This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the June 30 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents.
|
Brian Leubitz at Calitics writes—Caliifornia Wins Round One of the Sanctuary Litigation:
In a 60 page decision, Federal District Judge John Mendez denied an injunction on all parts of SB 54, California’s Sanctuary State legislation relating to state and local governments. However, Judge Mendez did issue an injunction over accompanying legislation, AB 450, which dealt with private employers, and their willingness to hand over records without a warrant or allow federal immigration agents access to nonpublic areas of their businesses.
You can read the full decision here.
For the most part, the logic of the Court was that the state has no obligation to use state policing resources to provide assistance to federal immigration forces.
[The Federal Government] argues that requiring a judicial warrant or judicial finding of probable cause is irreconcilable with the INA, which establishes a system of civil administrative warrants as the basis for immigration arrest and removal. …
The Court disagrees and instead finds that California’s decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an “obstacle” to that enforcement effort.
[...]
Josh Manning at The Montana Post writes—Soviet Steve Daines’ Disrespects America on the 4th of July:
American politicians have long used the Fourth of July parades, picnics, and fireworks shows as a showcase for their patriotism. Soon, local and statewide candidates will fan across the state to drape themselves in the flag and talk about what a great country we live in. Because it is true, across the political divides, that we are a great nation. One of Montana’s senators, however, will not be in Montana today. Steve Daines decided to spend American Independence Day in Moscow.
Daines’ visit comes ahead of our president’s summit with Russian autocrat-president Vladimir Putin later this month. Putin is the guy who federal investigators are looking into for affecting the outcome of the vote that put Trump into office. America’s energy secretary was there last week and now Daines is there with three other senators and the president’s national security advisor, a man who makes no secret about his love for authoritarian leaders.
There will be scant American press coverage of what they do and the Russian politicians and businessmen (informally known as oligarchs) are boasting about “something big” underway. Daines has only said he will go there to “personally assess” the threats that Russia poses to Montana and the nation. This is entirely laughable. The Russians may add a trip to a vacant and unused missile site as cover but the reality is Daines is there for business interests.
But here is the slippery slope. Russians have made a lot of money in extraction industries like mining, oil, and gas along with the banking connections to funnel illicit money across the globe. These are the people Daines will meet with because these are the men who control Russia. These are the men who have journalists killed, dissidents jailed and invade neighboring countries to keep their profits intact.
desmoinesdem at Bleeding Heartland of Iowa writes—How Iowa's 20-week abortion ban could be overturned:
Pro-choice advocates were jubilant about the Iowa Supreme Court’s landmark decisionstriking down a major section of a 2017 anti-abortion law.
However, the other major piece of that law remains in effect: a near-total ban on abortions beyond 20 weeks “post-fertilization.” Speaking to reporters on June 29, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa legal director Rita Bettis asserted the 20-week ban is “clearly unconstitutional and a violation of women’s fundamental rights.” She declined to say whether the ACLU will challenge that provision: “We don’t forecast our litigation strategy.”
Although I am not an attorney, I am a third-generation supporter of reproductive rights in Iowa. So I’ve been thinking about how a case could get the 20-week ban before the Iowa Supreme Court.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of the high court’s 5-2 ruling in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and Jill Meadows v. Kimberly K. Reynolds ex rel. State of Iowa and Iowa Board of Medicine. When striking down an administrative rule prohibiting telemedicine abortion three years ago, the justices relied on the “undue burden” standard set out in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision. They declined to rule on whether our state constitution guarantees a higher level of protection for women.
S. Miller at Plunderbund of Ohio writes—Chabot Called Out for Sabotaging Health Care:
Ohioans for Economic Opportunity, an advocacy group previously featured on our site, has come out with a new ad campaign urging Congressman Steve Chabot (OH-01) to end his cowardly behavior and face his constituents. The TV and radio spots are part of a $250,000 campaign targeting Chabot on his lack of explanation for why he voted to sabotage their access to health care by undermining the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The new spot, “Questions”, includes real Ohioans hosting a town hall with an empty pulpit as their launch their concerns with many of Chabot’s recent votes. Their issues range from Chabot’s vote to end protection for pre-existing conditions, his support to allow insurance companies to charge those over 50 more for coverage, and his constant sabotage of ObamaCare that is forcing premiums to soar. [...]
“Congressman Chabot should come face his constituents and explain why he supports Donald Trump in taking healthcare away from 306,400 of his constituents with pre-existing conditions. Why he voted in favor of a loophole-ridden tax bill enriching wealthy corporate interests at the expense of our access to health care,’ said Ohioans for Economic Opportunity spokesperson Cliff Schecter.
Alby at Delaware Liberal writes—Should Democrats Fight or Compromise?
In recent days we’ve suffered a rash of visits from some Ghosts of Democrats Past. Various commenters, presenting themselves as “centrist” or “moderate” or “blue collar,” have argued that full-bore liberalism will cause other people — not them, mind you, but other people — to react by voting for Republicans.
The product of this mind trap is a perfect catch-22: We have to fight to win, but if we do, it will backfire and we lose. There’s something wrong with this logic, but what?
Josh Marshall nails it: “Treat it as a first principle,” he writes. “It’s not wrong because of any particular factual reasoning. It must be wrong because it leads to inaction and defeatism.”
Let’s take the “Abolish ICE” slogan. I’m agnostic on whether this is precisely the right tack. But I’m inclined to think it is since on the merits I really do think we should abolish ICE as currently constituted and create a new immigration service that is not structured around paramilitary enforcement and isn’t so prone to abuses. I hear a lot about it’s better to say “reform ICE” or “thoroughly change the way we enforce immigration laws.” No. Electoral politics is far less about particular policies than it is about meta-messages about clarity and power. … If your political language tiptoes around what you think or shows you’re not quite sure what you think or shows that you know what you think but may not be willing to act on what you think, that … signals weakness and irresolution. [...]
His piece has more insights into effectively fighting Trumpism, but I don’t want to violate fair use. Go read it and get liberated.
Lucas Herndon at ProgressNow New Mexico writes—Rep. Steve Pearce is STILL pushing to make drilling EASIER for Big Oil, and Gov. Martinez has his back:
With the humanitarian crises on the border dominating headlines the past few weeks and this week’s massive Supreme Court news, it’s easy to forget there are still other matters being decided in the halls of Congress that affect Americans everyday lives.
Congressman Steve Pearce is pushing through two bills RIGHT NOW that would do away with important management and oversight of the Bureau of Land Management when it comes to issuing permits for drilling oil wells on public lands.
Pearce, himself a millionaire oilman, of course, claims this is about “cutting red tape” but considering he’s running for governor this year it sure seems like he’s trying to do his buddies in the Permian Basin a huge favor while he’s still on Capitol Hill. But even as governor Pearce could still make it easier for oil and gas companies at the expense of our public lands, our environment, and even if practical policies that would actually net oil and gas companies more revenue like fixing the Methane Rule.
Just look at Governor Susana Martinez’ role with oil and gas over the last eight years.
And in the midst of everything that is happening, Martinez not only wrote a letter earlier in the year that encouraged the feds to support the undoing of the permitting process but actually traveled to Washington DC earlier this month and testified IN SUPPORT of Pearce’s bills.
Julie Demansky at The Bayou Brief of Louisiana (and DeSmogBlog) writes—Outrage and Outages:
At a June 28th meeting, New Orleans regulators put the city’s public utility Entergy in the hot seat over increasing power outages and slow progress on clean energy goals. City councilmembers showed little patience for the embattled company, which currently is under investigation for its role in paying actors to show support for its proposed $210 million natural gas power plant, approved by the council on March 8th.
Arguments for approving the controversial natural gas plant included the dubious claim that it would offer more reliable electricity for the city, although the project would not include upgrades to the faulty power grid. In addition, a recent study found that oil and gas infrastructure like this plant are leaking 60 percent more globe-warming methane than previously thought, boosting the climate change impact of natural gas.
Over a dozen representatives from Entergy were on hand to explain both rising power disruptions, even on fair-weather days, and its sluggish pace toward investing in renewable energy, since the utility first made the promise in 2016 to produce 20 megawatts (MW) of it for Orleans Parish and bumped that goal to 100 MW in 2017.
Those representatives revealed that the energy company had pulled about $1 million from a repair fund for power lines and poles five years ago, when the system was performing well. Since then, the company has attributed between 73 and 81 percent of power outages to broken equipment.
Kevin Mahoney at Raging Chicken Press writes—#FamiliesBelongTogether | Wilkes-Barre, PA Rally:
This past weekend, over 750 cities and towns across the country rallied against the Trump administration’s brutal immigration policies. Trump’s most recent policy to separate children from their families at the border set off yet another spark of resistance.
MoveOn.org, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, the ACLU, the Leadership Council, and dozens of other organizations joined in co-sponsoring a major rally in DC and helped coordinate actions across the country. While my fellow Raging Chicken contributors were in Harrisburg, New York City, and Pittsburgh, I was on the ground in Wilkes-Barre, PA. This once Blue stronghold voted for Trump in the 2016 election, but according to organizers I spoke with, there is a progressive resurgence underway.
Here is some of my coverage from the Wilkes-Barre #FamiliesBelongTogether Rally on June 30, 2018. In this video, I interviewed one of the organizers of the event, Jenis Walsh. We hear from a former pediatrician, Dr. Donna Hamilton on the trauma being inflicted on immigrant children. And, Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski (PA-121) talks about the immigrant history of Luzerne County and the whole of the U.S. and why Trump’s policies are anti-American.
Cory Allen Heidelberger at Dakota Free Press writes—GOP Retreads BMW Envy Against Bjorkman:
Republicans play class warfare. Consider today’s post from Dakota War College, in which Pat Powers slimes Democratic candidate for U.S. House Tim Bjorkman for riding in the Sioux Falls Fourth of July parade in a BMW.
Powers attempts to portray Bjorkman as an elitist compared to his Republican opponent Dusty Johnson, who was “pounding the pavement” in Belle Fourche. Strangely, Powers does not mention Bjorkman’s own Independence Day pavement-pounding in Kranzburg and Watertown. [...]
The GOP spin machine’s hang-up with BMWs isn’t some new fawning for Trump. In 2014, Powers thought Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Rick Weiland’s BMW somehow disqualified him for public office. In 2009, the SDGOP greeted Scott Heidepriem’s announcement of his Democratic gubernatorial bid with an irrelevant and counterfactual swipe at his erstwhile BMW ownership. [...]
And it’s not like Bjorkman or Weiland or Heidepriem ever bought a BMW with taxpayer dollars. That’s Republican Scott Pruitt’s gig: he made us upgrade the usual EPA chief’s Chevy Tahoe to a larger Suburban LT decked out with leather. Actually, Pruitt made us lease out two new Suburbans for him, even while keeping the old Tahoe on the books. Three SUVs for one public official—that’s the kind of thing that disqualifies a guy from public office. [...]
Eric Ferguson at MN Progressive Project writes—A Second American Civil War for Independence Day:
I first heard verbally that the nutcase right had a new conspiracy theory that liberals are going to start a civil war on July 4th, which as I write this, is tomorrow. Damn, I haven’t even dug out my musket and bayonet yet! Anyway, I found the source, the source of so many tinfoil hat conservative conspiracy theories, Alex Jones(hat tip Johnny Wendell at Daily Kos).
Sane people know not to believe any of the craziness Alex Jones spews, but many trumpers believe him, including the Russian President of the United States, Trump. I don’t know what is more disturbing, that Trump and other bigoted lunatics believe him no matter how many times he’s proven to be making it up, or that some of them seem to want a new civil war. There’s an element of the extreme right that doesn’t want to start it, not because they don’t want it, but rather because everyone is the hero in his own story, which means they want us to start it. Mocking them is much more fun and much less deadly, so no. Hey guys, how are we going to start a war when you have all the guns? Could you share? Just to make the odds more even?
Of course, the Confederacy did get impatient waiting for the Union to invade and just went ahead and started the first civil war, so maybe best not to encourage them.
scharrison at BlueNC writes—NC needs laws to better address sexual harassment in the workplace:
Because the lack of concern speaks volumes:
"If you have the terrible misfortune to be sexually harassed in North Carolina at an employer that has less than 15 employees, you literally have no claim in North Carolina," Noble said. "You don't have a federal claim, and you don't have a state law claim. And that's wrong."
If a victim works at a larger employer, they can file a claim under federal statute, Noble said. But that's more difficult, more complicated and more expensive. As a result, many people don't follow through. In the meantime, Noble said calls to her office about sexual harassment have increased 500 percent since coverage of the stories began appearing in the news media last fall.
Even that increase in wanting to "take action" represents just a tip of the iceberg. And when it comes to behavior such as this, men are more than happy to emulate other men who appear to be getting away with it. No doubt Republicans would say it should be left up to the civil courts to handle it and not an "authoritarian government." But in their next breath they will whine about too many lawsuits and the need for "tort reform." Don't look for any relief coming from that direction, because most of these folks live in a 1950's bubble. Which may explain why half of working women have been harassed in the workplace.
Bob Plain at R.I.Future.org writes—RI Dem Party doesn’t endorse three progressive female legislators:
Being a progressive woman may be beneficial at the ballot box in the 2018 election but it doesn’t seem to help with respect to endorsements from the Rhode Island Democratic Party.
Three female legislators learned this the hard way when the state Party endorsed their more-conservative primary opponents. Reps. Moira Walsh and Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, both Providence House members, and Sen. Jeanine Calkin, of Warwick, aren’t the endorsed candidates in their races. They are the only incumbents who didn’t win the endorsement of the state Democratic Party.
Walsh lost the House District 3 endorsement to Michael Earnheart, which didn’t surprise her. “My opponent changed affiliation to [D]emocrat in March,” Walsh tweeted about Earnheart. “Previous to that he’s been a [R]epublican his entire life. He’s a vocal Trump supporter. Now watch as the @RIDemParty shows its true colors and endorses my opponent. Straight up shameful.” [...]
Ranglin-Vassell lost the endorsement in her reelection bid to Holly Coolman, a Providence College professor who doesn’t support abortion rights or, locally, the Reproductive Health Care Act. She told the Providence Journal she considers herself a “traditional Democrat,” though some counter that’s a euphemism for conservative Democrat.
“Not so random thought-speaking the truth has consequences, speak the truth nonetheless,” Ranglin-Vassell tweeted yesterday. [...]
On the Senate side, Calkin will have to defend her seat in a primary against Mark McKenney, who won the state party’s endorsement. Calkin is a Bernie Sanders supporter who upset longtime Senator William Walaska in 2016. McKenney and Walaska, who died a year after losing his legislative seat, are friends and McKenney had long fancied Walaska’s Senate seat.