and undermining morale, Congress stepped in and capped the annual interest rates for loans to military borrowers at 36 percent.

Payday lenders insist that Ohio’s new interest rate cap law will force them out of business and leave those who need quick cash no other options. They are wrong. Many credit unions offer short-term loans at just 17 percent interest, and more than two-thirds of Ohio’s existing payday lenders have applied for state licenses to offer different types of loans.

Ohio’s new law also calls for a non-public state database to track loans and ensure that lenders are complying with a provision that limits the number of loans a borrower can take out to four each year. It is this provision that is the subject of the lenders’ “Big Brother’’ TV ad.

This is the most insulting ad so far. The lenders did not object to the database when it was added to the legislation, nor did they attempt to include it in the portion of the law they now seek to overturn. If it is truly Orwellian, why not try and overturn it?

The answer is simple: For the lenders, this is not, and never has been, about customers. It’s about greed.

Throughout this campaign, the lenders have been willing to do anything, say anything, or pay anything to get their way.

Citizens who want to get something on the ballot must submit petitions with signatures from more than 240,000 registered voters – and those petitions must contain a summary that accurately and fairly explains the law they seek to overturn. Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers twice rejected the lenders’ summaries because they were not “fair and truthful.’’ So they sued her.

When I complained that petition circulators hired by lenders paid residents of a Butler County homeless shelter to sign petitions – a practice banned under Ohio law, they threatened to sue me.

Ohio can’t afford to let this industry win by deceiving voters and bullying critics.

As you prepare to vote, please ask yourself these questions:

Do you think 391 percent interest is too high? Are you annoyed when one special interest parachutes into our state and buys its way onto the ballot? Do our leaders have a right to rid the marketplace of a defective product that’s harmful to Ohio?

If you answered “yes’’ to even one of these questions, please join me in voting “yes” on Issue 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith is executive director of Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and treasurer for Vote Yes on 5 Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Ohio Forum. 10/08

Monday, October 20, 2008

Affirmative Action: The Numbers Don’t Lie

Posted by American Forum at 4:17 PM

COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Deirdre Bowen , J.D., Ph.D

On November 4, Coloradoans are being asked to vote on the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative which proposes, among other things, to ban affirmative action in college admissions. Make no mistake in thinking that this proposal supports equality. Passage of Amendment 46 would be a giant step backwards.

The campaign incorrectly asserts that passage of similar anti-affirmative action initiatives in California, Washington and Michigan did not end in the dire results that opponents of such bans predicted. Ask the under-represented minority students who attend schools in those states if they agree.

A recent national study I conducted of 335 high achieving under-represented minority students majoring in the hard sciences from 33 states shows grim results for those students attending schools in the aftermath of anti-affirmative action campaigns.

Asked whether they had encountered overt racism from other students, 43 percent of students who attended school in California, Washington, Michigan and Florida where affirmative action is banned said “Yes.” Less than half of that number (20 percent) of students who attend schools in states that allow for race-based admissions answered similarly. Yet, anti-affirmative action supporters argue that such policies are outdated because racial issues no longer exist in America. They also maintain that banning affirmative action will lead to equality for all students.

Why, then, are minority students, who have been admitted under the exact same criteria as other students, almost twice as likely to have their qualifications questioned (46 percent) compared to students who attend schools in states that use race based admissions (25 percent)? Anti-affirmative action proponents claim race-based admissions increases resentment. In fact, the opposite is true. Banning affirmative action leads to suspicion and doubt.

It gets worse. While 80 percent of under-represented minority students ranked their ability to succeed as high, regardless of the state in which they attend school, substantially more students in anti-affirmative action states felt pressure to succeed because of their race (74 percent) than students in affirmative action states (40 percent). In addition, 31 percent of students in anti-affirmative action states as opposed to 19 percent of students in affirmative action states felt faculty had lower expectations of them compared to non-minority students.

But those wishing to ban affirmative action want us to believe that the use of race in admissions leads minorities to think that they can’t succeed on their merits. Once again, the numbers don’t support such a claim. Minorities don’t question themselves when affirmative action is present. Instead, far more whites question minorities’ merits when affirmative action is not present.

