Thoughts on the appearance of Super PAC/Candidate collusion and the Supreme Court decision not to revisit Citizens United…

What do you get when you put Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in the same place at the same time at a mega-fundraising event in Park City, Utah? If you answered the appearance of coordination and collusion between the Romney campaign and American Crossroads, then you likely understand the skepticism of many towards the Supreme Court’s 5-4 per curiam decision not to re-visit its controversial Citizen’s United decision. The Court’s American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock decision on Monday virtually ensures that there will be no stopping corporate money from flooding into Super PAC’s at record rates during the November election. The decision to maintain the status quo also turns a blind eye to the fact that the American public is watching billionaires and corporations single handedly drive messages in support or against certain issues and candidates in advertisements that sound and appear remarkably similar to that of the political parties and their candidates. These increasingly obvious coordinative actions raise red flags signaling that perhaps the line drawn between Super PAC activity and Political Campaign activity has become blurry to non-existent.

The appearance of coordination and collusion post-Citizens United, a decision called “uninformed, arrogant, and naïve” by Senator John McCain in a recent interview with Meet the Press, has been severely exasperated at the Presidential level. With only two candidates in the race, divisive opposing views on almost every major issue, and because of the national media’s focus on the every move of the candidates and their associated/unassociated groups, hiding any type of coordination between PACs and Candidates is now virtually impossible. As hard and soft ads from the campaigns hit the airwaves, there have likewise been streams of Super PAC ads running that could easily be labeled candidate specific because the issues addressed have been framed in a manner where the lay person can easily tell what candidate backs or opposes the viewpoint or stance promoted. For example, with Karl Rove and the American Crossroads Super PAC, any concern over the appearance of collusion seems to run a distant second to attempting to humiliate the President with one-sided content and Republican talking points. It’s no secret that American Crossroads is a GOP operation run by former members of team Bush, and although they may technically be unassociated with the Romney campaign, there can be no doubt that Rove’s ads are purposefully directed at hurting Obama in an unabashed attempt to benefit the presumptive GOP candidate.

Still, what really takes the efforts of Rove and some other conservative Super PACs to the level of possibly violating campaign finance rules is the visibility of the biggest donors to outside groups at Romney campaign events disguised as fundraisers. It became obvious that the new rules would be tested at their limit during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary, as Newt Gingrich and a Super PAC led by Sheldon Adelson campaign made no attempt to curb public perception that they were coordinating by appearing on stage together at multiple Gingrich fundraising events. The response from the guilty parties then was that it was not coordination simply to be seen together. But, at an event like the “fundraising retreat” for Romney in Park City, it is simply naïve to think that there is not backroom coordination occurring between big money donors and campaign staff. The question now becomes what can be done in the wake of the American Tradition decision to ensure that American voters are not having their voices diluted beyond what is acceptable under Citizens United and the US Constitution.

At this point, the implication from American Tradition is that nothing will be done at the Supreme Court level to change the rules despite growing evidence of their abuse. Any substantive changes will not occur until after the 2012 election cycle and will likely require a heightened level of proof of collusion and coordination to move the Court to seriously re-address the campaign finance issue. The conservative justices have taken a wait and see approach, while the liberal justices continue to point out many of the same concerns raised by this and many other articles on the post-Citizens United landscape. Therefore, it will be up to good reporting and increased accountability on the part of the American electorate and media to move the Court to act on the fact that coordination is in fact occurring. The Court has long considered the appearance of corruption as a compelling governmental interest, and evidence of such should be at the heart of any discussion on election rules in the United States. Unfortunately, because of American Tradition, Karl Rove and other GOP-tied Super PACs will be allowed to continue abusing campaign finance rules.

Thoughts on the Latino vote and President Obama’s speech to NALEO…

Lake Buena Vista, Florida - Following sharp criticism of his commitment to the Latino community suggested during speeches by presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, President Barack Obama responded in kind by offering a clear contrast to his Republican adversaries during a key election year address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”). Speaking only a few hours after Rubio, who had told the conference that the President “has not made Latino issues a priority” and offered as proof the fact that the President “hasn’t been to the NALEO conference in the three years since he took office”, Obama seemed unfazed by Rubio’s criticism and instead focused his energy on connecting with the audience and contrasting himself with Romney early and often.

The President began his speech by discussing the vital role of “Dreamers” in helping to fuel the economic engine of America and discussed how immigrants have always been “risk takers, not looking for handouts and some of the hardest working people around.” He then asked the crowd about the kind of vision the Latino community was looking for in their President, specifically asking “what vision do we stand for, who do we fight for?” in reference to Romney’s policies which the President claims would favor the rich and result in a return to “trickle down” economics. He further contrasted his vision from Romney’s by discussing his focus on expanding education opportunities through expanded Pell grants, encouraging community colleges as a bridge to a higher education, and not teaching to a test and instead focusing on expanding curriculums instead of slashing funding like the GOP in Congress and Romney have favored doing by gutting the Department of Education.

The crowd of officials seemed receptive to the President’s message on education, and that didn’t change when the President shifted to discussing his record in what appeared to be a direct response to Romney’s claim the day before that “President Obama doesn’t respect the Latino vote.” He began by mentioning that his administration has already cut taxes 18 times for Latino small business owners and for Latino middle class taxpayers, he discussed the impact of health care reform on the Latino community, the fact that under the Affordable Care , Act Americans will no longer go broke because they are sick. He highlighted the fact that Latino’s have the highest uninsured rate and that it was the “right thing to do passing health care reform.” Finally, he qualified the progress made thus far with the fact that there is more to do, that we need to put more good teachers in our class rooms, need to put people back to work restoring our infrastructure.

Next, the President addressed the need for Congress to take on comprehensive Immigration “in order to continue attracting talented hard working people who believe in this country.” He mentioned that the delay in action on immigration has not been a lack of technical knowhow on how to fix the system, and he used the work put in to the issue by McCain, Bush, and Ted Kennedy, showing there was bi-partisan support at a point in time not long ago. He then blamed the stale mate on obstruction caused by Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in Congress. In stark contrast to Romney who said he would veto the DREAM Act, The President also argued that Congress should have passed the Dream ACT because it was a bill written by both parties. He drove home the point by pointing out that the Republicans who helped write the bill blocked it in the end, and that “the need didn’t change, the bill didn’t change, the only thing that had changed was politics.” He then went on to justify his administrations action stating that “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving these children an opportunity” was the right thing to do. He called it a temporary measure, and reiterated that Congress needs to act and send a bill to his desk ASAP.

Finally, the President closed his speech to NALEO by discussing larger election year themes with a 2008 feel, discussing with passion the need for unity as a country to fully recover from the financial collapse, and mentioning that “an enduring promise of America” is what drives immigrants to America. He mentioned how his story would not have been possible in any other country, and he drew an us versus them type distinction between his vision and the Romney vision when he wrapped up stating that the march toward freedom and equality has always been tough, and that people have tried to stop the progress of minorities over time, but that in the end persevered with the familiar theme from Obama’s historic run to the White House, ending with a resounding “yes we can, si se puede” and a huge applause from the conference crowd that was nearly twice as loud as that of Mitt Romney the day before.

Thoughts on changes to U.S. immigration policy and whether Romney would repeal President Obama’s Executive Order…

Five days removed from President Obama’s announcement of an Executive Order changing the immigration policy of the United States, GOP Nominee Mitt Romney has yet to directly answer yes or no to media questions pertaining to whether he would repeal the Order if he is elected. As things stand, if Congress doesn’t act in the next month to block the Order, then the children of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 and brought to the country before they were 16 will become eligible to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and will be allowed to apply for a two year work permit. To be eligible for relief, the individual must have lived in the U.S. for five continuous years, have no criminal record and have earned a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military. Thus, because of the wide effect and the urgency to act created by this policy change, it’s of vital importance to millions of young immigrants living in the shadows to know whether a President Romney would be in favor of allowing those qualified under Obama’s order to remain in the U.S.

The biggest political problem created for Romney by Obama’s move is that answering either way will cost him critical votes with Latinos, independents, or with anti-immigrant Tea Party Republicans. Thus, the politics behind his current silence are clear; he is doing whatever he can to avoid taking a position in order to avoid alienating key constituencies. In fact, a recent poll on Obama’s move conducted by Bloomberg this week showed 86% support from Democrats, 66% from Independents, and only 44% support among Republicans. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Romney Campaign is aware of the political consequences associated with advising their candidate on whether to speak or not speak on this Order. What is not clear is why Romney and his surrogates are accusing Obama of playing politics with immigration policy when Romney’s own refusal to answer direct questions is obviously a politically motivated campaign tactic.

