L E A G U
E O F W O M E N V
O T E R S : first, studies, then action...at all three
levels!
Now this direction from
National, part of a more than nine-minute video sent to all
Leagues. We could not find any information about local leagues.
A C T I O N A
G E N D A F O R
L W V U S . . .
Latest word from
LWVUS - please remember that advocacy
on national positions requires permission - and caution!
More breaking
news...being heard this morning!!!
'Hillary:
The Movie' Gets New Airing at
High Court
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 9, 2009
Filed at 9:52 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- ''Hillary: The Movie'' is returning to the Supreme
Court for a limited engagement and with
the chance to overhaul laws governing federal campaigns ranging from
the White House to Congress. The justices
were hearing arguments in the case Wednesday for the second time. It
began as a dispute over whether a 90-minute
movie attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential ambitions should
be regulated as a campaign ad.
But it took on greater significance after the justices decided to use
the case to consider whether to ease restrictions,
established in two earlier decisions now at issue, on how corporations
and labor unions may spend money to
influence elections. The public argument session will be the
first for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was welcomed
to the court Tuesday in a ceremony that was attended by President
Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
The court will release an audio recording of the arguments soon after
they conclude and the C-SPAN cable network
has said it will air the material. Like most campaign finance
lawsuits, this case pits the court's conservatives,
generally skeptical of campaign finance limits, against its liberals.
Sotomayor is not expected to play a pivotal role
in the case.
Instead, the focus will be on the willingness of two conservatives,
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel
Alito, to overrule earlier decisions. Both justices spoke at length in
their Senate confirmation hearings about the
importance of abiding by precedents even if they would have voted the
other way. The other three
conservative-leaning justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas, are on record opposing
the restrictions on corporations and unions.
The details of the anti-Clinton movie have faded in prominence now that
the court is looking more broadly at
campaign finance law. A conservative not-for-profit group,
Citizens United, wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton
movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable
systems during the 2008 Democratic
primary campaign.
But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long
campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated
like one. The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD
and shown in a few theaters. Campaign
regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet. The
film is filled with criticisms of the former first lady,
whom Obama defeated in the primaries and then made his secretary of
state. It includes Dick Morris, a former
adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic, saying
the one-time candidate is ''the closest thing we
have in America to a European socialist.''
It's ''not a musical comedy,'' Justice Stephen Breyer said after
watching the movie.
But the lawyer for Citizens United, Theodore Olson, said federal law is
wrongly preventing corporations and unions
from airing their views, no matter how strongly held.
''Why is it easier to dance naked, burn a flag or wear a T-shirt
profanely opposing the draft,'' Olson said in July at
an event sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, ''than it is
to advocate the election or defeat of a
president? That cannot be right.''
In 2003, Olson was President George W. Bush's top Supreme Court lawyer
and he defended the campaign
finance provision he now is challenging. The current solicitor
general, Elena Kagan, is making her first argument at
the high court in support of the laws under attack. Kagan was a
finalist for the seat that went to Sotomayor. Also
involved in the case is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whom Obama defeated
in November. McCain, Sen. Russ
Feingold, D-Wis., and other members of Congress are siding with Obama
in asking that the restrictions be kept in
place.
------
The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.
A C T I O
N A G E N D A C O N N E C T I
C U T
 www.lwvct.org
tel:
203-288-7996
e-mail:
lwvct@lwvct.org |
|
|
League issue
in the forefront!!! Read
LWVCT Action Alert here.
Conn. Campaign Finance Law Ruled Unconstitutional
NYTIMES
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 28, 2009
Filed at 2:22 p.m. ET
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled that Connecticut's
public campaign finance law, seen by some as a possible
national model, is unconstitutional because it discriminates against
minor party political candidates.
Judge Stefan Underhill ruled late Thursday that a part of the law that
provides a voluntary public financing scheme for candidates
for statewide offices and state lawmakers puts an unconstitutional
burden on minor party candidates' First Amendment right to
political opportunity.
He says the program, known as the Citizens Election Program, enhances
major party candidates' strength beyond their past ability
to raise contributions, providing them public financing ''at windfall
levels.''
The Green and Libertarian parties and others sued the state, arguing
the law makes it difficult for minor party candidates to meet the
criteria for getting public funds for their campaigns...full story here.
NEW!!!
From the June 2009 LWVCT Board Report
LWVCT
Organizing New State Study on Elections
Convention
delegates voted to undertake a new state study on campaign-related
issues. The study will be chaired by Christine Horrigan and will
cover:
1) procedures
for certifying candidates for inclusion on the ballot, 2) the state
election calendar timelines and 3) the examination
of the methods for filling US senate vacancies.
Steps involved:
1.
Review of the steps required to achieve certification and ballot access
by various types of candidates running for office and of the standards
used by the Secretary of the State to certify their candidacies.