In light of this, many more minority students in anti-affirmative action states think race based admissions are necessary for minorities to get ahead (55 percent), compared to those students attending schools in states that do allow race based admissions (32 percent). Recall, these are students who did not benefit from affirmative action policies when they applied to school. It is the treatment they endure during their four years in higher education that leads minority students to question whether they are operating on a level playing field.

It may come as no surprise then, that after enduring at least four years of increased hostility despite the absence of “racial preferences,” only 3 percent of students in states that banned affirmative action versus 21 percent of students in race-based admissions states agree with this statement: Faculty and students no longer think minorities can only get into college with the help of affirmative action.

Furthermore, 20 percent of students in affirmative action states versus 40 percent of students in anti-affirmative states plan to investigate graduate school admissions policies on race. Not because they believe they will need such policies to get admitted, but to find a less hostile learning environment.

In other words, minorities find more divisiveness on campuses without affirmative action than those with affirmative action, contrary to what supporters of Amendment 46 would like you to believe.

Affirmative action is working, but the job is not yet complete. When minority students are admitted to schools under the same meritocracy as white students, but are disproportionately encountering overt racism, disproportionately having their qualifications questioned, disproportionately feeling pressure to succeed because of their race, and disproportionately perceiving that faculty have lower expectations of them, race still matters.

We now know the effects of doing away with affirmative action. And know this: Amendment 46 is not about gaining civil rights. It is about dismantling them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowen is a professor at Seattle University School of Law. More on this study can be found in her forthcoming article Brilliant Disguise: An Empirical Analysis of the Colorblind Ideal in a Post-Affirmative Action World.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Don’t Blow Up the Mountain

Posted by American Forum at 4:13 PM

TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM

By Nell Levin

Imagine earth-shaking explosions, rock and debris flying through the air, and mountains blasted to smithereens by explosions 100 times more powerful than those that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. When the dust settles, the remaining land looks like another planet: no trees, no plants, no animals -- just a barren moonscape.

These are the shocking images of Jeff Barrie’s documentary, "Kilowatt Ours," that prompted me to write the song, “Don’t Blow Up the Mountain.”

Although I don’t live in Appalachia, I have a great love for the culture of the mountains. I play old-time music and love the rollicking beat of a group of fiddles and banjos playing together. But who will teach these age-old fiddle tunes to the next generation if communities are forced from the mountains and figuratively and literally torn apart?

Those of us who don’t live in Appalachia may be not be aware of the destruction caused by mountaintop removal. According to the nonprofit Appalachian Voices, 450 mountains have been destroyed to date. United Mountain Defense calls this ecocide: the killing of the environment. In fact, mountaintop removal has been dubbed “strip mining on steroids.”

In order to access the thin layers of valuable low-sulfur coal buried within the mountains of the Cumberland Plateau and southern Appalachia, coal companies must destroy the surrounding wildlife and habitats.

First, the forests are cut clear: trees are cut down and the topsoil is carted away along with vegetation, destroying wildlife habitat in the process. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 2,200 miles of Appalachian forest will be cleared by the year 2012.

Next, the coal companies blast off the mountaintop with explosives strong enough to crack the foundations of nearby houses. Oftentimes, the soil and rock left behind by these explosions are dumped into valleys below. In fact, coal companies have buried over 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams.

Millions of gallons of waste from coal processing, called sludge or slurry, are stored in open pools. One of the worst ecological disasters in eastern United States occurred on October 11, 2000, when a coal sludge impoundment in Kentucky’s Martin County broke through an underground mine and poured 306 million gallons down the Tug Fork River. The spill polluted hundreds of miles of waterways, contaminated the water supply for over 27,000 residents, and killed all aquatic life in Coldwater Fork and Wolf Creek.

In the final step of mountaintop removal, companies bring in heavy machinery to collect the coal. As tall as 20-story buildings and weighing up to 8 million pounds, these machines make it possible for the coal companies to hire fewer workers than used in traditional underground mining. Mountaintop removal extracts two and a half times as much coal per hour than underground mines. As a result, the coal industry lost about 10,000 jobs from 1990 to 1997.

The counties that host mountaintop removal are often the poorest in Appalachia: 37 percent of the residents of McDowell County, West Virginia, which produces the most coal in the state, live in poverty. This destructive method of coal mining worsens conditions by destroying land, resources and communities, pushing these mountain residents deeper into poverty.