To further complicate matters for undecided voters, it also appears from the text on Romney’s campaign website that he has already taken a position in favor of retaining immigrant talent. For example, under the heading of “Attract the Best and Brightest”, the Romney campaign’s website states that the “the U.S. needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate.” But this position, without the qualification that it only applies to legal immigrants, is much too liberal a stance for a majority of the Republican base including Tea Partiers. Thus, Romney’s own inconsistency on immigration issues are why he finds himself stuck between supporting the Order and risking losing his already shaky conservative base, or rejecting the Order, threatening to repeal, and risking losing vital support from undecided independent voters and Rubio Republicans.

Considering the above issues and the fact that Marco Rubio recently withdrew his Dream Act legislation from the Senate, an honest analysis of the cost/benefit to the GOP of Romney’s responding directly to Obama’s Order leads to the reasonable conclusion that Mitt Romney will continue to deflect direct questions pertaining to the Executive Order or the Dream Act. Romney, as most are aware by now, is a master political chameleon who typically plays it safe on controversial issues while taking whatever position is popular at the place, time and with the audience he is speaking to. Because Romney is scared to offend fair weather conservative voters by back treading on the rhetoric he spouted during the primary season, we should expect him and his campaign to continue to talk tough about deportations and the problems with illegal immigrants when in front of Tea Party crowds, and similarly, because he is scared to offend undecided conservative Latino voters, we can also expect Romney the chameleon to sound a lot like his possible running mate Marco Rubio when he visits Florida. Just don’t expect Mitt Romney to give the American people a direct yes or no answer any time soon.

Thoughts on Adverse Credit Delaying the Disbursement of Direct Plus Student Loans and a Possible Fix to an Ambiguous Appeals Process…

Let me preface this article by acknowledging that the student loan debt bubble looms large if tuition costs for American higher education continue to inflate, interest rates continue to rise, and nationwide unemployment remains high. However, in the here and now, there are many unacceptable cases where professional and graduate students are being stifled financially by a lack of necessary exemptions and a time consuming credit verification and appeals process. Specifically, due to limits on the maximum amount that can be borrowed per student per semester, and because of the required credit check approval process, many students now find themselves flipping over their couch cushions looking for spare change and begging their parents, friends, and relatives for money in order to survive during the gap periods and keep their credit scores from flat lining between the Spring & Summer and Fall & Spring semesters.

To illustrate, picture yourself in the following scenario faced by thousands of students for the past month and a half: You’re entering the summer before your third year of law school; you’re already $100,000 in debt (yes, that is around the typical cost of law school tuition and fees in 2012!) and you just accepted an unpaid internship with a government agency in order to gain practical experience and make connections. You’re taking classes at night to try and graduate on or ahead of time, and you depend on student loans to survive the day to day grind associated with gaining access to the legal profession. In early May you double checked your personal financial information and turned in your FAFSA application for your Direct Plus loan before the deadline (and had no issues arise during the previous aid periods).

As the end of May approaches, things have become increasingly tight financially. You receive word from school that your disbursement for the summer semester will not arrive until after the first of June, meaning that your rent and bills are going to be due despite not having enough money available from your previous loan to pay them (last year summer loans were disbursed just before the end of May). As the month draws to a close, you’re notified by e-mail that your application for a summer loan has been denied to due to a newly detected adverse credit issue. You immediately contact Equifax and discover that a billing company reported you to a collection agency because they failed to record a final payment for a phone bill you paid in 2010 (for which you have electronic record of), and in addition, Equifax discovers a bill for $65 that was never forwarded to your new address when you moved apartments last year (and that bill is now more than 90 days overdue and reported to a collection agency!).

You have Equifax run your credit again to verify the total amount you owe and are notified, after that you can cure the adverse credit issue through an appeals process if you can provide your school and Federal Student Aid (“FSA”) with written proof of your satisfaction of the debt owed. Unfortunately, not only are you already broke and not able to afford to cure your debt without your disbursement, but the credit appeals process takes another ten days due to unexplained delays on the part of the collection agency (a whole other important issue), meaning bigger late fees for rent and bills long with exponentially more borrowing needed for basic survival. There is just bad news all around (on top of interest rates rising to 7.9%), and it seems absurd that all this trouble is over a $65 dollar overdue bill that amounts to only 0.6% of the $10,000 that you’re scheduled to receive for the summer!

