Senate Agrees to Votes on Two District Court Nominees

Paul Grimm

This evening the Senate scheduled a vote on Monday for Paul Grimm, nominee to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  Beginning at 5 p.m. on Monday there will be up to 30 minutes of debate on his nomination, so he will likely receive a confirmation vote at or shortly before 5:30 p.m.  Grimm was nominated on Feb. 16, 2012, and he has been pending for 289 days, despite facing no substantive opposition. 

Michael Shea

This evening the Senate also entered into an agreement to vote on Michael P. Shea, nominee to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, “at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader, in consultation of the Republican Leader.”  Thirty minutes of debate will precede the vote.  Though an exact date and time for the vote has not yet been scheduled, agreements like these are somewhat common, and the Senate typically sets a vote soon after entering into such an agreement.  Shea was nominated on Feb. 2, 2012, and he was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote of 15-3.  

In addition to Grimm and Shea, there are 17 other nominees awaiting votes on the Senate floor, all of whom the Senate could—and should—have voted on months ago.    

Breaking the judicial logjam requires fixing the Senate

We’ve written a lot about the failure of the United States Senate to confirm judges.  But that failure is part of a wider failure – the failure of the Senate itself, brought on by the unprecedented misuse of arcane rules and procedures by the Republican minority.

In addition to obstructing scores of judicial nominees, the abuse of rules, particularly the filibuster, has doomed one essential piece of legislation after another, such as energy and climate legislation, the DREAM Act, and the Employee Free Choice Act.  That’s why AFJ is among the leaders of a coalition called Fix The Senate Now.  And now, in a new report, AFJ is connecting the dots – illustrating the direct link between Republican stalling tactics and the crisis on the federal bench. 

We support modest reforms to restore balance to the legislative process.  America simply cannot function with a Senate in paralysis. 

Click here to read AFJ’s report: Senate Rules Reform and Republican Obstruction of Judicial Nominees.

SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein on history-in-the-making

Tom Goldstein

[UPDATE 3:40 p.m.: SCOTUSBlog reports that the Court took no action on these cases at today's conference.  The next opportunity for the Court to issue orders will be at 9:30 a.m. Monday.]

At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage.  These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

Read his full post here.

Check out AFJ’s guide to the cases here.

Grassley Intentionally Misstates Judicial Confirmation Record to Whitewash Obstructionism

Senator Grassley

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) recently responded to a letter sent to him from 16 national and Iowa groups criticizing him for unnecessary delays in confirming judicial nominees. In his response Grassley claimed that:

"[F]or the four years of this administration, we approved 160 nominations, and during the same period of time in the last Bush administration, there were 120 nominations."

This statement is both wrong and intentionally misleading.

First off, Grassley is comparing the first four years of the Obama Administration to the second four years of the Bush Administration. This is not “the same period of time.” Second, this is particularly misleading because Bush had a comparatively huge number of confirmations in his first term—202 in fact (see chart below). During Bush’s second term, there simply were not that many vacancies to fill.

With his statistical slight-of-hand, Grassley is trying both to minimize his—and his fellow Republicans’— obstruction of President Obama’s nominees during the last four years and make himself look reasonable!

You might expect more transparency and honesty from the ranking member of the venerable Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, it seems, we’re getting one more attempt to mislead the public and obstruct nominees going forward. Iowans—and Americans—deserve better.

----
For Senator Grassley’s information, here are the facts:

Florida Republicans’ cold, calculated effort to suppress the vote

More evidence that we still need the Voting Rights Act: The racial bias that led to it is alive and well.

            Here’s the voter suppression debate in a nutshell:

            Republicans: We just want to cut back on early voting and impose photo identification requirements to curb fraud.

            Democrats: You just want to make it harder for poor people and people of color to vote.

            But once in awhile, a Republican tells the real story – as when Mike Turzai, the majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, seen on this 13-second video, explains exactly why his state passed a voter ID law:

            And now, a cold dose of reality from the Sunshine State – straight from the elephants’ mouths.

            First, Florida’s former Republican governor, Charlie Crist said that, as The Palm Beach Post put it in a comprehensive story Sunday, “fraud concerns were advanced only as a subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.”  Then came a former chairman of the Florida Republican Party – Jim Greer.