"Mountaintop removal mining is a callous, irresponsible, egregious method of mining coal,” says Janice A. Nease, executive director of the Coal River Mountain Watch in West Virginia. “It creates false prosperity — enriching the few at a great cost to large areas of Appalachian people and the environment. Southern West Virginia has become an energy sacrifice zone in the nation's quest for cheap energy.”

It’s clear that mountaintop removal is ruining our majestic natural environment and causes harsh ecological damage to our rivers and streams. It’s time to put a stop to mountaintop removal once and for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levin is the coordinator of Tennessee Alliance for Progress. Kilowatt Ours will be shown at 8 pm on 10/22 on WKNO in Memphis and at 7 pm on 10/24 on WNPT in Nashville. A video for Levin’s song “Don’t Blow Up the Mountain,” directed by Ron Ault which includes footage of the Coldwater Fork and Wolf Creek destruction can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CddjKEVeos0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 10/08

Get the Facts and then Vote the Whole Ballot

Posted by American Forum at 4:07 PM

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Bryan Warner

Emerging from the stifling heat of Independence Hall, where the 1787 Constitutional Convention was held in a closed-door, shut-window session, a sweltering Benjamin Franklin was asked by a passing woman, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic -- if you can keep it.”

Franklin’s challenge speaks to the very foundation of our nation. If we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it requires that we the people put a bit of effort into choosing those who would represent us.

With a ballot that elects more statewide officials than most other states, North Carolina voters bear that responsibility more than many of their peers. For instance, this fall we will elect nine members of the Council of State, an executive-branch body made up of officials often appointed by the governor in other states, such as the commissioners of agriculture, labor and insurance.

Research by the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education has found that very few voters can name the members of the Council of State. Our polling has also shown that the No. 1 reason why registered North Carolina voters don’t cast a ballot is for lack of information on the candidates.

This year, North Carolina finds itself with a blockbuster election featuring tight races for the White House, governor’s mansion and U.S. Senate. Our newfound battleground status could drive a record number of voters to the polls, which is marvelous.

However, once their choice is made for the presidency, will voters recognize the names of those vying for the Council of State, N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals? If past elections are any guide, there could be many ballots left blank at the bottom and on back.

Franklin Roosevelt wisely observed, “Nobody will ever deprive the American people the right to vote except the American people themselves -- and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” Too often we squander our opportunity to vote for down-ballot races, even though state and local officials frequently affect our lives more profoundly than any decree from the Oval Office.

It may seem difficult for voters to learn about low-profile contests when a deafening buzz swarms the races for president, governor and senator. How can voters cut through the clutter and get the facts they need to cast a confident ballot for such contests as the Council of State, appellate courts and the state legislature?

One way that voters can prep for the polls is by visiting www.NCVoterGuide.org, an online voter guide produced in a partnership between UNC-TV and the N.C. Center for Voter Education, featuring candidate profiles and in-depth multimedia interviews with the nominees, along with voting facts and election coverage.

Voters can also watch a series of forums with candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals, along with the contenders for state auditor, commissioner of insurance and state superintendent of public instruction, airing statewide at 1 pm on Sunday, Oct. 26 on UNC-TV.

Our right to vote is a gift, sanctified by the blood of patriots from Lexington to Normandy, made sacred by the resolve of suffragists in Seneca Falls and the courage of marchers in Selma. This election, let’s show Mr. Franklin that we can keep this Republic that he and his fellow founders entrusted with us. Let’s do our homework on all the candidates and then vote the whole ballot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warner is the director of communications for the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the North Carolina Editorial Forum. 10/08

Don’t Ignore the Constitution During Election Season

Posted by American Forum at 3:54 PM

CALIFORINA FORUM

By Kathleen Taylor

America is in the midst of an election season, nearing an Election Day with what likely will be far-reaching consequences. Public interest is extraordinarily high, and candidates are debating many critical issues. Yet we have heard little or nothing about the Constitution and its Bill of Rights – the touchstone of our individual freedoms.

The most significant words of the U.S. Constitution may be the first three: “We the people.” Not “I the King,” not “I the Grand Religious Leader,” not even “I the elected President.” Our governing structure was created by the people, and ensuring that it works for the people is a continuing legal, moral, and political journey.

All through the centuries, arguments about the Constitution’s meaning have persisted: What does it mean that only Congress can declare war? (Article I) What constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”? (Article II) Is taking an oath of office with your hand on the Bible a “religious test”? (Article VI) Under which conditions, if any, should explicit sexual language not be considered free speech? (Amendment 1) Is a urine test for drugs an “unreasonable search”? (Amendment 4)

The remarkable characteristic of the Constitution is that it offers bedrock principles—checks and balances, procedures, freedoms, responsibilities, protections—while at the same time responding to the needs of contemporary society. It’s not an accident; the founders wrote it that way on purpose. The Constitution is our civic compass. It points the way for courts, legislatures, and executive administrations. It guides us in times of war and of peace, of boom and of bust, and of everything in-between. It keeps us on the path of fair play, equal treatment, liberty, and security.

Or it does if we’re constantly vigilant.
Over the last two centuries, through activism, dissent, and dedication, citizens have expanded the scope and depth of our liberty. And today, more Americans enjoy the “blessings of liberty” than at any time in history.

Yet, in recent years, our federal government has grown more powerful and secretive, assuming powers it does not rightfully have. Our government has:

· spied on Americans without the approval of Congress or the courts;

· allowed the CIA to torture and abuse hundreds of people, including Americans, in secret prisons throughout the world;

· held prisoners indefinitely without charge;

· placed hundreds of thousands of Americans on terrorist watch lists without an explanation or opportunity to appeal; and

· restricted the free flow of scientific information and set up barriers to the use of scientific materials.

No matter who wins the election, we must remember that the Constitution applies to everyone. It applies to the least desirable among us and to those with whom we vehemently disagree on matters of politics, religion, or ethics. That’s the tough part. We need to be vigilant for all people, not merely the ones whom society favors.

This election season is an opportunity to think about what the Constitution has given us, as well as what we ourselves can do to make sure it survives—not just in letter, but in spirit. We can consider whether what’s been going on is consistent with the Constitution. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of “Well, it’s not me; it’s that awful other person who’s being tortured/spied upon/denied an attorney/discriminated against/harassed.” Any of us could be that person in the future.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

Churches Will Not Lose Tax Exemptions for Refusing to Perform Same Sex Marriages

Posted by American Forum at 11:52 AM

By Patricia Cain

The proponents of Proposition 8 have unleashed an ad in which a law professor proclaims that unless marriage rights are denied to same-sex couples, churches risk losing their tax exemptions. The claim is pure nonsense and any lawyer who makes such a claim should apologize for misleading the many religious leaders and congregations in this state who, because they are not legal experts, rely on those of us who are.

Our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. It also guarantees that an individual’s right of religious liberty is protected in every state in this country.

The California constitution provides similar guarantees. The California Supreme Court, the institution charged with construing the California constitution to ensure that it applies to all Californians equally, recognized the importance of these guarantees in its decision in the marriage cases. As the Court explained: “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

There is absolutely no legal basis for the claim in the proponent’s ad that churches may lose their tax exemption. The claim is nothing more than an attempt by the opponents of equal marriage to instill fear among the religious faithful in the hopes that they will flock to the ballot box and cast a vote to protect their churches.

Citizens of California need to check their fears against what we all know about religious freedom in this country. Churches and other religious institutions are free to follow their religious tenets and to conduct whatever sacraments and services are consistent with those tenets.

Churches in Massachusetts, where marriages between same-sex partners have been performed for over four years, can and do refuse to marry same-sex couples. Not a single church has been threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status. There is no risk that they will be threatened because the IRS and state tax authorities are bound by the guarantees of religious freedom in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

When New Jersey adopted civil unions for same-sex couples in 2006, fears arose in that state that religious organizations would be forced to perform same-sex unions. On January 10, 2007, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a formal opinion concluding that religious institutions are not required to endorse or perform same-sex commitment ceremonies since they are protected by both the state and federal constitutions. The opinion cited relevant United States Supreme Court precedent. That same precedent applies in California.

Our country is strongest when the rights of all are protected. The separation of church and state is a necessary precondition for the protection of individual liberty and equality. We live in a public world full of differences of opinion and that is good. We get our strength from our private worlds where individual conscience and matters of faith reside. California’s constitution is a document that governs our public world. It should not be amended to deny the rights of some because of an unfounded fear that some voters’ religious freedoms are in jeopardy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cain is the Inez Mabie Distinguished Professor of Law at Santa Clara University and past president of the Society of American Law Teachers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08