October, 24 2024, 12:08pm EDT
Ohio Citizens and Legal Groups Ask Federal Judge to Enforce Prior Ruling Against Requiring Naturalized Citizens to Produce Proof of Citizenship if Challenged at Ballot Box
Secretary LaRose Attempting to Revive Unlawful Requirement Struck Down in 2006
CLEVELAND
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, and Subodh Chandra of the Chandra Law Firm LLC, filed an emergency civil contempt motion on behalf of victorious plaintiffs in Boustani v. Blackwell, a federal case from 2006, in which Judge Christopher Boyko of the Northern District of Ohio permanently blocked the secretary of state from enforcing a law that required voters to produce their naturalization papers if they are challenged at a polling place on the ground that they are not a U.S. citizen.
Earlier this month, in defiance of that court order, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose revived this unlawful requirement by revising the form used by election officials to challenge voters at the polls on the basis of citizenship. Early voting is already underway in the state.
The motion was filed on behalf of original plaintiffs Laura Boustani, Margaret Wong, Dagmar Celeste, the Federation of India Community Associations, CAIR-Ohio, and Service Employees International Union District 1199.
“Requiring naturalized citizens to bring additional documentation to verify their eligibility to vote is not only burdensome and discriminatory, it’s unlawful. After nearly 20 years of compliance with the federal injunction, Secretary LaRose suddenly decided to defy the injunction and impose an 11th-hour requirement forcing naturalized citizens to produce these papers. We are hurrying back to the court, asking it to enforce its long-standing order,” said Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio.
“Just days before early voting started, with no public notice, Secretary LaRose added a new, unnecessary, and illegal barrier to voting. Ohioans who are naturalized citizens are citizens, period, and shouldn’t be subjected to extra requirements to cast a ballot,” said Alice Clapman, senior counsel with the Brennan Center's voting rights program.
“The federal court ruled that other than eligibility for the presidency, there is no second-class citizenship in America. Frank LaRose’s determination to flout both that constitutional principle and a federal court order represents open defiance of the rule of law — and he must be held accountable to protect the right to vote,” said Subodh Chandra.
“Historically, we have seen the many attempts to suppress the votes of marginalized people in this country and this is yet another effort to disenfranchise voters. This comes after a strong effort to register people to vote from more Black and brown communities across Ohio for this election. It is a shameful act from Frank LaRose to add obstacles in the way of a certain group of Americans from exercising their right to participate in democracy,” said Faten Husni Odeh, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ohio.
“Like members of other communities, many Indian-Americans are proud, naturalized citizens. They should never be mistreated when they exercise their precious right to vote. We will fight to enforce that principle,” said Sudarshan Sathe, chairman of the Federation of India Community Associations.
The plaintiffs request that Judge Boyko enforce his original ruling and order Secretary LaRose to revoke his revised form and return to the prior, longstanding one that complies with the 2006 ruling by allowing voters who are challenged on the basis of citizenship to vote a regular ballot if they affirm they are a U.S. citizen.
A copy of the motion is online here.
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
US Reps. Thompson, Huffman Served in Class Action Suit Over Gaza Genocide
California residents' lawsuit accuses the Democrats of violating their constitutional rights by voting to use their taxes "for the unlawful purpose of being complicit in genocide."
Jan 02, 2025
Two Democratic congressmen from Northern California were served this week with legal documents in a class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of their constituents who argue that the lawmakers illegally forced them into complicity with Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza.
Taxpayers Against Genocide (TAG), a group of more than 600 constituents of Reps. Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman represented by the firm Szeto-Wong Law, said it delivered a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, where it was received by Deputy General Counsel for the House of Representatives Todd Tatelman.
As Common Dreamsreported, the lawsuit was filed last month in San Francisco.
TAG said in a statement Wednesday that Thompson and Huffman "illegally abused their tax and spend authority when they voted to allocate $26.38 billion in military aid to Israel on April 20, 2024," and that by doing so, they violated the U.S. Constitution, the Genocide Convention, and federal laws.
According to the lawsuit:
Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman exceeded the constitutional limitations on their tax and spend authority by voting to authorize the funding of the Israeli military when they were aware, or should have been aware, that the Israeli military was committing genocide in Gaza, which made their votes a violation of customary international and federal law that prohibits complicity in genocide. Furthermore, defendants' votes violated multiple other laws and policies, including the Leahy Law, which prohibits aid to foreign security forces that have committed a gross violation of human rights; the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act, which prohibit assistance to any country in which the government engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and require the advancement of U.S. foreign policy interests consistent with internationally recognized human rights; and the Conventional Arms Transfer policy, which prohibits U.S. weapons transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international law. Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to have their taxes collected for only lawful purposes have been and continue to be violated by defendants' votes to use plaintiffs' taxes for the unlawful purpose of being complicit in genocide.
"The moral injuries that I and countless other constituents of Rep. Huffman have suffered resulting from his vote to arm the genocide in Gaza are immeasurable," plaintiff Carol Bloom said on Wednesday.
Judy Talaugon—a plaintiff and an Indigenous elder and activist in Sonoma County—said: "Palestinian children are all our children, deserving of our advocacy and support. And their liberation is the catalyst for systemic change for the betterment of us all."
In an interview with CounterPunchpublished Wednesday, plaintiff Ellen P. said that although Huffman did hold a November 2023 meeting with members of the group Humboldt for Palestine, activists in attendance left disappointed.
"I was aghast at Huffman's response to this thoughtful and heartfelt plea from his constituents," she said. "He repeatedly interrupted speakers, admonished their use of language—even debating with us about the definition of 'genocide' and 'apartheid'—and tried to lecture us rather than listen to us."
"He made it very clear he was not at all interested in anything we had to say and that he is a committed Zionist," she added.
Huffman has not responded publicly to the lawsuit.
Thompson's office responded last month to the suit in a statement asserting that the congressman "understands that it has been the civilian population that has paid the cost of Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel and he remains gravely concerned about the scale of civilian loss in this war."
However, the statement added that "achieving peace and securing the safety of civilians won't be accomplished by filing a lawsuit."
United Nations experts, human rights groups, jurists, academics, activists, and others argue that Israel's policies and actions during its 454-day assault on Gaza fit the definition of genocide as described in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, more commonly called the Genocide Convention.
Backed by over two dozen mostly Global South nations and regional blocs, South Africa is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The U.S., which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover including United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution vetoes, is one of around 10 countries—most of them in the Global North—opposing the case.
The year 2025 began with more Israeli killing of Palestinians, including a New Year's Day airstrike massacre at the Jabalia refugee camp that left at least 15 people, including four children and a woman, dead, and a Thursday attack on an Israeli-designated "safe zone" in southern Gaza that reportedly killed at least 11 people, including three children.
According to Gaza officials, at least 45,581 Palestinians have been killed and more than 108,000 others wounded by Israeli attacks, with at least 11,000 people missing and believed dead and buried beneath rubble. The overwhelming majority of Gazans have been forcibly displaced, and hundreds of thousands are suffering starvation and sickness exacerbated by Israel's "complete siege" of the embattled enclave.
TAG plaintiff Norman Solomon wrote in a Thursday opinion piece forCommon Dreams that he whilethat he certainly does not "expect the courts to halt the U.S. policies that have been enabling the horrors in Gaza to go on," the unprecedented lawsuit "makes a clear case for the moral revulsion that so many Americans feel about the culpability of the U.S. government."
As Maria Barakat, a Palestinian-Lebanese American plaintiff in the case said on Thursday, "This class action is only the beginning of the people's exercise of power against the violence of the American government and our refusal to be complicit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Schumer Endorses Veteran Progressive Organizer Ben Wikler to Chair DNC
The Senate leader called the Wisconsin Democratic Party chair "one of the best organizers in the country" and said he "knows how to win."
Jan 02, 2025
Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler on Thursday said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's endorsement of him for a top national leadership role is evidence that the veteran senator, while firmly an establishment politician, "knows the enormous stakes of this moment."
The most prominent lawmaker to endorse a candidate in the race for Democratic National Committee chair, Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that following the party's bruising losses in the November elections, Democrats in power "should view this moment as a challenge."
"We must listen to the American people, learn from the results, and move forward stronger," said Schumer. "That's why I am enthusiastically supporting Ben Wikler to be the next chair of the Democratic National Committee."
Schumer highlighted Wikler's successes since he began leading the Wisconsin Democrats, which he's done since 2019. In November, his fundraising and state-wide organizing helped secure a victory for Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) despite Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the state in the presidential election. The party also flipped 14 seats in the state legislature.
After former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his party "dismantled workers' rights and voting rights, rigging Wisconsin to keep the GOP in power through the courts and the legislature," Schumer said in his statement, "Ben didn't despair. He rolled up his sleeves and helped unify the Democratic Party and reignite Wisconsin Democrats from the grassroots up. This year's election shows the results."
He called Wikler, a former senior adviser to the progressive grassroots group MoveOn, "one of the best organizers in the country... a proven fundraiser, [and] a sharp communicator."
"Most importantly, he knows how to win," said Schumer.
Wikler announced his candidacy to chair the DNC in early December, weeks after President-elect Donald Trump won the White House race and Republicans took control of the House and Senate in the upcoming Congress.
To win future elections, Wikler said at the time, "we've got to make sure that we are reaching people with the message that we are on their side and fighting for them."
Wikler has also received the endorsements of MoveOn and the centrist advocacy group Third Way.
Members of the DNC are set to vote on the chair on February 1, following four candidate forums in January.
At the forums, Wikler is expected to speak along with fellow contenders including 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, and the chair of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party, Ken Martin.
Martin was considered an early frontrunner in the race, winning endorsements from 100 out of 448 DNC members early last month.
He also has a strong fundraising and organizing background, having led the DFL since 2011, when the party was struggling to get out of debt. The party has not lost a statewide race since 2006, and is now in a strong financial position.
Martin's messaging has been similar to Wikler's since the race started, with the Minnesota leader calling on Democrats to emphasize that they—not Republicans—are fighting for workers' rights and policies to make families' lives easier.
"The majority of Americans now believe that the Republican Party best represents the interests of the working class and the poor, and the Democrats are for the wealthy and the elite. That's a damning indictment on our party, and clearly our brand as Democrats," Martin toldNPR in late December. "We're fighting for people, people who are working harder than they ever have before."
Days after the two Midwestern leaders entered the race, Greg Sargent of The New Republicinterviewed them both, along with O'Malley, about what the Democratic Party can do to counter the "information gap," which has been worsened by the $20 million Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk "dumped into a brazen pro-Trump propaganda campaign" run by a "shadowy outfit called the RBG PAC."
Wikler offered "the most concrete agenda for dealing with" the problem, said Sargent. The Wisconsin leader said Democrats "must appear far more on right-leaning political shows—not just Fox News but also podcasts and YouTubes and streamed interviews and the like—especially in nonpolitical spaces," in order to "disrupt the right-wing narrative about Democrats."
Wikler also said the party must invest resources in building an "independent, progressive media ecosystem," where leaders would do "high-profile interviews... with the express goal of elevating and empowering it, something the GOP does with Fox News."
Responding to Schumer's endorsement on Thursday, Wikler said that as chair of the DNC, he would "show voters that we are the party of working families everywhere by choosing fights that show who we are for—and who Trump and the GOP are for."
"As Trump and the GOP again seek a multi-trillion-dollar tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, paid for by working people," he said, "Democrats can make clear that we're against those seeking to rig the country for those at the top, and for a country that works for working families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Al Jazeera Condemns Palestinian Authority's Suspension of Outlet in West Bank
"The decision to freeze Al Jazeera's work and prevent its journalists from conducting their duties is an attempt to hide the truth about events in the occupied territories, especially what is happening in Jenin and its camps," the network wrote.
Jan 02, 2025
The Qatar-based media network Al Jazeera issued a strongly worded statement Thursday deploring the decision by the Palestinian Authority to temporarily ban the outlet's operations in the West Bank.
The network wrote that "Al Jazeera is shocked by this decision," which it called "nothing but an attempt to dissuade the channel from covering the rapidly escalating events taking place in the occupied territories."
The official Palestinian news agency—WAFA—wrote that the Palestinian Authority made the decision, which was handed down on Wednesday, because of Al Jazeera's "repeated violations of Palestinian laws and regulations." Al Jazeera has been accused of "broadcasting inciteful content" and "interfering in internal Palestinian affairs," but the statement from WAFA didn't offer a further explanation of how the network had broken the law.
The suspension will remain in effect until the network "addresses its legal status in accordance with Palestinian regulations," per WAFA.
The Palestinian Authority has governing authority over parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including cities like Jenin and Ramallah. The Palestinian Authority is viewed with suspicion by many Palestinian people because of its security coordination with Israel.
In December, forces with the Palestinian Authority stormed the Jenin refugee camp and began a crackdown on armed groups in the camp, which has long been a site of armed struggle and resistance to Israel. Al Jazeeracovered the operation.
In Jenin, a young woman who—according to Democracy Now!—had been active in "documenting the Palestinian Authority's crackdown on armed groups fighting the Israeli occupation," was shot dead this past weekend. The family of the young reporter, Shatha al-Sabbagh, says that the Palestinian Authority security forces are responsible for her death.
A spokesperson from the Palestinian Authority denied this accusation during an interview with Al Jazeera on Sunday.
"The decision to freeze Al Jazeera's work and prevent its journalists from conducting their duties is an attempt to hide the truth about events in the occupied territories, especially what is happening in Jenin and its camps," Al Jazeera wrote in their statement. The network added that the move aligns "with the previous action taken by the Israeli government, which closed Al Jazeera's office in Ramallah."
In May 2024, Israel shutteredAl Jazeera's operations within Israel on security grounds, and a couple months later raided the network's office in Ramallah.
Officials in Israel have long accused Al Jazeera—one of the most prominent media outlets in the Arab world—of being a "mouthpiece" for Hamas, according to The New York Times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular