SUPREME COURT - Ruling for Vote 2020

American Voters WIN!

"Supreme Court says a state may require Presidential electors to support its popular-vote winner" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 7/6/2020

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that a state may require Presidential electors to support the winner of its popular vote and may punish or replace those who don’t, settling a disputed issue in advance of this fall’s election.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court as it considered for the first time the issue of “faithless electors” and whether the Constitution sees members of the electoral college — whose votes ultimately elect the President — as representatives of the intent of their state’s voters or as independent thinkers.

The Washington state law at issue “reflects a tradition more than two centuries old,” Kagan wrote.  “In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”

In an opinion that referred to both the Broadway musical “Hamilton” and the HBO sitcom “Veep,” Kagan added: “The State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens.  That direction accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.”

Lower courts had split on the issue, with one saying the Constitution envisions the electors as free to vote their consciences without fear of punishment or removal.

He tried to stop Trump in the electoral college.  A court says his ‘faithless’ ballot was legal.

It was one of the rare political cases at the court that seemed not to favor one political party over another, which might explain the unanimity.  (Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority’s reasoning but not the outcome).

Red and blue states alike urged the justices to settle the matter in advance of the “white hot” glare of November’s election.  They said they feared that a handful of independent-minded members of the electoral college would decide the next President.

The court’s decision doesn’t eliminate that possibility completely.  Not all states explicitly require conformity, and the opinion does not force them to set up such systems.  Not all scenarios are covered.  After she mentioned that the most rogue electoral votes were cast in 1872, when one of the candidates died after Election Day, Kagan wrote: “Because the situation is not before us, nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the States to bind electors to a deceased candidate.”

Also not before the court was an initiative by some states to pledge their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than their own statewide totals.

The court considered cases from the states of Washington and Colorado.  Washington moved to fine Peter Bret Chiafalo and two others $1,000 after they voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell when the electoral college convened after the 2016 election.  They had pledged to vote for Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote.

Colorado replaced Micheal Baca after he said he intended to vote for Ohio’s then-governor John Kasich (R) instead of Clinton, who won his state.  Baca was part of a movement to try to deny Donald Trump the presidency.

As the court’s opinion noted of the 2016 contest: “Only seven electors across the Nation cast faithless votes — the most in a century, but well short of the goal.  Candidate Trump became President Trump.”

The Washington Supreme Court ruled for the state, saying the Constitution’s directive that gives states the power to select members of the electoral college also means they can set the standards those electors must follow, such as living up to their pledge to support the state’s popular-vote winner.

Trump slams Sotomayor and Ginsburg, says they should recuse themselves from ‘Trump-related’ cases

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit went the other way.  It said Colorado’s control ended with deciding how electors from the state are chosen.  From there, it said, the Constitution envisions that the 538 electors are free to vote their minds in deciding who should be President and Vice President.

All but two states have winner-take-all systems, and 32, plus the District, require those running to be electors to pledge to support the state’s winner.  Most simply expect the electors to honor the statewide result — the electors are chosen by the winning party, after all.  Only 15 have penalties for punishing or replacing electors who break their word or have a change of heart.

Still, some states worried that faithless electors could determine the outcome.  The 2000 election, for instance, was decided by five electoral votes.

Kagan acknowledged that history shows that a number of votes cast by rogue electors were counted by Congress.  But none came close to affecting the election, she wrote.

“Since the founding, electors have cast some 180 faithless votes for either President or Vice President,” she wrote.  “But that is 180 out of over 23,000.  And more than a third of the faithless votes come from 1872, when the Democratic Party’s nominee (Horace Greeley) died just after Election Day.  Putting those aside, faithless votes represent just one-half of one percent of the total.”

Kagan said both history and the “barebones” instructions in the Constitution weigh in favor of state restrictions.

The challenging electors said the Constitution’s words about “electors” voting in a ballot for President require them to have freedom of choice.

Kagan noted their argument that Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, “praised the Constitution for entrusting the Presidency to ‘men most capable of analyzing the qualities’ needed for the office, who would make their choices ‘under circumstances favorable to deliberation.’?”

But, she wrote, “even assuming other Framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough.  Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page.”

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig had represented those asserting the independence of electors.

“When we launched these cases, we did it because regardless of the outcome, it was critical to resolve this question before it created a constitutional crisis,” he said in a statement.  “Obviously, we don’t believe the court has interpreted the constitution correctly.  But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective — this uncertainty has been removed.  That is progress.”

The cases were Chiafalo v Washington and Colorado Department of State v Baca.

How the Electoral College Works

ABORTION WARS - Extreme Anti-Abortion Laws and Roe v Wade

aka 'The March to Theocracy,' government by the Bible.

"With abortion measures, states see chance to challenge Roe v Wade" PBS NewsHour 5/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With the Supreme Court's conservative makeup, more states are implementing legislation that tests the limits of Roe v Wade.  Alabama's governor has signed the most restrictive abortion law in the country, while Vermont aims to preserve abortion rights into the future.  Amna Nawaz talks to The Montgomery Advertiser's Brian Lyman, VTDigger's Anne Galloway, and Florida State University's Mary Ziegler.

SUPREME COURT - On Civil Forfeitures

"Unanimous Supreme Court decision limits states’ ability to seize personal property" PBS NewsHour 2/20/2019

This is a BIG one.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday to limit civil forfeiture laws allowing law enforcement to seize property from those suspected of committing a crime.  In the unanimous decision, the high court sided with a low-level drug offender who argued that the seizure of his $42,000 Land Rover by law enforcement was an excessive fine.  Amna Nawaz talks to the National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle for more.

SUPREME COURT - States and Roe v Wade

The march to American Theocracy, or religious domination.

"State battles over abortion policy anticipate a post-Roe world" PBS NewsHour 1/31/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Proposed legislation in Virginia that would loosen restrictions on third trimester abortions has sparked outrage among conservatives.  Many pro-choice advocates expect the Supreme Court to scale back abortion rights, and states favorable to abortion are preparing.  Lisa Desjardins talks to Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of several books on abortion politics.

BRIEF BUT SPECTACULAR - Austin Jenkins

"Why journalists are needed in state capitals across the country" PBS NewsHour 1/10/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington state is growing in terms of population and budget, but the number of reporters covering politics in Olympia, its state capital, has declined.  And according to Northwest News Network political correspondent Austin Jenkins, “state houses are the incubators” for national public policy.  He shares his brief but spectacular take on being “overwhelmed” in order to keep viewers informed.

RETIREMENT - Oregon's Answer

"How Oregon is helping workers save for retirement" PBS NewsHour 6/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The goal of retiring comfortably off the fruits of one’s labor has become an increasingly elusive goal for many Americans.  Now states are taking the problem into their own hands.  In Oregon, a new state retirement program lets businesses hook payroll into a system that automatically enrolls employees in a savings plan.  Amna Nawaz reports as part of our ongoing series Chasing the Dream.

Oregon Saves

RETHINKING COLLEGE - Colorado Apprenticeship Program

"Colorado apprenticeship program turns the factory floor into a classroom" PBS NewsHour 8/29/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Some high school students in Colorado may get prime jobs even before they get their diplomas.  That's because CareerWise, the nation's first statewide youth apprenticeship program, links students to industries and addresses manufacturers' demand for skills, while offering employment, academic credit and support for college.  Hari Sreenivasan reports as part of our Rethinking College series.

SUPER 'MARY JANE' - Is It Safe?

"How safe is super-concentrated marijuana?" PBS NewsHour 12/15/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Now legal in eight states, there are unanswered questions about the impact of recreational marijuana on public health.  To maximize potency, pot can be purified for maximum THC, its psychoactive ingredient.  But a lack of research and restrictions on these very high concentrations is raising concerns.  Special correspondent John Ferrugia of Rocky Mountain PBS reports.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  With recreational marijuana now legal in eight states, a serious health and safety question about the potency of the psychoactive drug in cannabis, known as THC, are emerging.  In Colorado, some marijuana products contain 90 percent pure THC, with little research documenting the physical and mental effects on consumers.

This week, the state's health department announced more than $2 million in grants to study the impacts on driving and cognitive functioning.

As John Ferrugia of Rocky Mountain PBS in Denver reports, there are concerns that the effects on some users could be deadly.

MARC BULLARD (user):  2016 is a year of something new.

JOHN FERRUGIA, Rocky Mountain PBS:  In December 2015, Marc Bullard felt on top of the world.  He had landed a good job in Denver after graduating magna cum laude from Southern Methodist University.

MARC BULLARD:  It's been a good year.

JOHN FERRUGIA:  He made video diaries to keep his family and friends updated on his life, looking forward to the New Year.

MARC BULLARD:  It's time to start planning projects.

JOHN FERRUGIA:  But just four months later, in April 2016, Marc Bullard took his own life.  His written diary shows severe depression seems to have taken a quick hold on him.

MIKE BULLARD, Marc Bullard's Father:  You know, December, he's fine, he comes home for the Christmas holiday.

JOHN FERRUGIA:  And Mike and Ginny Bullard say he spent time with family and friends and showed no sign of being down.

MIKE BULLARD:  And what we saw in the in the diary later, was by January the 16th, I guess, he's talking about suicide.

JOHN FERRUGIA:  It was only after his death that his parents began reading his written diaries.

When did you first see the first entry about dabbing?

MIKE BULLARD:  That was in the March the 5th.  And that's where he talks about you know, I think I've been dabbing too much.

MARY-JANE COMING DOWN THE STREET - Marijuana Legalization

PS:  Personally, I do not do drugs, not even marijuana.

"What's next for marijuana legalization" PBS NewsHour 11/25/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On November 8, multiple states legalized the use of marijuana for either recreational or medicinal purposes -- thus marking a major shift in U.S. drug policy.  William Brangham speaks with Taylor West of the National Cannabis Administration and Jonathan Hudak of the Brookings Institution about marijuana law and how it might evolve under President-elect Donald Trump's upcoming administration.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM (NewsHour):  Legalizing marijuana was on the ballot in nine different states in this past election.  And except in Arizona, they all passed.  Four states, Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas, and Florida, voted to legalize use of marijuana for certain medical conditions.  And four other states, Maine, Nevada, Massachusetts, and California, legalized marijuana for anyone 21 years and over.

This means that millions more people will be able to purchase marijuana in sanctioned state-approved shops, but, according to federal law, the drug is still illegal, and the Trump administration could choose on day one to start enforcing that law.

To help us understand the complexity of all this, I'm joined now by Taylor West, who is the deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, and John Hudak, who studies drug policy, among other things, at the Brookings Institution.

Welcome to you both.

Taylor, I would like to start with you first.

Election Day had to be an enormous day for your industry.  Do you think of this as a tipping point going forward?

TAYLOR WEST, Deputy Director, National Cannabis Industry Association:  Absolutely.  This was a watershed day for the industry of cannabis, but also for cannabis policy in the U.S.

We saw, as you said, eight states vote for some form of legal, regulated marijuana program.  We now have 20 percent of the country living in a state that has access to legal marijuana, and more than 60 percent of the country living in a state that has legal access to medical marijuana.

This is in line with what we have seen from public opinion polls, so it really does reflect the direction that the country is moving on these issues.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  John Hudak, tipping point?  Do you think this is just the inevitable roll of this sort of policy going out across the country?

JOHN HUDAK, Brookings Institution:  This was absolutely the biggest day of the marijuana reform hands-down.

In terms of it being a tipping point, it's a bit hard to tell.  I think, in the short term, we're not going to see much movement at the federal level.  What happened in this election was big for marijuana.  But what also happened was the status quo in Congress, the same leadership in Congress, who, frankly, is opposed to reform.

But what this change in the landscape of marijuana policy can do is to start to embolden the industry, to start to get the industry having a stronger voice, a more powerful voice, and a more powerful economic voice to eventually move policy in the right direction toward their interests in reform.

VOTE 2016 - Beyond the Presidency

"Legal pot, gun control and other big ballot initiatives to watch" PBS NewsHour 11/2/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There are more than 150 ballot initiatives this year at the state level, capable of creating huge change for voters.  Nine states are voting on the legalization of recreational or medical marijuana.  Other measures concern gun control, the minimum wage, and the death penalty.  John Yang learns more from John Myers of the Los Angeles Times and Josh Altic of Ballotpedia for more.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  Let's focus now on a different election story, ballot initiatives and measures at the state and local level.  It's a big year for it.  There are more than 150 at the state level this year.

John Yang has the story.

JOHN YANG (NewsHour):  Next Tuesday, legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational use is on the ballot in nine states.  And voters across the country will also decide other contentious issues, including gun control, health care and prescription drug costs, the death penalty, and the minimum wage.

We take a look at some of these issues with two people who are following them very closely.

John Myers is the Sacramento bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times, and Josh Altic tracks ballot issues for Ballotpedia, a nonpartisan online political encyclopedia.

Josh, John, thank you both for joining us.

John, let me start with you.

California, as usual, has a long list of ballot initiatives that voters have to decide next Tuesday.  And let's start with marijuana.  California voters approved marijuana for medicinal use in 1996, and rejected it for recreational use in 2010.  Why is it back?  And what's different this time?

JOHN MYERS, Los Angeles Times:  Yes, I mean, it's a good question.  Why is it back?

We're the largest state in the country.  And I think there has been the sense that there is a sea change in the way Californians view this, I think, in some ways mirrored in other parts of the country as well, and certainly efforts in Colorado and Washington state have gotten a lot of attention here in California.

This measure, I will tell you, is drafted much differently than the measure that failed in 2010.  It's more detailed.  It has more details about taxes that are imposed at the state and local level on marijuana.  And it's backed by a couple of very big people.

The Lieutenant Governor of the State, Gavin Newsom; and Sean Parker, the impresario behind Napster and Facebook in Silicon Valley, a wealthy financier, have both gotten behind it.  It has a lot of institutional support.  And the polling shows that it is doing pretty well.

How you get to legalization, I think California is watching these other state, but at this point, it looks voters are probably going to say yes.

JOHN YANG:  And, Josh, what other states is this on the ballot in?  And this is — we see oftentimes ballot initiates leading the way for federal law, federal policy.  It's still illegal at the federal level.  Could this be the tipping point this year?

JOSH ALTIC, Ballotpedia:  There has been a lot of discussion about whether this is the year that will really push towards removal of federal prohibition.

You have it — so, 80 million people live in states this year where marijuana laws could be basically made more accessible to every person.  So, you have recreational marijuana in Nevada, Arizona.  Those are the big ones.  Maine, Massachusetts, and, of course, California.

And while California stands kind of above the rest as a really significant landmark for the tipping point idea, the fact that you have five other states, more than we have ever seen on the ballot at the same time, considering the issue is an indication that this could be a really key year for the policy.

HEALTHCARE RX - State Co-Ops

"Popular health insurance co-ops ‘orphaned by politics’" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2015

Ah, yes.  Money before people's health (too expensive to pay for).  The God of Money is snickering in the background.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As consumers rush to enroll in the insurance exchanges, one change that's complicating signups is that more than half of the state-run health co-ops -- an alternative to private insurers -- were forced to shut down this year.  The government was supposed to offset the costs, but Congress sharply curtailed that money.  Special correspondent Mary Jo Brooks reports on the effects in Colorado.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  But, first, the demand for health insurance and concerns over choice.

The federal government reported higher demand this year for people trying to enroll on insurance exchanges for coverage.  Six million had signed up by last week for coverage that begins next month.  More than two million of them were new customers.

But, in 11 states, there’s one change that’s complicating the picture this year:  Half of the state-run health co-ops were forced to shut down.

Special correspondent Mary Jo Brooks looks at what happened in Colorado.

MARY JO BROOKS (NewsHour):  It’s been a tough year for 36-year-old Jessica Peck, a Denver attorney and divorced mother of two.  Peck suffers severe vascular and neurological ailments which over the years led to soaring medical bills.

In 2014, she signed up with a brand-new health insurance company called Colorado HealthOP.

WOMAN:  The co-op provides health insurance that is built around all needs.

MARY JO BROOKS:  It was a nonprofit co-op formed under the Affordable Care Act and funded with loans from the federal government.  Peck says she chose it because the price was right.

JESSICA PECK, Colorado HealthOP member:  At least 50 percent in terms of premiums and out-of-pocket co-pays from the year before.

MARY JO BROOKS:  Fifty percent.

JESSICA PECK:  Fifty percent.  So this cost saving was a difference.  When I was at my sickest of being able to pay my bills, to be able to put gas in my car, and at one point having the difference in premiums was probably the only thing that kept me afloat.

MARY JO BROOKS:  At her sickest last year, Peck was forced to have her right leg amputated and was hospitalized for more than 23 days.  Peck is the first to admit that the co-op wasn’t perfect, including some billing errors she is still trying to sort out.  But she was dismayed when she heard the news that the co-op was being shut down.

JESSICA PECK:  Now I have to go back into a marketplace of players that I have worked with before, the big, big guys out there, who hurt me before, who sent me to collections on bills, who denied care that was absolutely 100 percent essential.  And I have to go back into that marketplace and pay twice as much as what I’m paying right now.

Colorado HealthOP was one of 23 co-ops started around the country as a concession to Democrats who wanted the ACA to include an alternative to private insurers.

Michele Lueck heads up the policy research group Colorado Health Institute.

MICHELE LUECK, Colorado Health Institute:  There were a number of politicians and legislators who wanted to have a government choice, something like Medicare that people could opt into.

And when that wasn’t politically feasible, an olive branch essentially that was offered to the left was this idea of creating co-ops, that this would be something that was owned and operated by the people who needed it the most.

POLITICS - Voting Rights Act

"50 years on, does the Voting Rights Act offer adequate protection?" PBS NewsHour 8/6/2015

IMHO:  This is just a Republican conservative attempt to suppress minorities that tend to vote liberal.  It's a power grab.  For decades there has been NO PROF of widespread voter fraud.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Fifty years ago, the Voting Rights Act outlawed discriminatory practices used to stop Americans from casting a ballot.  President Obama marked the occasion with civil rights leaders, cautioning that those rights are still at risk.  Gwen Ifill talks to Imani Clark, a student at Prairie View A&M University, voting rights scholar Kareem Crayton and Zoltan Hajnal of University of California, San Diego.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Fifty years ago today, the landmark Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.  Mr. Johnson called the right to vote — quote — “the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice.”

President Obama marked the occasion today by hosting civil rights leaders, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Congressman John Lewis, at the White House.  Half-a-century later, he said, voting rights are still at risk.  He singled out a 2013 Supreme Court decision that allows 15 previously monitored states to change their election laws without federal approval.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  In practice, we have still got problems.  On the ground, there are still too many ways in which people are discouraged from voting.  Some of the protections that had been enshrined in the Voting Rights Act itself have been weakened as a consequence of court decisions.

GWEN IFILL:  For more on the significance of today’s anniversary, we are joined by Kareem Crayton, a voting rights scholar and consultant, Zoltan Hajnal, professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.  He’s co-author of a recent report on voter participation.  And Imani Clark, she is a student at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college in Waller County, Texas.  She is a plaintiff in a challenge to a Texas voter I.D. law overturned by a federal appeals court only yesterday.

Zoltan Hajnal, I want to talk to you a little bit about the findings in your report; 50 years later, how do you quantify the effect of the Voting Rights Act?

ZOLTAN HAJNAL, University of California, San Diego:  Well, it’s quantifiable in all sorts of different ways, but two of the main ones are in terms of voter registration.

When the act was passed in 1965, in several states, blacks, only about 15 percent or less of blacks were registered to vote.  Very shortly after the act was passed, those registration rates went through the roof.  And blacks are now roughly on par with whites in terms of registration in the South.

The other measure is minority representation in office.  Again, when the act was passed, only a handful of blacks were in office in the South or across the country.  After the act was instituted as well, the number of African-American and Latino and Asian-American elected officials grew year by year, to the point where blacks now have about 10,000 elected positions across the nation, Latinos have about 6,000, and Asian-Americans about — so there’s been tremendous progress.  And all this is in large part to the Voting Rights Act.

GWEN IFILL:  Imani Clark, you were at the White House today when the President, the attorney general, other people, John Lewis, were speaking about the 50-year anniversary.  And I want you to tell us your story.  You wanted to vote.  You had voted before.

IMANI CLARK, Student, Prairie View A&M University:  Yes.

GWEN IFILL:  But then the law changed.  Tell me what happened.

IMANI CLARK:  Well, my freshman year attending Prairie View, I was able to vote during the city election with my student I.D. card.  And then soon after that, you know, this law was going into effect that was preventing students like me.  And it also was targeting minorities, and it just prevented most of us from voting without a Texas I.D. license or a concealed handgun license.

U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE - Road Patch

IMHO:  States and cities are paying for NOT having a year-by-year infrastructure maintenance schedule that was adhered to.  Repair was always put off to pay for other priorities, and now such repairs are much more expensive.

"States struggle with needed transportation fixes after years of cutbacks" PBS NewsHour 7/30/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Potholes, vulnerable bridges, a lack of sidewalks -- following years of cutbacks in federal transportation funding, states are feeling the pinch.  In Oregon, the NewsHour’s Cat Wise explores pressing infrastructure funding needs, like alternative forms of transportation, traffic reduction measures and preparing for a massive earthquake that many predict will hit in the state within 50 years.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  As we reported earlier, after much debate, Congress today passed a short-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund.  But years of cutbacks in federal and local transportation funding are being felt in communities around the country.

The NewsHour’s Cat Wise takes a look at some of the key transportation issues facing Portland, Oregon, and the surrounding region.

CAT WISE (NewsHour):  Early one morning this week, as thousands of commuters drove overhead, Oregon bridge inspector Joel Boothe hoisted himself 100 feet up in the air and got to work.

Boothe was doing a routine inspection of one of the state’s busiest bridges, the Marquam Bridge built in 1966.  It carries about 90,000 vehicles a day on Interstate 5 over the Willamette River near downtown Portland.  Unlike some of the other bridges in Portland, it’s in fairly good shape, but it’s still got some issues.

JOEL BOOTHE, Bridge Inspector:  So, question, on both sides of the location of those general hanging locations, we have had problems.

CAT WISE:  Issues that are being closely monitored by the state’s chief bridge engineer, Bruce Johnson.

BRUCE JOHNSON, State Bridge Engineer, Oregon Department of Transportation:  They found some pack rust, so we have got some corrosion going on.  We’re losing some section in our steel.  The other issue, this bridge has had a lot of fatigue cracking.

And, of course, we have mitigated the cracks by doing repairs, but we’re concerned about the performance of our repairs and how the cracking is going.

CAT WISE:  Johnson says that maintaining bridge safety is a huge task for the state.

GREED FILES - Big Telecoms Buy States to Fight Cities

"How States Are Fighting to Keep Towns From Offering Their Own Broadband" by Leticia Miranda, ProPublica 6/26/2015

North Carolina and Tennessee are the latest states to side with telecoms, which have long lobbied against allowing cities to become Internet providers.

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission voted to ease the way for cities to become Internet service providers.  So-called municipal broadband is already a reality in a few towns, often providing Internet access and faster service to rural communities that cable companies don’t serve.

The cable and telecommunications industry have long lobbied against city-run broadband, arguing that taxpayer money should not fund potential competitors to private companies.

The telecom companies have what may seem like an unlikely ally: states.  Roughly 20 states have restrictions against municipal broadband.

And the attorneys general in North Carolina and Tennessee have recently filed lawsuits in an attempt to overrule the FCC and block towns in these states from expanding publicly funded Internet service.

North Carolina’s attorney general argued in a suit filed last month that the “FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State’s political subdivisions.”  Tennessee’s attorney general filed a similar suit in March.

Tennessee has hired one of the country’s largest telecom lobbying and law firms, Wiley Rein, to represent the state in its suit.  The firm, founded by a former FCC chairman, has represented AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, among others.

James Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, said it is not unusual for attorneys general to seek outside counsel for specialized cases that they view as a priority.

Asked about the suit, the Tennessee attorney general’s office told ProPublica, “This is a question of the state’s sovereign ability to define the role of its local governmental units.”  North Carolina Attorney General’s office said in a statement that the “legal defense of state laws by the Attorney General’s office is a statutory requirement.”

As the New York Times detailed last year, state attorneys general have become a major target of corporate lobbyists and contributors including AT&T, Comcast and T-Mobile.

North Carolina is no exception.  The state’s Attorney General Roy Cooper received roughly $35,000 from the telecommunications industry in his 2012 run for office.  Only the state’s retail industry gave more.

The donations are just a small part of contributions the industry has made in the states.  In North Carolina’s 2014 elections, the telecommunications industry gave a combined $870,000 to candidates in both parties, which made it one of the top industries to contribute that year.  Candidates in Tennessee received nearly $921,000 from AT&T and other industry players in 2014.

The FCC’s decision came after two towns – City of Wilson in North Carolina and Chattanooga in Tennessee – appealed to the agency to be able to expand their networks.

The vote has rattled some companies.  In a government filing earlier this year, Comcast cited the FCC’s decision as a risk to the company’s business:  “Any changes to the regulatory framework applicable to any of our services or businesses could have a negative impact on our businesses and results of operations.”

If the court upholds the FCC’s authority to preempt restrictions in North Carolina and Tennessee, it may embolden other cities to file petitions with the agency, according to lawyer Jim Baller, who represents Wilson and the Chattanooga Electric Power Board.  “A victory by the FCC would be a very welcome result for many communities across America,” said Baller.

For some residents in and outside of Chattanooga, clearing the way to city-run broadband would mean the sort of faster Internet access that others might take for granted.

For 12 years, Eva VanHook, 39, of Georgetown, Tennessee, lived with a satellite broadband connection so slow that she’d read a book while waiting for a web page to load.  In order for her son to access online materials for his school assignments, she’d drive him 12 miles to their church parking lot, where he could access faster WiFi.

Charter, the local Internet service provider, declined several requests by her husband to build lines out to her home.  Only last month did Charter connect her home to the Internet.  “Even the possibility to jump on [the local utility’s] gigabit network would blow our minds right now,” VanHook said.  “There is nothing faster than Chattanooga.  Just through meeting them and hearing them speak and having them understand what’s going on, that’s the kind of place I want to do business.”

HEALTH - Widespread Flu in 46 States

"Facing widespread flu, health officials encourage antiviral drug use" PBS NewsHour 1/13/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This year’s flu season is shaping up to be one of the worst in recent years.  Judy Woodruff talks to Dr. Tom Friedan of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about this year’s influenza strain and the benefits and limitations of using antiviral drugs for patients sick with flu.  The CDC director also gives an update on the Ebola outbreak response in West Africa.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  No doubt about it, we’re in the middle of flu season, and this one is shaping up to be a particularly tough slog, possibly the worst since 2008.

The Centers for Disease Control report that flu activity is widespread in 46 states.  In fact, the only places where flu activity was limited to local pockets were Arizona, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and here in Washington, D.C.

CDC Director Dr. Thomas Friedan is here to discuss that, as well as what he thinks people should do, and why some in the field are questioning some of those recommendations.

SUPREME COURT - Bans on Affirmative Action

"Why the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s right to ban affirmative action" PBS NewsHour 4/22/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Affirmative action made its reappearance at the Supreme Court today, as the justices weighed in on a Michigan ballot initiative that banned public colleges from using race as a factor in admissions.

By an unusually lopsided 6-2 decision, the justices dealt a blow to proponents of affirmative action, allowing Michigan to join several other states that have already banned or limited the practice.

For more on the court’s reasoning, we turn to Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal,” who was at the court today.

So, that 6-2 decision, that kind of tells the tale, doesn’t it?

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal:  It does, Gwen.

The justices who were in among the six had different reasons for why they concluded that there was nothing wrong with Michigan’s ban here.  Justice Kennedy really wrote the lead opinion, and he was joined by the chief justice and Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Kennedy seemed to take pains to make clear when he read a summary of his opinion from the bench that this case was really not about the constitutionality or the merits of race-conscious admissions, but it was really about who should make the determination about those merits.

And he said that there was nothing in the Constitution or the court’s earlier decisions that allowed the judiciary, gave it the authority to take from the voters under their own state laws the right to debate, learn and then act through their political process to resolve that debate.

POLITICS - Can State Leaders Avoid Partisan Gridlock?

"With Washington mired in partisan gridlock, can state leaders push forward?" PBS Newshour 2/21/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  The nation’s governors have gathered in Washington this week for their winter meeting.  And with action in the nation’s capital stymied by partisan gridlock, many are looking to the states for solutions to the country’s challenges.

For a sample of what’s happening, we are joined by two governors, Tennessee Republican Bill Haslam and Illinois Democrat Pat Quinn.

MEDICAID - States' Alternative to ACA Required Expansion

Bet the private health insurance industry likes this one.  MORE MONEY!

As for Arkansas conservatives (read Republicans) they continue to show that keeping their citizens healthy is not cost-effective.  There's a cost ceiling to keeping citizens healthy, totally immoral and unethical.

"Private alternative to Medicaid expansion faces crucial vote in Arkansas" PBS Newshour 2/17/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act, there have been big battles over that issue.

One bipartisan alternative has emerged in Arkansas that appeals to some other red states as well, most recently Virginia.  It allows Medicaid dollars to be used to buy private insurance for low-income residents.

But now the Arkansas program is facing a crucial vote in the state Senate this week and its fate may be jeopardized.

Hari Sreenivasan has our story.

HEALTH CARE - 26 States Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Put Poor at Risk

"Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law" by SABRINA TAVERNISE and ROBERT GEBELOFF, New York Times 10/2/2013

Excerpt

A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.

Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help.  The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.

Those excluded will be stranded without insurance, stuck between people with slightly higher incomes who will qualify for federal subsidies on the new health exchanges that went live this week, and those who are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in its current form, which has income ceilings as low as $11 a day in some states.

People shopping for insurance on the health exchanges are already discovering this bitter twist.

“How can somebody in poverty not be eligible for subsidies?” an unemployed health care worker in Virginia asked through tears.  The woman, who identified herself only as Robin L. because she does not want potential employers to know she is down on her luck, thought she had run into a computer problem when she went online Tuesday and learned she would not qualify.

At 55, she has high blood pressure, and she had been waiting for the law to take effect so she could get coverage.  Before she lost her job and her house and had to move in with her brother in Virginia, she lived in Maryland, a state that is expanding Medicaid.  “Would I go back there?” she asked.  “It might involve me living in my car.  I don’t know.  I might consider it.”

The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers.  About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states.  Among those excluded are about 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses’ aides.

“The irony is that these states that are rejecting Medicaid expansion — many of them Southern — are the very places where the concentration of poverty and lack of health insurance are the most acute,” said Dr. H. Jack Geiger, a founder of the community health center model.  “It is their populations that have the highest burden of illness and costs to the entire health care system.”

The disproportionate impact on poor blacks introduces the prickly issue of race into the already politically charged atmosphere around the health care law.  Race was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the state-level debates about the Medicaid expansion.  But the issue courses just below the surface, civil rights leaders say, pointing to the pattern of exclusion.

Every state in the Deep South, with the exception of Arkansas, has rejected the expansion.  Opponents of the expansion say they are against it on exclusively economic grounds, and that the demographics of the South — with its large share of poor blacks — make it easy to say race is an issue when it is not.

OPINION - Secession, Those Who Did Not Learn From U.S. Civil War

"And behold, our 51st and 52nd states" by Laura Conaway, Maddow Blog 9/4/2013

Yesterday in Siskiyou County, California, the board of supervisors voted to issue a declaration of secession from the rest of California.  The far-northern county wants to be known as the free state of Jefferson, a land removed from "loony California" and uniting non-loony counties now languishing there and in Oregon (see map at right, not including the Southern California and Nevada counties they'd like to recruit).

Seceding from a state and forming a new one requires the approval of the both the original state and the U.S. Congress.  It's almost impossible.  Siskiyou County supervisors voted 4-1 to get out of California anyway.  The Redding Record-Searchlight relays this from the meeting:

"Many proposed laws are unconstitutional and deny us our God-given rights," said Gabe Garrison of Happy Camp.  "We need our own state so we can make laws that fit our way of life."

The State of Jefferson would be our 52nd state, the 51st being the now-aborning North Colorado.  In both cases, organizers say their desire to secede stems from the conviction that rural values and rural needs are not represented well in state capitals they consider urban-centric.

It's apparently an appealing frustration.  The map for the Colorado-based 51st State Initiative has been growing.  Marked in blue below are counties where leader Jeffrey Hare says citizens or officials have shown "significant "support.  Yellow is for counties where people are actively working on secession.  Green is for counties that already have some kind of popular vote scheduled or have joined the working group.  White is for counties in Kansas that might want to come over.  And red is for Boulder and Denver, a/k/a not interested.

State of North Colorado