Following is a report from Common Cause Intern Tristan Schulhof:
John Shattuck, a member of Common Cause's National Governing Board and CEO of JFK Library Foundation, recently wrote an Op-Ed in The Boston Globe concerning the creation of a U.S. Human Rights Commission. He discusses America's poor human rights record and the damage it has created to our global prestige. But, Shattuck also suggests ways in which our credibility can be restored. Firstly, "the United States was founded on the rule of law" and therefore we must abide by it. Secondly, we must practice what we preach and not criticize others for human rights abuses. After we have done the above, we must create a truth commission in order to "...get the truth about recent abuses of human rights and the rule of law by the U.S. government." Lastly, Shattuck believes that there should be a U.S. Human Rights commission that would use its oversight and authority to require the executive "...to provide regular reports to the commission on how it is complying with international human rights treaties..."
Similarly, Common Cause (CC) and the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA) are gathering resources to conduct a national campaign to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of convening a bipartisan high level Human Rights Commission. The creation of such a commission is a concrete way to demonstrate that the U.S. rejects recent violations in this area and is committed to ensuring such actions are not repeated. The grassroots strength and outreach capabilities of CC and PSA will be effective in promoting the issue and educating the public.
In the post 9/11 world of global terrorism and the Iraq War, America's poor human rights record has discredited our government. As General Wesley K. Clark so effectively put it, "For shame, America, that we aren't brave enough and strong enough to live our values." Let's put an end to Guantanamo Bay and other incidents of torture and restore the respect for civil liberties that America once symbolized.
The issue of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is rearing it's ugly head in Colorado once again. Each year in the legislature, a bill of this sort comes up at least once. And each year, we at Common Cause work hard to defeat the bill because we believe in removing barriers to our voting process, not adding them. But this year, El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Bob Balink is taking a different approach.
If the state is going to require that people be U.S. citizens in order to vote, then it should allow election officials to verify that citizenship, Balink argues.
But if the state doesn't want to require a check of citizenship, then the law shouldn't even mention the word in its definition of eligibility. It would make sense, Balink says, to remove it.
But Balink doesn't want to remove the requirement. He just wants to be able to check for citizenship. Or else,he says, "How can I be sure I'm following the law?"
Balink belives that if the legislature won't pass a bill requiring proof of citizenship, a lawsuit would force the issue.
Those who believe that we should require proof of citizenship claim it's not that difficult to obtain the proof, and you would only have to do it once. An editorial in this week's
Denver Post says:
Proving citizenship isn't as easy as proving identity. A driver's license or state ID card works to prove you are who you say you are. But a passport, or a birth certificate accompanied by a current photo ID, is necessary to prove citizenship.
Inconvenient, perhaps, but not onerous. Proof of identity would have to be shown only once, when a voter registers for the first time. There wouldn't be any requirement to establish citizenship for each new election. Voters would not have to show up at their polling places with passports and birth certificates.
To say that proving citizenship is not onerous is wrong. It is expensive and time-cosuming, not to mention infringing on our basic voting rights. The citizenship requirement is aimed at illegal immigrants and discouraging them from voting. But, there is little to no evidence of voter fraud in Colorado.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
The possibility of having to bring even more identification to the polls is going to discourage people from voting. In a democracy where voting is a fundamental right, we should be passing laws that make it easier to vote, not harder.
The Real ID Act was signed in 2005 by President Bush, in order to "increase the security and to diminish the risks of terrorism in the post-9/11 era." It requires all states to give mountains of information to the federal government about the public to create a unified national ID.
Many civil liberties organizations oppose Real ID and ask the states not to implement it or give data about their citizens to Washington, D.C.
The groups joining in the anti-REAL ID campaign are concerned about the increased threat of counterfeiting and identity theft, lack of security to protect against unauthorized access to the document's machine readable content, increased cost to taxpayers, diverting of state funds intended for homeland security, increased costs for obtaining a license or state issued ID card, and because the REAL ID would create a false belief that it is secure and unforgeable.
Real ID creates major concerns over privacy. Indeed, Real ID would allow the federal government to know where you are at any moment: when you took a plane, when you came back home... And employees from the state, at all levels, would have access to this centralized information. It gets worse: the production of this ID would be committed to private firms that could use information for commercial goals.
Common Blog
