Tuesday
Feb262008
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Holds Oversight Hearing on Voter Suppression
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 12:33PM
Today, Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D- Michigan) held a hearing to address the U.S. Department of Justice’s poor enforcement record in combating voter suppression. Present on behalf of the Department was Deputy Assistant Attorney General Asheesh Agarwal, Civil Rights Division.
Throughout the entire hearing there was a sense of hostility between Deputy Agarwal and the members of the committee. This could be largely attributed to the fact that Deputy Agarwal refused to answer questions in a straightforward manner. The vast majority of his responses were that he was unable to answer the question at the time, and he would need to speak with the Department before he could give an answer. The Committee did begin to lose their patience with Deputy Agarwal, as evidenced by the questioning of Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The main issue of contention for the Committee was that the Department continues to pursue voter fraud cases while entirely disregarding “flagrant examples” of voter suppression. In addition to this, Representative Ellison centered on the Department’s decision to support the controversial Indiana photo identification law requiring all voters to present said identification in order to vote. The committee was largely concerned with the fact that this law is problematic because it will disenfranchise minorities, the elderly, and the disabled. In addition to this, Representative Wasserman Schultz demanded that Deputy Agarwal report to the Committee in two weeks regarding letters that the Department sent to 10 states to pressure them to purge their voter rolls before the 2008 election, “which could adversely affect many voters.”
Throughout the entire hearing there was a sense of hostility between Deputy Agarwal and the members of the committee. This could be largely attributed to the fact that Deputy Agarwal refused to answer questions in a straightforward manner. The vast majority of his responses were that he was unable to answer the question at the time, and he would need to speak with the Department before he could give an answer. The Committee did begin to lose their patience with Deputy Agarwal, as evidenced by the questioning of Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The main issue of contention for the Committee was that the Department continues to pursue voter fraud cases while entirely disregarding “flagrant examples” of voter suppression. In addition to this, Representative Ellison centered on the Department’s decision to support the controversial Indiana photo identification law requiring all voters to present said identification in order to vote. The committee was largely concerned with the fact that this law is problematic because it will disenfranchise minorities, the elderly, and the disabled. In addition to this, Representative Wasserman Schultz demanded that Deputy Agarwal report to the Committee in two weeks regarding letters that the Department sent to 10 states to pressure them to purge their voter rolls before the 2008 election, “which could adversely affect many voters.”
It's a "no" for the Employee Free Choice Act
Today in a discussion titled "Consequences of the Employee Free Choice Act: Union and Management Perspectives" experts expressed why the act would not be beneficial to employees but harmful.
James Sherk, a Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation said, "The act replaces secret ballot organizing elections with card checks. It would also take the free collective bargaining out of the hands of the unions and employers."
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was proposed on February 5, 2007, in the House by Chairman George Miller of the Education and Labor Committee. EFCA passed the House in March 2007 by a vote of 241-185 but then died in the Senate in June 2007. Since then, organized labor has made the EFCA its top legislative target.
Homer L. Deakins, Jr., Managing Shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, said that the bill is basically made up of two goals. "Its major objective is to deny employees a free choice and to substitute what has been a free choice by a secret ballot of election." He went on to say that the second objective and purpose to this bill is to neutralize employers. "The only group that is a beneficiary of this law is organized labor. Everyone else gives up rights. The employer loses the right to basically make their case to the employees and it also says to employers that they will be penalized for misconduct during an organizing campaign in an effort to keep them neutral."