This review will include:
•
ballot access by major party candidates;
•
ballot access by minor party candidates
•
ballot access by petitioning candidates (with and without party
designation)
•
ballot access by cross-endorsed candidates—local, state, federal offices
•
registration of write-in candidates
•
state and local recognition of minor parties;
•
timelines for candidates to become certified or registered as write-ins
•
minor party rules for process of endorsing candidates
2. Examination
of Connecticut’s election calendar, laws, and regulations, focusing on:
•
deadlines for candidate petitions and party conventions
•
schedule for SOTS notification to local election officials of
candidates on ballot and deadlines for printing ballots
•
Policies, procedures, and options regarding voting for military and
overseas voters
3. Examination
of methods for filling vacancies in US Senate seats
Time Frame:
•
The Committee will begin meeting in August.
•
Concurrence statement and materials will go to the LWVCT board in April
2010
•
Materials will be mailed and e-mailed to local leagues at the end of
April 2010
•
The reporting deadline will be in the fall of 2010, probably September
or October
It will be up
to the LWVCT Board to evaluate whether concurrence achieved.
Concurrence standards will be: at least 10% membership participation
and no less than 50% of local leagues represented. Study group
membership is open to any interested League member. If you’d like
to be on the study committee, please contact Christine Horrigan or Jean
Rabinow.
C
O N N E C T I C U T B A L L O T Q U
E S T I O N N O V . 4 t h (our view
prevailed...)
Advocacy Against Constitutional
Convention question on the Connecticut
ballot Nov. 4 -
read
flyer here urging "no" vote on Constitutional Convention.
FROM
THE LWVCT OFFICE: WARNING. The LWVCT's tri-fold flyer with
our position against the
calling of a Constitutional Convention can be found by clicking on the
link above. Please feel free to reprint and distribute it as you
see fit. The LWVCT Board feels
that if you are permitting candidates to set up tables outside of your
debates, you can set up a League table there too, and hand
out voter ed, advocacy, and membership materials at that table.
What you cannot do is have the MC or
moderator state the League's position on anything once the
debate has started.
Rejected by New York State D.E.C. -
appeal by Broadwater. read article
on the final word here...
B r o a d w a t e r : LWVCT testimony
based on LWVUS position at FERC hearing, 2007: http://www.lwvct.org/issues/resources/011607-Broadwater-Testimony.htm
-------------
N.Y. Rejects
Floating Gas Terminal
NYTIMES
By THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published:
April 10, 2008
Filed at 3:13
p.m. ET
NORTHPORT, N.Y.
(AP) -- New York Gov. David Paterson said Thursday the
state won't approve putting a $700 million
liquefied natural gas terminal the size of the Queen Mary
2 in Long Island Sound.
"The fact is,
Broadwater is behind us," Paterson said of the project,
prompting applause from a crowd of about 200
politicians, environmentalists and Long Island residents. Paterson joins
Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell and nearly every elected
official on both sides of the sound who oppose the project.
Foes claim the
terminal could imperil the ecosystem; Paterson said it
"would scar Long Island Sound."
The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission concluded last month that the
project would have no major environmental
effect on the region. Opponents also
say a terrorist attack there could be catastrophic.
There was no
immediate comment from the consortium that wants to build
the terminal, Broadwater Energy.
Broadwater -- a
joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines
Ltd. -- can still appeal to the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Broadwater had
been running a high-profile public relations campaign
that included TV, radio and print ads, extolling the
region's need for natural gas and claiming energy bills
for Long Island ratepayers would drop $300 a year.
Opponents countered that rates would not actually drop, but
might not rise at as fast a rate if the LNG terminal were
approved.
Impact on Issues
- Connecticut
http://www.lwvct.org/elibrary/pdf/Impact%20on%20Issues%202007-09%20FINAL.pdf
Impact on Issues
- LWVUS
Latest word from
LWVUS - please remember that advocacy
on national positions requires permission - and caution!
http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Take_Action
NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE NATIONAL
STUDY
Hon.
Gayle
Slossberg
Speaker
at LWVCT Fall Conference 2008, which was about this subject and
voting in general - click
here.
And at the Capitol...
Popular vote may win out
By Ken Dixon, CTPOST STAFF WRITER
Updated: 04/20/2009 12:31:33 AM EDT
HARTFORD -- Connecticut would join a growing number of states pushing
to change the way U.S. presidents are selected, under a bill that is
heading for debate in the state House of
Representatives.
It's an attempt to essentially bypass the Electoral College and elect
presidents by using the popular vote. Supporters say it would give
voters more power.
Under the proposal, Connecticut's electoral votes would go to the
candidate that wins the nationwide popular vote. If states holding 270
electoral votes enact similar legislation, the
winner of the nationwide popular vote would become president.