Under the current rules, an adverse credit report, no matter how insignificant the adverse debt when compared to the amount being borrowed, can prove disastrous to the life of an already broke and overworked graduate or professional student. This rough financial patch experienced by those without wealthy parents or relatives to bail them out as an endorser or “bank” is caused primarily by what I’m calling the “Limbo Period” for financial aid dependent students.

The Limbo Period begins just before final exams, in mid/late April to early May, and runs until loans for summer semester and/or loan qualified externships are disbursed. Because Spring loans are disbursed in mid to late January, and because the max amount has a limit that is designed to last into mid-May at the latest, it’s becoming extremely difficult to live a healthy life and have any money left over by the time final exams come around under the current system. There is no margin for error or accident, if you get sick or injured, then you are going into big time debt, and there is no chance of having money for rent if summer disbursements arrive after the first of June as they did this year.

What can be done to fix the current system? Consider the current language found on the FSA website, and then take a look at my proposed 10% exemption for students with adverse credit…

Current Language from the FSA website: “Credit check & endorser alternative… In some cases, you may also be able to obtain a Direct PLUS Loan if you document to our satisfaction that there are extenuating circumstances related to your adverse credit history.” (This is ambiguous language… what are extenuating circumstances and what does it mean to document something to the satisfaction of FSA?).

See full text: http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DirectLoan/applying.html

My Proposed Additions to the Current Language: For students who are notified by FSA that they have adverse credit but cannot attain an endorser, and do not have a written or electronically documented extenuating circumstance, funds shall still be disbursed as scheduled to each otherwise qualified student by their current institution subject to the “10% Rule Exemption for Students with Adverse Credit” as long as:

1) The total owed to the creditor or other agency by the student required to remedy the adverse credit is less than 10% of the amount sought from FSA for that student’s loan for the upcoming aid period;

Example: If a student is seeking to borrow $10,000 for the summer semester, then they will receive their disbursement on schedule if they owe less than $1,000 to the creditors whose reports triggered the adverse credit report.

2) The student provides evidence, in the form of a written or electronic document, of the amount owed to a creditor, and the evidence provided must demonstrate satisfaction of the 10% Rule; and

Example: Written or electronic proof of the amount owed being less than 10% of the amount to be borrowed by the student through FSA.

3) The student cures their adverse credit by the application deadline set by their institution for the subsequent financial aid period. Example: If the student in the earlier example is receiving summer Direct Loan money, and needs to pay off $850 in debt to a creditor in order to have their adverse credit status removed, then they have until the FAFSA deadline for the upcoming Fall Semester to cure their debt.

The purpose of this proposed change is to spark change so we can keep hard working graduate and professional students, who are most likely in unpaid intern or externships, from being evicted from their homes, swamped with giant late fees, and unable to afford groceries. These students should be focused on learning from their professors and serving their communities. The current adverse credit appeals process lacks any express language that addresses the month long Limbo Period. Therefore, it’s now up to FSA, with the assistance and persistence of the President and members of Congress, to act to implement a fix to this issue before it becomes a catalyst for a larger student loan crisis.

Thoughts On the National Security and Foreign Policy Visions of Mitt Romney and President Obama…

Less than five months from the 2012 Presidential Election it’s of significant value to begin paying closer attention to the actual details behind both candidates’ respective approaches to the biggest issues facing our nation. Despite not being the most talked about issue of this election cycle, the positions taken by both on foreign policy, national security and defense spending should be highly scrutinized given the vast amounts of life and treasure spent defending and securing the nation since the 2001 launch of the War on Terror.

Eleven years after 9/11, the choice made by Americans at the polls this year will dictate whether there is a neo-conservative revival cloaked in a call for an “American Century”, or whether a complete winding down of the ground wars and a heightened focus on coordinated special intelligence and targeted attacks on terrorist organizations around the world continues to take shape. This critical choice will determine whether our country pursues policies that appear to be adversarial, with a Cold War-era tone, or whether there is a continuing focus on strengthening alliances (such as the NATO effort that saw helped facilitate the overthrow of Gadhafi) through reasoned diplomacy and a common purpose of de-escalating tensions worldwide.

A dissection of the rhetoric and records of both Romney and Obama tells the story of two candidates, one who currently sits in the hot seat, has made the tough calls when the stakes were at their highest (Bin Laden raid), and seen the intelligence reports, while the other has surrounded himself with many of the same actors who drove the policies known as the “Bush Doctrine.” For example, Romney’s website lists as his special advisors the likes of Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under W. Bush, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Walid Phares, former Director of the Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security again under W. Bush. Bottom line, a vote for Romney appears to be a vote to double down on the neo-conservative policies advocated from 2000-2008.

President Obama’s team offers a stark contrast to Romney’s, as well as a vastly different vision for the role of the United States security apparatus overseas and at home. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama’s national security team has taken targeted anti-terrorism to a whole new level. At the time of this article, only one senior Al Qaeda official remains breathing, and his days look numbered. The Iraq War is over, and troops have begun coming home from Afghanistan. The President’s narrative offers goals such as “common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” There is a focus on promoting peace and security in the Middle East and preserving America’s commitment to the security of Israel.

Romney’s campaign paints a dark portrayal of a world that harps on Cold War fears and a view that Obama seeks to “Hollow” out the United States Military. In reality, no matter what Romney says on his website, it’s simply misleading and disingenuous to say that re-electing the President means “a weak America, an America in decline, an America that retreats from its responsibilities, would usher in an era of uncertainty and danger.” To the contrary, it is likely that terrorist around the world have received the message that Obama will not hesitate to send a drone their way to eradicate the world from threats to our nation and our allies. An honest analysis of Romney’s national defense strategy reveals that he would really do nothing different than W. Bush, and that fear of a straw man version of Obama drives much of the rhetoric spouted by him and his campaign.

Lines such as “President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women” are simply misrepresentations that make our country less safe and do not reflect the reality of how powerful the United States Military truly is. Frankly, given the bloated defense budget (seven times that of China, and more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined), the argument that our military has weakened over the past three years is simply ludacris. (Defense budget was $530.1 billion in 2010, $549.1 billion in 2011, and estimated to be $553.0 billion for 2012). We should all agree that there are intelligent ways to maintain the greatest fighting force on earth while getting rid of excess spending that further exasperates concerns over the federal debt and balancing our budgets.

In addition, there is simply no need to expand the size of the military unless we plan on engaging in yet another ground war like we saw in Iraq. Any new war mongering at this point should be received with great skepticism and a dose of real concern for the sustainability of our troops both mentally and physically. Does anyone truly have the appetite for war with multiple nations in the name of ending an Iranian nuclear program that has no chance of succeeding to build bombs while under the intense scrutiny and surveillance of the United States and its allies? The GOP seems to have that very vision in mind, in fact Romney’s national security platform reads like a Tom Clancy novel that should concern even the biggest supporters of our military and intelligence endeavors. Do we really want to return to pre-emptive war and isolationism? Do we want to continue building alliances or return to bullying our way through disputes while giving our enemies more mental ammunition to build anti-American terror networks?

Thus, much is at stake this November in addition to jobs and recovering from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The foreign policy visions of the candidates tell the story of two different futures for America’s military, and before voting, it is advisable that each one of us educate ourselves and those around us so that we as a nation can understand the ramifications of our collective choice for President. We should each take a hard look at the promises made by the President in 2008, and take a look at the Romney’s plans to revert back to pre-Obama policies. We should look at the tone of the rhetoric from both sides, and compare that rhetoric to the actual facts, look at the defense budget, and also look at how large and capable our military already is. The time has come for us all to look deeper than the pundits on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC and to begin vetting the candidates without the media filter and based on the real effects of the candidates’ respective positions. National security is a good place as any to begin this important process.

Thoughts on the ongoing dispute over the true impact of photo ID voting laws...

America still has a problem. Despite our country’s oft-touted reputation as a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, severe voter apathy and low turnout, not voter fraud (only 9 possible instances of voter impersonation were reported from 2002-2007 according to protectingthevote.com), are once again looking like huge issues for the candidates for the Presidency and others running for office in November’s contests. For a moderate GOP candidate like Mitt Romney, lower than average anticipated voter turnout could mean that white Evangelicals, as well as Ron Paul libertarians have chosen to sit this election out. And for President Obama and other Democrats, a lower than expected turnout might provide evidence that, in addition to the historic narrative of 2008 being a thing of the past, red state efforts to make voting more difficult for the working poor, the young, the disabled, and minorities are working to theirs and our democracy’s detriment.

In states such as Georgia, which along with seven other US states (Texas and South Carolina have not yet precleared their laws with the Department of Justice) has a strict voter photo ID requirement for in-person voting, the elderly poor and other underrepresented groups will no doubt become further dissuaded from making the effort to vote if it means they need to make and additional trip (which requires transportation costs) to purchase a photo ID. The fact that the already dismal voter turnout figures in Georgia (49% average over the past three Presidential elections according to Census.gov) and across the country (54%) are being held down not only by the apathy that already plagues the voting-age populace, but also by the additional ID requirements, means that there is a self-inflicted negative impact on a fundamental tenant of our democracy, the right of the people to vote and to have a voice in the democratic process.

States with strict photo ID laws in place have consistently argued that no one is actually turned away at the polls for not having an ID, and that those without ID can by law cast provisional ballots which shall be counted if the individual produces proof of ID within a specified time period. However, despite wide public support for the ID concept, it is naïve to believe that the chance to cast a provisional ballot, that may not be counted, is going to persuade an individual without a photo ID to make the journey to the polling place to vote knowing their vote will not be counted unless they eventually take the extra step of obtaining an ID and proving they are who they say they are.

It’s also difficult to articulate how requiring additional steps beyond detailed voter registration, where proof of citizenship by social security number or driver’s license number is already a requirement in many states, amounts to anything less than a poll tax if it requires a particular type of photo ID that cannot be obtained without traveling to an office, getting the ID made, and paying whatever fee is required to do so. Taking it a step further, the law in states like Georgia permits only particular photo IDs listed on the Secretary of State’s website, which do not include student IDs from private colleges and universities, but do allow hunting permits to be presented without issue. Still, because it is impossible to measure with accuracy why an individual decides not to vote, the issue of measurability of any disparate impact as a result of this type of de facto tax remains at the heart and soul of the debate over the constitutionality of these laws.

As mentioned above, the argument is that there is no hard data to support the argument that the vote is being suppressed due to photo ID requirements. However, when we consider that most objective people would agree that adding an additional step that costs money to any process, no matter how nominal, at some point becomes a dissuasive factor in choosing to take part in the activity affected, here voting, then as a result it is fairly obvious that there is some sort of impact on voter turnout even if no hard data is obtainable. For example, a Brief Amicus Curiae of Rock the Vote noted that 1/5 of 18-29 year olds don’t have a driver’s license, and according to protectingthevote.com 19% of Latinos, 25% of African Americans, and 20% Asian Americans lack a government-issued photo ID compared to 8% of Whites. Bottom line, our lawmakers should know that one of the underlying purposes of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 was to protect the right to vote as fundamental to all Americans, regardless of income level, race, color, or any other stereotypical classification. Photo ID requirements are simply a proxy for a broader effort to discourage the above classifications of groups from casting a legal ballot.

It is already a crime to impersonate another American using false identification; such deterrence takes care of any concern of fraud for 99.99% of the voting age populace. Sure, there may be a handful of cases every decade, but there is no justification for additional legal hurdles if there is no large scale problem to be solved. To the contrary, we should be doing everything we can as a society to make it easier to vote. We should be looking at ways to administer secure online elections, improve online registration services, consider moving the Election Day to the weekend to raise turnout, and begin modernizing our electoral process to make it more convenient for our social media driven society. We should not use the simple fear of losing an election veiled in non-factual voter fraud concerns as a reason to create proxies for voter suppression.

Unfortunately, many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have largely bought into the myth that there is widespread voter fraud which justifies stricter voting laws, but the numbers volunteered by advocates of photo ID laws just do not add up to widespread fraud, and what is truly left is a disparate impact on the most vulnerable and least well off in our society. If we are to use grandiose rhetoric in describing our democracy, we should begin to set an example by doing whatever possible to lift our country from the basement of voter turnout amongst free nations. Despite the majority opinion, these new laws are simply a step back in the wrong direction, and the resulting apathy and low turnout is a black eye on our democracy.