August, 13 2020, 12:00am EDT
Supreme Court Rejects Gop Effort To Force Rhode Islanders To Risk Their Health To Vote During Covid-19 Pandemic
WASHINGTON
In an important win for voting rights, the Supreme Court today rejected efforts by the Republican National Committee and Rhode Island Republican Party to try and block Rhode Island from eliminating witness/notary requirements for vote by mail in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The state had agreed to drop the requirements via consent decree, resolving a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Rhode Island, Campaign Legal Center, and the law firm Fried Frank on behalf of Common Cause of Rhode Island, the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island and three voters who face serious health risks if they contract the disease. Republicans unsuccessfully sought a stay of the consent decree from the Supreme Court.
The following reactions are from:
Dale Ho, director, ACLU's Voting Rights Project: "The Supreme Court rejected the Republican Party's unconscionable attempt to undermine vote by mail and put thousands of Rhode Islanders at risk in the middle of a deadly pandemic."
Steven Brown, executive director, ACLU of Rhode Island: "We are very pleased that the Republican Party's efforts to turn the fundamental right to vote into an episode of 'Survivor' has failed. We are grateful that our vulnerable plaintiffs and others like them will be able to vote securely from the safety and privacy of their homes as they did in June, without needing to risk their health or lives. Today's action is a victory for basic principles of democracy."
John Marion, executive director, Common Cause Rhode Island: "We are thrilled that the Supreme Court agreed not to stay the consent decree. Because of this order hundreds of thousands of Rhode Island voters will be able to safely cast their ballots without risking their health. Common Cause Rhode Island and our fellow plaintiffs are grateful for the court's action and everyone who made this important victory possible, including our attorneys at the ACLU, Campaign Legal Center, and Fried Frank."
Jane Koster, president, League of Women Voters of Rhode Island: "The court's decision today affirms our assertion that voters should never have to choose between their health and their right to vote. Democracy was upheld by today's decision. Witness and notary requirements do nothing to improve the security of our elections, and now voters can cast their ballots free from the burden of fulfilling these requirements during a deadly pandemic."
Danielle Lang, co-director, Voting Rights and Redistricting, at Campaign Legal Center: "Making voting safer during a pandemic is a good outcome for everyone, state election officials and advocates alike agree. Removing the witness and notary requirement will protect people's health and their right to vote."
Ruling: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/common-cause-rhode-island-v-gorbea-supreme-court-order
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'A Tragedy in the Making': CDC Panel Votes to Adjust Hepatitis B Vaccine Policy for Newborns
"This unfounded change to the childhood vaccine schedule will only lead to entirely preventable disease outbreaks in the years ahead," said the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
Dec 05, 2025
Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the top US Senate committee on public health, demanded on Friday that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explain to lawmakers why experts he convened had scrapped a policy that one academic recently called "one of the most significant public health achievements in US child health over the past several decades."
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), said Sanders, "in strong disagreement with the medical and scientific community, voted to end a decades-long recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine. This vaccine saves lives."
Since 1991, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adopted a policy of recommending the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborn babies in the US, the number of children who test positive for the disease has plummeted by 99%, from nearly 20,000 annually to the single or low-double digits.
On Friday, ACIP—whose 17 previous members were all fired and replaced by Kennedy—voted to potentially erase that progress, which, as Kelly Gebo, dean of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, said this week, has "prevented tens of thousands of deaths, and remains a safe, effective, and essential measure."
The panel voted 8-3 that women who test negative for hepatitis B should work with their healthcare provider to decide "when and if" their children will be vaccinated against the virus, which causes an infection of the liver and can be transmitted through blood or other bodily fluids. The disease can cause a chronic infection and eventually lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, or liver cancer.
Under the new guidance, parents will be advised to “consider vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and infection risks” and administer the shot at two months of age at the earliest.
At Stat News, Helen Branswell noted that while the revised policy, as stated, is only a recommendation in cases of a pregnant person who is at low risk for hepatitis B, the across-the-board recommendation helped ensure babies would not slip "through the safety net meant to protect them against infection at birth."
"All pregnant people are supposed to be tested for hepatitis B during pregnancy," wrote Branswell. "But testing doesn’t always occur, some test results are faulty, and some pregnant people become infected later in pregnancy, after being tested."
The ACIP members who voted to change the policy repeated claims made by Kennedy throughout the debate—that babies in general are at low risk and that hepatitis largely affects sex workers, drug users, and people from countries with high hepatitis B rates.
But critics of the decision said it will place unvaccinated infants at risk of being exposed to the virus, especially since as many as 70% of the roughly 2 million Americans who have hepatitis B are not aware of their diagnosis.