            “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. “They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”

            Current top Republican officials in Florida dismiss Greer and Crist as the equivalent of disgruntled ex-employees. Crist became an independent and endorsed President Obama.  The Post notes that Greer faces criminal charges of stealing $200,000 from the party.  Greer denies the charges – and is suing the party.

But Crist and Greer aren’t the only ones coming forward.  The Post quotes what it calls “two veteran GOP campaign consultants” who confirm their charges.

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.  “In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. …

Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.

All of these current and former Republicans said the voter suppression efforts targeted African Americans.

Attempts to stop African Americans and other people of color from voting are why Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – and why it was reauthorized by near-unanimous vote in 2006.  Now, a key provision of the law has been challenged in the Supreme Court.  That provision requires certain states and localities – including five counties in Florida – to get permission from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before changing voting procedures.  As a result, Florida had to negotiate with the federal government over voting hours in those counties.

But what happens if the Supreme Court rules this key section of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional?  Will that further embolden those whose real goal is preventing people of color from voting?

Nan Aron in the Huffington Post on Justice Alito's scary speech

In the Huffington Post, AFJ President Nan Aron writes about the speech Justice Samuel Alito gave at a fundraising dinner for the Federalist Society.  She writes:

Although most of the press coverage of this speech has focused on Justice Alito's full-throated defense of the Citizens United decision and his rationalization of the broadest possible interpretation of the corporate personhood concept (an argument effectively dismantled by the New York Times editorial page), there was another moment in Alito's remarks that I think was more important -- and scary.

Read about that moment in the full column here - and please let the Huffington Post community know what you think by posting a comment.

Guest blog: The human consequences of judicial decisions

By James B. Steele

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist James B. Steele, co-author with Donald Barlett of The Betrayal of the American Dream, had been scheduled to offer some context for the economic issues discussed in AFJ’s documentary Unequal Justice, at its Washington D.C. premiere.  Unfortunately, when we had to reschedule the premiere to tonight because of Hurricane Sandy, Steele was unable to join us.  But he believes the issues discussed in the documentary are so important that he sent us this guest blog.  There’s still time for you to register to attend the free screening tonight.  And Steele’s essay, below, serves as a great introduction for tonight’s program.

The inequality that has transformed the United States into a place eerily resembling the nation during the robber baron era didn’t just happen.

It’s the result of deliberate policies in taxes, trade and deregulation that have enabled the top one percent of Americans to take control of more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

James B. Steele, right, with co-author Donald Barlett

The role of Congress, corporate America and various Administrations in implementing policies that have tilted the economic playing field against the best interests of average Americans is well established. What is not so well known is how the courts have contributed to this economic imbalance. Unequal Justice brilliantly shines a light on this neglected area and exposes the human consequences that judicial decisions have on the lives of millions of Americans.

In the research for our book The Betrayal of the American Dream,  we came across example after example of how the courts have stacked the deck against Americans. One of the most heart-rending cases was story of Joy Whitehouse, to whom we dedicated the book.

Joy and her late husband raised four children and gave them a solid upbringing on his salary as a long-haul truck driver. After he was killed in a highway crash caused in part by faulty maintenance of his truck, Joy expected to receive $598 every two weeks from the company in retirement. But the company reneged on the payment when it entered bankruptcy court and asked a judge to dismiss Joy’s claim. Ultimately the court awarded a few cents on the dollar to some creditors; Joy received nothing. Hobbled by ill health and unable to work, Joy was on her own.

On a visit to her modest mobile home outside Salt Lake City, she led me to a small shed in her backyard. Inside was a jumble of discarded aluminum cans. She had collected used soda, soup and vegetable cans alongside the roads in her neighborhood and from neighbors. Twice a month a friend drove her to a recycler who gave her around $30 each time.  When your only monthly income is $942 from Social Security, she said, the extra $60 comes in handy.

Remarkably, she wasn’t bitter. She didn’t decry her fate.  She just wanted what her husband had earned and which she as mother of their children was owed. After she was denied that, she did what so many hard-working Americans do: she tried to make the best of a situation that was not of her own making.

“You put your pride in your pocket and you learn to help yourself,” she told me. “I save cans.”

Joy was one of a kind, but we saw in her story what was happening to so many middle class Americans who’ve seen their economic security taken from them by Wall Street, Washington and the courts.  The United States, the ostensible land of opportunity, has turned its back on it's own people. Restoring balance in our economic system is crucial, so all may share in the hope, promise and prosperity of this nation.

Talking turkey about rubber chicken – and Supreme Court ethics

While most of us still may be thinking about yesterday’s turkey dinner right now, at Alliance for Justice we’re also thinking about ducks – as in “if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck …” and chicken, as in the rubber variety often served at fundraising dinners.

What brings all this poultry to mind is the response of the Federalist Society when Alliance for Justice and Common Cause pointed out that, for the second year in a row, a justice of the United States Supreme Court was headlining its annual fundraising dinner.  Were any other federal judge to do this, it would be a violation of the Code of Conduct for federal judges – but Supreme Court justices are exempt.

The fact that the event was a fundraiser is crucial.  We have no problem with Supreme Court justices speaking at events, even when they are hosted by groups with a strong ideological point of view.  Where they cross the line – and ignore the code of conduct – is when their appearance is used to raise money for the organization.

The Federalist Society response, according to the Associated Press: It’s not a fundraiser.  In fact, they say, they even lose money on every meal. 

That’s a curious response given what one finds on the program for the event.  More than 35 major corporations and prominent law firms are listed as “sponsors” of the event.  There are Bronze Sponsors” like Covington and Burling and the Lincoln Financial Group, “Silver Sponsors,” including Jones Day, Patton Boggs, PepsiCo and Facebook, and “Gold Sponsors,” including Chevron, Verizon and Sullivan & Cromwell.  Topping them all is the “Sponsoring Law Firm,” Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

So either the hotel where the dinner took place serves the world’s most expensive rubber chicken – or it was a fundraiser.

It’s no wonder that, when the Federalist Society said much the same last year, when Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia headlined the dinner, Matt Wuerker, the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for POLITICO didn’t buy it:

(c) Matt Wuerker

 When it comes to the ethics of speaking at a fundraiser, the success of the event doesn’t matter.  As Prof. Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law explained in an analysis written for AFJ:

It may turn out that the organization is disappointed because the event does not earn a profit. But that is irrelevant. Judges have an obligation in the first instance to assure themselves that the event will not be a fundraiser. 

It all illustrates, once again, why it’s so important to make the provisions of the Code of Conduct binding on Supreme Court justices.  Since it doesn’t appear likely that the justices will do this themselves, Congress should do it for them.

While we’re giving thanks tomorrow …

...let’s take a moment to think about the workers at Walmart who will be out on a picket line on Friday  - or forced to work on Thanksgiving night – while we enjoy our time with friends and family.  AFJ’s Bolder Advocacy Blog has been spotlighting the campaign for justice at Walmart.  Check out these two recent posts.  This one offers and overview of the campaign, and how all of us can help:

Black Friday Protests at Walmart

This Friday, the nation’s biggest shopping day, thousands of Americans will be calling on Walmart to improve working conditions at its stores and warehouses. The Black Friday day of action is the culmination of a wave of worker activism that started in October with an historic walkout in Los Angeles.

As the recent recession accelerated the growth of the part-time economy, the opposition to Walmart’s practices takes on renewed relevance. Walmart sets an industry standard by creating part-time positions with low wages, unaffordable benefits, erratic scheduling, and unsafe workplaces.

Read the full post here

And there’s more about the campaign in this guest blog from Erica Smiley, Campaigns Director for Jobs with Justice and American Rights at Work

Walmart Can Change Its Ways — if We Make Them

Good jobs are the cornerstone of a strong, healthy economy.  A good job is one where workers have collective bargaining rights, employment security, and wages and benefits that allow their families to enjoy a decent standard of living.  Thus, organizing to transform the economy means organizing to transform work into permanent, secure jobs where workers have dignity and respect.

Read the full post here

The many complaints against Walmart include widespread discrimination against women.  The current protests are needed in part because the Supreme Court failed the women of Walmart when they ruled against them in a class-action suit.  The Walmart case is among those featured in AFJ’s documentary Unequal Justice: The Relentless Rise of the 1% Court.

On Tuesday, Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice and American Rights at Work will discuss the Walmart campaign at the formal premiere of Unequal Justice in Washington.  She’ll be part of a panel that also includes AFJ President Nan Aron, Pam Gilbert, former executive director of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Linda Lipsen, CEO of the American Association for Justice.  The event is free, and there’s still time to register here.

Why we still need the Voting Rights Act: One story sums it up

You know what the people who want to get rid of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act are saying: They claim it’s a relic from an era when America had just ended legal apartheid.  We’re past those bad old days, they say.

But the fact that you can’t put a “whites only” sign on a water fountain or impose a poll tax doesn’t mean racism is a thing of the past.

President Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act 
as Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders look on
LBJ Library photo by Yoichi R. Okamoto

Consider this story, told by Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and reported by The Huffington Post:

A county in Texas wanted to move its polling place from a school to a private club – a club that had a history of segregation.  But Texas is covered by the Voting Rights Act.  Under Section 5 of the act, the county had to get advance approval, known as “pre-clearance,” from either the Justice Department or a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

It never got that far.  As soon as the Justice Department asked for more information – the equivalent of raising a governmental eyebrow - the county withdrew the request.

It is Section 5 that now is under challenge, in a case to be heard by the Supreme Court during the current term.

"Section 5 continues to be necessary, and Section 5 is not over inclusive," Perez said. "And that is why we will continue to vigorously defend Section 5 in the Supreme Court."

Jeffrey Toobin on reforming the Senate to get judges confirmed

Jeffrey Toobin, author and legal analyst for The New Yorker and CNN (and guest at a big AFJ event in New York City in December) has an important column on the New Yorker website today on the urgent need to reform Senate rules.

Jeffrey Toobin

In particular, he endorses a proposal that would curb the filibuster, which has been used by Senate Republicans to block almost every major Obama administration initiative.  As is discussed in detail in the previous post, it’s also contributed to a critical shortage of judges, because it’s been misused to block the confirmation of federal judges – even those who are considered noncontroversial.

There are a number of proposals kicking around at the moment.  Toobin singles out what may be the most elegant: require that Senators who want to filibuster do it the old fashioned way, by standing up and talking – and talking, and talking for as long as they can hold out – the way Jimmy Stewart did it in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  That might contribute to restoring the filibuster to its intended purpose – blocking the occasional piece of legislation that the minority party considers truly egregious. Toobin writes:

The theory behind their idea is that the requirement to stand up and filibuster would create a real deterrent to the profligate use of the tactic. It’s a modest change—filibusters would still exist—but a useful one.

Though Toobin doesn’t mention it, this change also would make the misuse of the filibuster to obstruct the work of the Senate more visible – and audible – to the American people.  They could watch Senate business grind to a halt as Senators filled hour after hour on C-SPAN for days at a time.

Toobin concludes:

Senate leaders tend to be institutional conservatives, who worry, with some justification, that their party will be in the minority some day. But Republican obstruction has become such an obstacle to legislative progress that the risk seems worth taking.

This is especially true because judicial nominations are likely to be more of a focus for President Obama in his second term. With the House in Republican hands for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that major legislation will pass both bodies of Congress. But the Senate has a constitutional obligation to take up Obama’s judicial nominees—and the fights over them are likely to be fierce. If Reid and his fellow Democrats give up on filibuster reform, they will likely doom the President’s second-term legacy before he even has a chance to write it.

If you’d like to ask Jeffrey Toobin about this yourself, or hear more from him on this topic, the current state of the Supreme Court and other concerns, please join us in New York City on the evening of Dec. 6, when he discusses these issues with AFJ President Nan Aron.  The event is free, and you can register here.

New report from AFJ blasts impact of Republicans' "ceaseless obstruction of judicial nominees"

AFJ released this press release today:

WASHINGTON, D.C.,  Nov. 19, 2012 —  “Ceaseless obstruction of judicial nominees” has left the federal bench with more vacancies than when President Obama first took office, according to a new study from the Alliance for Justice.

“The Republican record gives new meaning to the term ‘obstruction of justice’” said AFJ president Nan Aron.  “When vacancies go unfilled, Americans wait months, sometimes years to get a chance to stand up for their rights in court.  Some lose that chance entirely.”

AFJ’s report, Unfinished Business, provides the best publicly-available information on judicial nominations. It includes comprehensive statistics on President Obama’s judicial nominees since the beginning of his administration, the Senate’s confirmation process, and comparative data comparing the first-term records of the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

The report calls on the Senate to “confirm all of the 19 nominees currently pending on the Senate floor during the lame duck session.  Fourteen of the 19 nominees faced no substantive opposition in the Judiciary Committee, and ten would fill judicial emergencies,” – that is, situations where a vacancy has caused such profound delays that the situation has been declared an emergency by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

“We call on the Senators to give Americans something to be thankful for and confirm these judges when they return to work next week,” Aron said.

This report is the latest in a series documenting delays in filling judicial vacancies.  Among the findings:

• During President Obama’s first term, current vacancies have risen by 51%.  This trend stands in stark contrast to President Clinton and President Bush’s first four years, when vacancies declined by 65% and 34%, respectively.
• Nearly one out of eleven Federal judgeships remains vacant. Judicial vacancies are nearly triple what they were at this point in President George W. Bush’s first term.
• The number of seats considered to be “judicial emergencies” has risen by 65%, from 20 at the beginning of President Obama’s term to 33.
• The Senate has confirmed far fewer nominees at this point in President Obama’s first term than it had for his two predecessors in office. The percentage of confirmed district court nominees is at historically low levels.
• Republican appointees still dominate the federal judiciary. Since the end of the Bush Administration, the percentage of Republican-appointed circuit court judges only dropped from 61.3% to 51.8%, and the percentage of Republican-appointed district court judges only dropped from 58.6% to 53.6%.
• Republicans filibustered a historic number of district court nominees. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was forced to file cloture on a record 20 district court nominees. Cloture was filed on only one district court nominee during the Clinton and W. Bush presidencies.

“In sum,” the report states, “The American people deserve a federal court system that is fully staffed and able to fulfill the promise of justice for all.”

The full report is available here (PDF).
And click here if you want to help us press the Senate to confirm these nominees.

Oops: They're doing it again: Another Supreme Court Justice flouts ethical standards

Alito speaks at Federalist Society fundraiser, following in ethically-challenged footsteps of Scalia and Thomas

AFJ and Common Cause released this statement today:

WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 16 - For the second year in a row, a justice of the Supreme Court has flouted judicial ethics by headlining a fundraising gala for a lawyers group, the Alliance for Justice and Common Cause said Friday.

From the Federalist Society website

Justice Samuel Alito was a featured speaker at the "30th Anniversary Gala Dinner" of the Federalist Society on Thursday night.  Alito’s appearance was the drawing card for the $175-dollar-a-plate event, the society’s website indicates.

Were Justice Alito sitting on any lower federal court, his appearance would violate Canon 4C of the Code of Conduct for federal judges.  That canon explicitly bans federal judges from being featured speakers and guests of honor at fundraising events. The code does not formally apply to the Supreme Court however.

Last year, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia spoke at the same Federalist Society fundraising event.  The annual dinners attract a crowd of more than 1,200 lobbyists, judges and lawyers, including some with high-profile cases before the court. Attendees at Thursday’s dinner, for example, included at least three lawyers involved in cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal Voting Rights Act. Their Washington-based firm, Wiley Rein LLP, was a “silver” sponsor.

Justice Alito has become a regular at such functions, having previously spoken at fundraising events for the American Spectator magazine and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.  The Institute describes itself as working for "limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy and moral norms."

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron noted that a 2012 Hart Research Associates poll conducted for AFJ found that only 41% of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing.  "If the public begins to believe that the justices are just politicians in robes, their credibility will further erode."

"In his 2011 Annual Report, Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that 'All members of the Court do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations,'" Aron said. "But it is clear that they are free to routinely ignore that guidance.  That’s why guidance is not enough.  Either the justices should formally agree to abide by the Code or Congress should require it."

"The words 'Equal Justice Under Law,' are carved into the marble above the entrance to the Supreme Court," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, "but it’s clear that when it comes to judicial ethics, some members of the court consider themselves better than equal to the rest of the federal judiciary. Their refusal to embrace and abide by the Code of Conduct is disturbing."

Edgar and Aron emphasized that addressing an organization like the Federalist Society is not, in itself, a breach of ethics.  The ethical line is crossed when the justice’s appearance is used to raise money for the organization.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

From AFJ:

• AFJ Video: A Question of Integrity and background material about ethics issues and the Code of Conduct

• Analysis of the ethical issues involved in Justices Scalia and Thomas speaking at a Federalist Society fundraiser from Prof. Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law

From Common Cause:

• Our highest court shouldn’t be held to the lowest standard.
• Hours after considering challenges to health care reform, Supreme Court justices are honored at fundraiser sponsored by law firms representing reform opponents.

BP’s fine less than oil giant’s profits in a single quarter

Company admits to felonies; implications for civil suits unclear

It certainly sounds like a lot.  After spewing hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, fouling beaches, killing wildlife and ruining livelihoods up and down the Gulf Coast, oil giant BP will pay fines and penalties of more than $5 billion over five years.  News accounts are trumpeting the largest criminal penalty in U.S. history.

But that needs to be understood in the context of what it means to be an oil giant.  The fine equals about $262 million per quarter for 20 quarters.  But in just the most recent quarter, BP amassedprofits of $5.43 billion.  That’s more than all the fines and penalties agreed to today.  Looked at another way, had BP been required to pay one-quarter’s worth of the fine during the most recent quarter, it would have cut the company’s profits by less than five percent.

This for a company that also is pleading guilty to 11 felonies relating to the deaths of 11 people when its Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig exploded in 2010.  Two BP employees have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

This may be the best the government could do given that, had the case gone to trial, it would have been heard in what AFJ President Nan Aron has aptly dubbed the “oil soaked Fifth Circuit” – a reference to the ties between some judges in that circuit and the oil industry.

BP may yet have to pay more, including a fine of up to $21 billion for violating the Clean Water Act – something worth remembering whenever conservative lawmakers rail against “excessive government regulation.”  But that, too, is subject to negotiation.

AFJ is studying the settlement to determine the impact, if any, on the small businesses and private citizens who sued BP, some of whom were profiled in AFJ’s documentary Crude Justice.  Many, but not all, of those cases were settled earlier this year, settlements BP estimates will cost the company about $7.8 billion.

Anticipating that the impact of the disaster would continue to be felt long after the initial damage was done, Alliance for Justice worked hard to advocate for legal solutions that would let Gulf Coast residents retain their right to hold BP accountable for the damage done to their health and businesses, and to be compensated for loss of income due to the long-term environmental impact of the spill. 

Through Crude Justice and other efforts, AFJ has played a substantial role in bringing public attention to the critical issues surrounding the Deepwater Horizon accident, its effects, and the search for justice.  AFJ was instrumental in helping to secure $2 million to pay for legal aid attorneys to assist victims of the spill.  A year after the spill, we published an in-depth report on how the legal process was and wasn’t working to help victims achieve justice.

For more about the Deepwater Horizon explosion, it’s impact on the people of the gulf, and their efforts to find justice, check out these resources on our website.

Thank you, Mr. President: AFJ Praises Obama judicial nominees

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement today in response to President Obama’s announcement of  seven nominees for federal district courts and a nominee for the United States Court of International Trade:

We are pleased that, so soon after re-election, President Obama appears to be making it a top priority to fill longstanding vacancies on the federal courts. 

President Obama says that these nominees "have demonstrated the talent, expertise, and fair-mindedness Americans expect and deserve from their judicial system.  They also represent my continued commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves."

We agree.  These nominations continue the president’s exemplary record when it comes to diversity in gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation  – the best record of any president (for details, see AFJ’s Judicial Selection Snapshot).   In addition, we are pleased that two of the nominees come from professional backgrounds that include service to everyday Americans and reflect the full diversity of the legal profession.   Raymond Moore, nominated for the District of Colorado, is the chief public defender for federal cases in Colorado and Wyoming, and Judge Will Thomas, nominated for the Southern District of Florida is a former public defender.

Meanwhile, 19 other nominees, already put forward by the president and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, await action by the full Senate during the current lame-duck session.   This at a time when there are scores of vacancies on the federal bench.  There is much truth to the cliché that justice delayed is justice denied.  These nominations bring thousands of Americans a step closer to justice.

The Senate should vote, now, to confirm those nominees.  Please click here to tell your Senator to do just that.

First order of business

Now that the people have voted, it's time for our senators to do the same. And the first order of business when they return today for the lame duck session should be to address the serious vacancy crisis in our courts.

There are 19 pending nominees that have waited an average of 236 days for final confirmation votes. Over half of these nominees would fill judicial emergencies.

• Judge Patty Schwartz of New Jersey has been waiting over 400 days
• Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma has been waiting over 290 days
• Judge Brian Davis of Florida has been waiting over 250 days.

Most of these nominess are noncontroversial - the Senate could approve them in minutes. But the longer the Senate fails to act on these nominees, the longer everyday Americans, from New Jersey to Oklahoma to Florida, are left to deal with a vacancy crisis in our courts.

When there are too few judges, the wait for justice can be unbearable. Forcing people to wait months, even years to stand up for their rights in court can do profound harm. Medical bills caused by injuries due to negligence may pile up while families wait for justice; parties may be forced to travel long distances as cases are shifted to districts with more judges; memories may fade, witnesses may die.

It’s time for the Senate to put politics aside and vote on all pending nominees. Send a message to your senators today!

Read more about the "judicial cliff" in AFJ President Nan Aron's blog at The Huffington Post

Voting Arizona: Chaos in the wake of efforts to suppress the vote

Conventional wisdom has it that the re-election of President Obama means efforts to suppress the vote failed.

Try telling that to tens of thousands of voters in Arizona.

You remember Arizona: The state where basic information about when to vote kept getting, literally, lost in translation, with Spanish-language information sometimes misstating the date for the election.

It turns out, that wasn’t the only problem.

As of Saturday 486,405 ballots still had not been counted – this in a state with 3.1 million registered voters. Of that total, 178,785 are “provisional” ballots, often cast by voters who couldn’t meet the strict requirements of Arizona’s Voter ID law. (The remainder are ballots cast through early voting.)

According to The NewYork Times:

Activists say that they believe, based on what they have heard from people in the field, that provisional ballots tended to be used most often in Hispanic and black neighborhoods. … Advocates and elected officials are worried, though, that voters who had to cast conditional provisional ballots because they forgot to bring identification to the polls, as state law requires, may not know they have to present their ID at the county elections office by Wednesday for their vote to count.

The counting of these ballots may determine the outcome of several races. In a race for a new Congressional seat in Phoenix, counting of provisional and early ballots widened the lead of Democrat Kyrsten Sinema to the point that the Associated Press has declared her the winner over Republican Vernon Parker. Democrat Ron Barber, a former aide to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has retaken the lead in a very close race to keep that seat, which he first won in a special election to succeed Giffords.

And the Times reports there’s a slim chance that even the results of the U.S. Senate election in Arizona might be in doubt:

[A]s of Friday, Jeff Flake, a Republican congressman, was ahead of his Democratic challenger, Richard H. Carmona, by 78,775 votes, according to unofficial results posted by the secretary of state. Mr. Carmona conceded on Tuesday; on Friday, in a message to supporters, he wrote, “We will take every necessary step to make sure all of our supporters’ ballots are counted.”

The U.S. Department of Justice was concerned enough about the mess in Arizona to send in federal observers, something it is empowered to do thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That, of course, is the civil rights law some say no longer is needed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a challenge to a key provision of that law – though this challenge, even if successful, would not affect the right to send in federal observers.

AFJ President Nan Aron on today's Supreme Court decision to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement on today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  At issue is a provision called "preclearance." Under this provision, places covered by the Act are barred from making changes in voting laws until the U.S. Department of Justice determines that the changes do not have either the purpose or effect of discriminating against people of color.

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 means the court will be focusing on the keystone in the arch of protection for people of color in America - the law that guarantees the right to vote.

The case will be argued before a Chief Justice, John Roberts, who has shown profound hostility to the Voting Rights Act during his legal career.  While serving in the Reagan Administration, Roberts was a driving force behind Administration efforts to significantly weaken the Act.  His push to weaken the law went beyond internal memos and other writings. He actively encouraged the Administration to publicly embrace and widely endorse his call for a weaker law – drafting numerous talking points, question-and-answer documents and op ed columns.

Opponents of the Voting Rights Act say it has outlived its usefulness. After nearly 50 years, they argue, all of the wrongs have been righted. But any claim that the wrongs that led to this Act are things of the past should have been dispelled by the concerted efforts during the campaign that just ended to deny poor people and people of color their right to vote through voter ID laws and other means of voter suppression.

On election night, according to a Hart Research Associates poll conducted for the AFL-CIO, there was racial inequality at the polling station.  The proportion of African American and Hispanic voters who had to wait on long lines before they could vote was more than double the proportion of white voters.

When he signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson declared that "This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. . . . Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify.  The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny."

Soon, the Supreme Court will decide if America will remain true to its principles.

And see the previous post to this blog for more on the need for strong voting rights protections.

A 21st Century poll tax?

            Being poor gives new meaning to the phrase “time is money.”

            If you’re a wealthy parent and you have an unexpected errand, the nanny will watch the kids.  If you’re poor, it’s leave the kids home alone or don’t run the errand.  If you’re wealthy, you can take a few hours of unpaid leave and it’s no problem.  If you’re poor, it could get you fired.

            But what if the “errand” is voting?

            We all know about the long lines at some polling places on election day – and sometimes well into election night.  But the burden was not spread equally.

            According to a poll for the AFL-CIO by Hart Research Associates, only nine percent of white voters had to wait for more than 30 minutes to vote.  But 22 percent of African American voters had to wait that long.  And the figure rose to 24 percent for Hispanic voters.

            Since African American and Hispanic voters are more likely to be low income voters, the burden of waiting fell heaviest on those least likely to be able to afford it.   So if time is money, are those long lines a form of poll tax?

            The lines were only one example of voter suppression efforts aimed at the poor and minorities. The best known are Voter ID laws.  But there were others, as AFJ’s Isaiah Castilla noted on our Bolder Advocacy blog this week.  And it’s not over yet.  There are questions about whether Latino votes are being properly counted in key races in Arizona.

            It’s widely expected that, during this term, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a key provision of one of the most important protections for minority voters – the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  [UPDATE: 4:17PM: The Supreme Court just announced it will, in fact, hear such a challenge].  Opponents of the Act say that nearly 50 years after its passage it’s no longer needed.   But those long lines at the polls, and all the other problems, are important reminders that while all of us are created equal, at the polling station some still are more equal than others.  

Elections: ‘We have to fix that’

This post originally appeared on AFJ's Bolder Advocacy Blog.

Last night, the many months of political and ballot measure campaigning came to a close.  Millions of Americans, from all walks of life, came together to participate in the democratic process and exercise their right to vote.  Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, I think we can all agree on last night’s winner:  the voters.  Despite reports of long lines and even longer wait times, voters across the country confronted these obstacles and made a point to make their voices heard.

While volunteering with the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights election protection hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE, I witnessed the unnecessary stress placed on voters’ first-hand.  The issues ranged from defective voting machines to untrained poll workers who were unfamiliar with their states voter ID requirements.  As President Obama said last night in reference to long lines at the polls, “we have to fix that.”

In the coming months, we look forward to working with organizations and policymakers to protect the right to vote and encourage sensible reforms to the election process that empower, not discourage, American voters.  In the meantime, let’s give a round of applause to the voters, especially the displaced voters of New Jersey, who voted in large numbers despite the devastating impact of Hurricane Sandy.

Sen. Coburn reads the election returns; predicts quick action on two stalled judicial nominations

            In July, the United States Senate reached a new low when, for the first time, Senate Republicans filibustered a nominee for a judgeship on a United States Circuit Court of Appeals even after the nomination had been voted out of committee with bipartisan support.

Judge Bacharach

            The nominee is U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach, whom President Obama wants to appoint to the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

            As AFJ President Nan Aron said at the time:

The Senate has become a theater of the politically absurd, and is so poisoned with partisanship that even the two senators from Judge Bacharach’s home state, who had expressed unequivocal support for his nomination, willingly voted to ignore their obligations to the Constitution and their fellow Oklahomans.

            But now, at least one of those senators, Tom Coburn, is singing a different tune.  He told The Oklahoman that the nominations of Bacharach and John Dowdell, who was nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in Tulsa, should “fly through” the Senate, when it reconvenes for a lame-duck session next week.

            What’s changed? There’s less partisan advantage for Republicans in trying to keep good judges off the bench.  As The Oklahoman points out: “Had Republican Mitt Romney won, he would have been able to make his own judicial nominations.”

            In addition to Bacharach and Dowdell, 17 other judicial nominations have been stalled by Senate Republicans after being voted out of committee.

            But as former U.S. Attorney Dan Webber told The Oklahoman:

Most of the nominees, including Judge Bacharach and John Dowdell, face little or no opposition and could be confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote.  The Senate could confirm a dozen or more nominees, including the Oklahomans, in less than an hour.

            We hope other Senate Republicans will read the election returns in the same way as Sen. Coburn.  There is no reason the Senate can’t give swift approval to all 19 pending nominations during the lame-duck session, and begin to ease the critical shortage of federal judges, a shortage that delays, and sometimes denies, justice across the country.

            AFJ will be keeping the pressure on to get the Senate to move.