Speaker of the House Christopher G. Donovan said last week that he
anticipates the legislation will be voted upon within the next few
weeks and Rep. Thomas J. Drew, D-Fairfield, the
bill's chief proponent, said last week there are enough votes for it to
pass.
"There's a lot of support for it," said Donovan, D-Meriden. "It's
certainly been a topic of national news. I believe there will be a lot
of support in the caucus."
"When I first heard about the idea I was immediately enthusiastic about
it," Drew said in an interview. "The Electoral College system now,
we've reached a point where it is exceedingly
problematic."
Back in 2000, Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in the popular vote, but
the Electoral College vote won Bush his first term. Four years later,
Bush narrowly won in the Electoral
College, even though he won the popular vote by 3.5 million.
The popular vote has been lost four times by candidates who won in the
Electoral College and became president.
"If this were to become law, in future elections every time candidates
speak they'd be trying to persuade every voter in the country of their
vision," Drew said. "They'd be reaching out for
every single American and their platform would have to speak. Frankly,
the Electoral College has distorted the policy
over the decades."
The 538 Electoral College members are chosen in each of the 50 states
and the District of Columbia. The number of electors each state gets is
determined by the number of U.S. House and
Senate members in that state. For instance, Connecticut has five
members of Congress and two U.S. senators, for a
total of seven electoral votes.
Presidential candidates need at least 270 votes to gain election.
Formal Electoral College balloting occurs weeks after the presidential
election. In Connecticut, electors gather in the
state Senate chamber and sign formal documents that are then mailed to
Washington certifying the vote.
Drew and other supporters of the popular vote point out that
presidential candidates currently focus on a few states, such as
California, Ohio, Michigan and Florida that have
disproportionate power.
So far, only Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland have approved
the measure, but it's up before every state but one this year, said
Chris Pearson, an organizer for the National
Popular Vote. Pearson said it's past time for the states to work
together to get enough support for it, because Congress
has shot down hundreds of attempts to change the Constitution.
"Every change to our election process, whether it was initially letting
people vote through property requirements, then eventually allowing
blacks, women and 18-year-olds, happened through
state action," Pearson said in a phone interview last week.
Pearson, who has been with the nonprofit organization for three years,
said the proposal has passed several legislative chambers so far this
year.
"It's a genuine 50-state discussion," Pearson said. "We hope we can
achieve the 270 mark in time for 2012."
Last week, Washington's House voted in favor of the bill, sending it to
Gov. Chris Gregoire, who has said she would support it and join his
state's 11 electoral votes with the other 50
votes already committed in the four states that have passed it.
Advocates of the bill say that under the current system, leading
candidates focus on so-called battleground states.
Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, D-Milford, co-chairwoman of the legislative
Government Administration &; Elections Committee, said last week
that she voted for the National Popular Vote
in committee.
"I think there are some really good concepts in this bill," she said.
"Many people were frustrated after the 2000 election, when the
popularly elected candidate did not become
president."
Slossberg said that, although she has reservations about the bill,
she's still not sure how she'll vote if the legislation reaches the
Senate.
"We have gotten very accustomed to the concept of one person, one
vote," she said. "My preference would be for Congress to abolish the
Electoral College, but in the absence of that,
this bill would keep the conversation going."
She said that the danger for Connecticut voters would be the case where
the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide isn't the person who
wins the popular vote in Connecticut.
"That would basically say to the people that your vote didn't really
count," she said. "If Connecticut voted for
Obama and McCain had won [the nationwide popular vote], it would hit
home when our electoral votes were cast for
McCain."
Chris Healy, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, said
last week that if it becomes law in Connecticut, a little state's voice
will be heard even less.
"If this passes, they might as well not vote in federal elections
because their votes won't count," Healy said in a phone interview.
"One of the things the founders understood is that the rights of small
states had to be respected like large states," he said. "There's a
certain level of genius in that and, by and large,
that's worked well and has served as the majority's opinion."
He said that abrogating the power of the Electoral College would mean
more clout for large states dominated by one party, such as Democrats
in California.
"President Bush isn't president now, so let's move on," Healy said
glibly.
"People who want to play around with what makes our country fair should
really find something else to do with their time," Healy said. "No one
has explained how it makes a vote in any
state more representative than it is now. It's a contrived issue in
which there's no solution needed."
-----------------
MORE BACKGROUND:
V I D E O N O
W A V A I L A B L E . . . O N L I N E
LWVCT FALL CONFERENCE
“Election Day: Did My Vote Really
Count on November 4th?"
Weston LWV videotaped the event - watch
it online! Click here.
One of the
speakers is on the LWVUS panel (see below) and had a special message
for CT!
RELATED
TO THE FALL CONFERENCE...THE FULL PACKET OF INFORMATION
FOR LEAGUE CONSENSUS ON:
NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE STUDY