James Campbell, vice chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ infectious diseases committee, told Stat News about a 15-year-old girl he cared for who had not been vaccinated against hepatitis B in infancy because she was not believed to be at risk. She developed a chronic infection and ultimately died after two failed liver transplants.
“This is a very dangerous decision. It will certainly cause harm,” Campbell told Stat News.
Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen added that the vote is a "tragedy in the making."
In Massachusetts, Democratic Gov. Maura Healey indicated she plans to take action to circumvent ACIP's new guidelines and ensure parents are given the data about hepatitis B infection and the benefits and safety of the vaccine that's been recommended for more than three decades.
"RFK, that panel, they are not doing their jobs," Healey told CNN on Thursday night, ahead of the vote. "And in the face of that, as governor, I'm going to do mine, which is to take actions to make available science-based information. To give people real truth, real information, not conspiracy theories or ideologies, and we're going to continue to make available vaccines that people want."
Kennedy has spread misinformation about the measles vaccine and angered senators from both sides of the aisle earlier this year when the Food and Drug Administration, under his leadership, limited access to Covid-19 vaccines—leading Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to accuse him of "denying people vaccine" after Kennedy had pledged he would not restrict Americans' ability to be immunized.
Cassidy, a physician, grilled Kennedy during his confirmation hearing about his plans for vaccine policies—but ultimately voted in favor of his confirmation.
On Friday, Cassidy said ACIP's new recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine was "a mistake" and urged CDC Director Jim O'Neill to retain "the current, evidence-based approach."
But Charles Idelson, former communications strategist at National Nurses United, said Cassidy and the other senators who voted to confirm Kennedy to serve as the nation's top health official "own him."
"If you had the political courage to back up this position," said Idelson, "you would surely now call for Kennedy to resign for his lies to you, for his malfeasance, for his reckless advocacy of conspiracy theories, and for endangering the health of all Americans."
On Friday, Aaron Siri, a lawyer who specializes in vaccine injury cases, was scheduled to present to ACIP regarding the broader childhood vaccine schedule and potential changes to recommendations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Investigation Reveals How Amazon Is Fleecing Public Schools With 'Algorithm-Driven Pricing'
"Public officials should be deeply concerned by what we found."
Dec 05, 2025
A detailed investigation released Thursday reveals that the e-commerce behemoth Amazon is using its market dominance and political influence to gain a foothold in local governments' purchasing systems, locking school districts into contracts that let the corporation drive up prices for pens, sticky notes, and other basic supplies.
The new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), titled Turning Public Money Into Amazon’s Profits: The Hidden Cost of Ceding Government Procurement to a Monopoly Gatekeeper, is based on purchasing records from nearly 130 cities representing more than 50 million Americans.
ILSR found that "cities, counties, and school districts spent $2.2 billion with Amazon in 2023—a nearly fourfold increase since 2016."
"Through its Amazon Business platform, the company has maneuvered to become the default source for office products, classroom materials, cleaning supplies, and other routine goods," the report states. "Today, it is embedded in most local governments, making inroads into state agencies, and dominating a new program designed to reshape how federal agencies buy commercial products."
Unlike the fixed pricing that's typical for government contracts, the agreements that Amazon has secured with local governments across the US entail "algorithm-driven pricing" to "covertly raise prices and inflate costs for governments."
"The result is dramatic price variation: One city bought a 12-pack of Sharpie markers for $8.99, while a nearby school district paid $28.63 for the identical pack that same day," ILSR said. "Our data contain thousands of similar examples, with some agencies paying double or even triple what others paid for the same items."
1. Hard to believe, but Amazon has persuaded schools and cities across the country to abandon competitive bidding and fixed price contracts. Instead, they're signing contracts with Amazon that specify dynamic pricing. The result: Paying $37 for 12 pens or $74 for 36 markers. pic.twitter.com/afIIkPucZL
— Stacy Mitchell (@stacyfmitchell) December 5, 2025
Overall, ILSR found that school districts bound to Amazon contracts spend twice as much per student as school districts without an agreement with the $2.5 trillion company.
“Public officials should be deeply concerned by what we found,” Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director of ILSR, said in a statement. “Amazon is reshaping public procurement in ways that expose taxpayer dollars to waste and risk. It has persuaded cities and schools to abandon safeguards meant to ensure fair prices and accountability—while driving out independent suppliers, eroding competition, and putting Amazon in a position to dictate terms.”
Having gained sweeping access to local government purchasing processes, Amazon is increasingly inserting itself into state and federal systems. ILSR noted that "Amazon dominates the General Services Administration’s Commercial Platforms Program, a new system for agencies to make purchases below $15,000 that do not require competitive bids."
"During the first two years of the program’s pilot phase," the group found, "Amazon captured 96% of sales."
ILSR emphasized that Amazon's dominance is by no means inevitable and can, with concerted action, be rolled back.
"A handful of cities and counties have recognized the risks of relying on Amazon and taken steps to restore transparency and keep public dollars local," the report observes. "Tempe, Arizona rejected an Amazon group-purchasing contract after hearing concerns from a local business owner. Between 2017 and 2023, the city cut its Amazon spending by 84% while increasing purchases from local suppliers. Phoenix likewise prioritizes local bids and has spent almost nothing with Amazon over the last decade."
Kennedy Smith, co-author of the report, said that "when local officials put real safeguards in place and prioritize local suppliers, they save money, strengthen their economies, and restore public control over public dollars."
To keep their procurement system free of the kinds of tactics Amazon uses to line its pockets with taxpayer money, ILSR urged state and local governments to prohibit so-called "dynamic pricing" in purchasing contracts and to prioritize buying from local businesses.
"By reclaiming control of public procurement, governments can safeguard dollars, strengthen local businesses, and ensure that the goods that sustain our schools and public services are supplied through systems that are transparent, competitive, and democratic," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of Democrats, Independents Want Leaders to Fight GOP Attacks on AI Rules
"Voters are angry about Big Tech’s rogue AI telling teens to commit suicide and they want to see their congressional leaders fighting back," said one campaigner.
Dec 05, 2025
A poll published Friday revealed that a majority of Democratic and Independent US voters want congressional Democrats to fight GOP efforts to block states from passing laws regulating artificial intelligence—even as the technology evolves at a speed that has many experts concerned about serious and possibly existential consequences.
The Demand Progress poll of 2,257 likely voters conducted by Tavern Research found that voters across the political spectrum are wary of Big Tech's ability or willingness to ensure safe development of AI, with just 8% of Democratic respondents, 9% of Independents, and 18% of Republicans saying they trust companies to "adequately prioritize safety."
Respondents across the board—81% of Democrats and Independents and 74% of Republicans—also agreed that "large technology companies have too much influence over AI policy."
Although an earlier Republican attempt to slip a 10-year ban on state AI regulation into the massive One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July was shot down in the Senate, a bill introduced in September by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) would impose a temporary moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
So far, Trump's most notably robust regulation of artificial intelligence has been his executive order aimed at preventing "woke AI." His other AI-related edicts have rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken under former President Joe Biden to bolster safety.
Last month, Trump signed a directive launching the Genesis Mission, "a new national effort to use artificial intelligence to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery"—even as critics warned that the administration's lax approach to regulation poses safety and structural risks.
As experts urge a more measured approach or even a pause to AI development, 56% of Democratic and 62% of Independent respondents to the new poll want Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to work to block Republicans’ policy to prevent states from regulating AI.
Additionally, 61% of Democratic voters and 68% of Independents said they would be less likely to support a Democratic member of Congress who backed a bill to prevent states from regulating AI. Just 15% of Democrats and 14% of Independents said that they would be more likely to support lawmakers who approve such legislation.
On Monday, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries avoided taking a stance on the issue, saying that it “hasn't been brought to the leadership level yet.”This isn't enough. Our poll found that voters want to see their congressional leaders fighting back against AI deregulation.
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 6:53 AM
On Monday, Jeffries avoided taking a stance on the Republican effort to ban AI guardrails, arguing that it hasn't yet reached the leadership level. Critics urged him to speak out against the legislation.
“Democratic and Independent voters overwhelmingly want to see Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer fighting Donald Trump and Big Tech’s attempt to ban states from enacting AI safeguards, not back down and compromise,” Demand Progress policy director Emily Peterson-Cassin said in a statement Friday.
“It’s not enough for Leader Jeffries to say that the issue hasn’t been brought to him yet," she added. "Voters are angry about Big Tech’s rogue AI telling teens to commit suicide and they want to see their congressional leaders fighting back.”
Opponents of a more cautious approach to AI development argue that the United States cannot afford to fall behind competitors including China in the rush to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), a hypothetical advanced AI that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge of any subject as well as or better than a typical human.
The race to AGI and development of AI systems in general is fraught with perils ranging from cybercrime, consumer manipulation, erosion of democracy, and worsening inequality to what many experts warn is the distant but possible threat of uncontrollable AI wiping out humanity.
With so much uncertainty—and even danger—accompanying the unprecedented promise of AI, an increasingly aware public favors caution. Majorities of respondents to poll after poll say they want more, not less, AI regulation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular