LWV Newton logo

Visit us on Facebook!

Topic Meetings

Climate Change Forum – Feb 26

There’s No Time to Waste – Addressing the Urgency of Climate Change

We invite you to attend a…

Climate Change Forum

Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2020
7pm – 9pm
Scandinavian Cultural Center
206 Waltham Street, West Newton, MA

The wildfires in Australia, and the flooding of Indonesia and Venice are examples of tragic climate events that have raised alarm bells across the globe.  Climate change is here in real time and will feed an increasing number of devastating, extreme weather events. Facing inaction on climate legislation at the federal level, state and local governments must pick up the slack.

Join us on Wednesday, February 26th, when the League of Women Voters of Newton (LWVN), together with the Leagues of Framingham, Needham, Wayland, Wellesley and Weston, will co-host a community conversation you won’t want to miss!  You’ll learn how Massachusetts can join other states and hundreds of cities across the country working to reduce carbon emissions – “Job One” if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change.

Discussion topics will include:

  • The current state of climate change science and implications for society
  • The current status and importance of the regional transportation and climate initiative
  • The plan to help transition gas utilities to delivery of clean, safe, renewable energy and the importance of the FUTURE Act

To present this topic, we have assembled an outstanding panel that includes Craig Altemose , Co-Founder and Executive Director of Better Future Project;  Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director of the Acadia Center; and Audrey Schulman, Co-founder and Executive Director of HEET (Home Energy Efficiency Team) and/or Zeyneb Magavi (Director, HEET).

State Senator Cynthia Creem, a sponsor of the FUTURE ACT, will be attending as well and providing remarks.

RSVPs to info@lwvnewton.org or on Facebook are appreciated!

Topic Meeting Notes: Is our Constitution Holding up to the Test of Time?

by Frieda Dweck

On September 15, 2019, Jed Shugerman, a Newton resident, former Bowen PTO co-chair, and law professor and legal historian at Fordham University in New York, lead a discussion on “Is the Constitution Holding up to the Test of Time.”

We first discussed the methods of interpreting the constitution and whether it matters what was “intended” when the constitution was written.    The two most common methods of interpreting the constitution are “originalism” and a “living constitution.”   Originalists are usually associated with a more conservative approach to the constitution and to politics, while the ”living constitution” approach is usually associated with more progressive values and politics.  Jed presented his case for interpreting the constitution as a “progressive originalist.”

Originalism is built on the idea of the “rule of law.”    The constitution is intended to put limits on partisanship and politicians.  If we allow the rule of law to evolve all the time, then anyone can interpret it any way they want depending on who is in power.  Rather, the constitution should be interpreted the way we interpret any statute or legislation – look at what Congress intended when they passed the legislation, look at the text and the context.   That includes not only what was intended by the Founding Fathers and the words in the constitution, but all texts, ideas, thoughts and values, that went into the deliberation of those words, as well as history.

If we are going to embrace the originalist concept for interpreting the constitution, then should we have a longer constitution?  No – a more detailed constitution is apt to become outdated and less useful.  A shorter constitution sets up the framework of how decisions will be made, but does not get into the minutiae of details that will change over time.  So, while the Founding Fathers could not have anticipated the constitutional questions regarding, for example, school desegregation, reproductive rights, gay rights, the essential values behind those questions can be discerned in the constitution.

We then discussed the Supreme Court and whether it is still acting in a non-partisan fashion as the constitutional framers envisioned, or should we try and “fix” the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices or limiting the term each justice serves?   Even though the Supreme Court is currently lined up more conservatively, the justices still make decisions based on their interpretation of the law, and sometimes that interpretation goes against how you would think they are politically aligned.  (Chief Justice Roberts’ decisions on the ACA and on the census questions are examples – but there have been examples like that throughout our judicial history.)  If we allowed presidents to increase the number of justices on the court, each president would want to appoint enough justices to overcome what they believe is a political minority on the court, but then where would it stop? Having life tenure insures the independence of the judiciary.  If Supreme Court justices knew they would have to leave the court after a certain number of years, they might position themselves for their next “gig” while still on the court, which could sway their rulings and affect their independence.

Finally, we tackled the question: are we currently experiencing a “Constitutional Crisis”?   It is not a constitutional crisis to have disputes over the meaning of the constitution.  We are meant to always be debating the values of the constitution.   It is when our political disputes are settled with violence, such as the Civil War, Reconstruction, the race riots in the 1920s, and bringing in the National Guard to enforce desegregation, that we experience a constitutional crisis.

There were many great questions raised by the audience, and stimulating discussions were engaged in, after Jed’s formal presentation.

 

An Interesting Presentation & Conversation with Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian

On November 12th, Middlesex  Sheriff Peter Koutoujian spoke to an audience of 40+, at the Angier School.  Those attending were from Acton, Arlington, Newton, Weston, and Winchester Massachusetts.  Though the Sheriff spoke about multiple programs, the descriptions of which can be found on the  Middlesex Sheriff Office – Programming  website.  However there are two highlighted below:

Landmark Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) pilot program  “Arresting and incarcerating our way out of addiction is not – and has never been – an option,” said Middlesex Sheriff, and Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association President, Peter J. Koutoujian, who worked with legislators last year to craft the language for the pilot.   “Massachusetts sheriffs have been at the forefront of this crisis, implementing innovative and evidence-based initiatives aimed at improving the health outcomes of justice-involved individuals with opioid use disorder.  This pilot is the thoughtful, comprehensive next step and one that is being watched by colleagues not just here in the Commonwealth, but across the country.”  As part of the pilot, individuals entering facilities in the seven counties on any of the three FDA-approved MAT regimens (buprenorphine, methadone or naltrexone) will have the ability to continue their treatment regimen while incarcerated, unless determined otherwise by a qualified addiction specialist.  Sentenced inmates not on a verified MAT regimen at the time of their commitment may also be evaluated for participation 30 days prior to their scheduled release.

The Housing Unit for Military Veterans – or HUMV  – opened in January 2016 and is the first correctional unit in Massachusetts specifically designed for individuals who have served in the military.  The unit is open to both sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees, who have served at home or abroad.  HUMV was conceived and designed as a collaborative effort of the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office together with incarcerated Veterans with a goal of treating and preparing them for successful reentry. HUMV’s barracks-style layout, combined with wellness and treatment programs, as well as guest speakers allow Veterans to call on their camaraderie and their shared military experiences to address the challenges which have led to their incarceration. HUMV is similar to a modified therapeutic community, where a typical day includes lectures and cognitive behavioral therapy groups, among other programs.  Participants also have regular meetings with state and federal Veterans affairs representatives, substance abuse treatment, vocational and employment readiness training. HUMV staff work with offenders to create individualized comprehensive reentry plans which address the specific needs of each Veteran and regularly works with the Veterans Court to divert appropriate cases. With this unit, we are helping those who have served our nation find their way to better days.

Special thanks go to :

  • Alice Donisi-Feehan who was instrumental in pulling this very successful and informative evening together.
  • Frieda Dweck, Sue Flicop, Karen Manning, and Lisa Mirable for the multi-media promotional effort.
  • Our co-Spoonsors: the League of Women Voters of Arlington, Norwood, Sudbury, Wayland, and Weston

 

 

Notes on Lisa Danetz’s Voter Suppression Presentation

Voter Suppression Topic Meeting with Lisa Danetz

by Frieda Dweck

On Feb 28, members gathered to hear Lisa Danetz discuss Voter suppression issues.  Danetz is a public policy consultant for philanthropic foundations, has worked in the voting rights, money in politics, and democracy field as an expert, advocate, and lawyer for over 15 years. Her work has focused on improving election administration and increasing the political participation of disfranchised groups within our society through public policy research, litigation, executive and legislative advocacy, and public education. Ms. Danetz is the former legal director of Demos, a New York-based public policy center, and also worked at National Voting Rights Institute.

Lisa presented a comprehensive look at how voting rights have been affected nationally over the last 10 years or so, both negatively and positively.

Voting rights have been negatively impacted over the last decade because many politicians have been focusing on voting legitimacy, rather than on ensuring fair play.  This was accomplished in three different ways: (a) voter suppression, (b) gerrymandering, and (c) abuse of absentee ballots.

Voter Suppression – involves the effort to reduce the number of people who can vote.  This can be accomplished by list purging, requiring voter IDs, and manipulating the locations of polling places (siting them far away from voters, or having too few polling places) so that it makes it more difficult for certain voters to vote.  Because of time constraints, Lisa mostly reviewed recent list purging efforts.

List purging – from an administrative point of view, there is a legitimate concern about maintaining an accurate list of voters.  Election administrators use the lists to determine the appropriate allocation of resources for an election; ie. how many polling locations should be available, how many poll workers should be assigned to each location, etc.  For that reason, it is important to ensure that voter lists are kept current and accurate.  However, there is a balance between maintaining an accurate list count and making sure that names are not removed from a voter list just for a failure to vote.

The National Voter Registration Act established a process for voter removal that protects the voter.  One of the ways in which it does that is by creating a mechanism by which the US Postal Service works in coordination with election boards to notify them of address changes.  However, several states have asserted that the mechanisms provided for by the NVRA do not do enough to purge their voter lists of inaccuracies, and have adopted policies that have resulted in the unnecessary removal of voters from voting lists.

Ohio – adopted a Supplemental Process for list purging that permitted election boards to remove a voter from its list if they failed to vote in two subsequent federal elections.  This resulted in approximately 40,000 people being removed from the voter list, without first establishing that the voter no longer resided in the voting district.  The purge of voters also disproportionately affected low- income citizens.

Georgia – adopted the Exact Match Bill.  If the signature on a voter does not exactly match their signature from their voter registration application (even if the signature simply misses a hyphen), their vote is not counted unless they take steps to resolve the discrepancy.  This caused over 50,000 votes to be uncounted, again disproportionately affecting low income voters and voters of color.

Texas – the Secretary of State in Texas demanded a review of voter’s list against a list of driver registrations.  Since non-citizens obtain driver’s licenses, the objective was to identify non-citizens who had been listed on the voter rolls.  This review resulted in 80,000 names being removed from the voter rolls.  What the review failed to look at, though, was how many of the non-citizens became naturalized since obtaining their licenses, and when that review was done, there were only about 80 names left of non-citizens who were on the voter list.  (There is no indication that these 80 non-citizens actually voted, only that their names were on voting lists.)

All these efforts at voter suppression have become more prevalent recently because of a Supreme Court decision in 2013 in the case of Holder v Shelby County.  Prior to that decision, certain states were required to obtain approval of any legislation that would affect the rights of voters before those rules would go into effect, to insure that voters’ rights were protected.  This affected primarily southern states, which have had a history of suppressing the votes of people of color.  The Supreme Court ruled, however, that these protective provisions were no longer required.

Gerrymandering –  is the manipulation of voting districts based on political affiliation and partisan makeup.  Gerrymandering has been used to benefit both Republicans and Democrats.  (Since the term ”gerrymandering” originated in Massachusetts, we, of course, had to briefly mention that history – –    the word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.)

Partisan gerrymandering can be unconstitutional both under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause.  Currently, there are several instances of gerrymandering being challenged in the courts.  It is possible that in two instances  – in North Carolina (where the districting map favors Republicans) and Maryland (where the districting map favors Democrats) – these cases will reach the Supreme Court.

Absentee Ballot Fraud   – the collection of absentee ballots is the area where true fraud and cheating can occur.  While we hear a great deal of concern about the need for photo IDs to prevent voter fraud at the polls, evidence has shown that this is less of a problem than absentee ballot collection.

Recently, in North Carolina, the Election Board refused to certify the outcome of the Congressional District 9 election due to a high number of questionable absentee ballots.  For that district, Republicans make-up 19% of the voters, yet 80% of the absentee ballots were from Republicans.

Our discussion moved on to how voting rights have been positively impacted over the last decade.

Automatic Voter Registration.  Last summer, Massachusetts joined about a dozen other states in adopting automatic voter registration regulations. AVR is expected to go into effect in Massachusetts in 2020.  Whenever any Massachusetts resident interacts with either the Registry of Motor Vehicles or MassHealth, they will be automatically registered to vote unless they opt out.  The RMV or MassHealth will transfer the registration data to the city clerks, and the city clerks then send out notifications to the individuals registered.   Individuals are registered without any party affiliation but have an opportunity to register with a party after the initial notification.

Other initiatives being taken by states across the country to improve voter access:

  • Same Day Voter Registration
  • Restoration of Voting Rights to former felons
  • Electronic Registration Information Center – a data base that uses up to date technology to share information about voters (age, citizenship, change of addresses).  About 25 states belong to ERIC.  There are some voting rights advocates who are skeptical of ERIC and believe that it can be used to prematurely remove voters from the registration lists.

All these issues are of interest to the LWV; helping citizens access the vote is one of our primary commitments.

 

 

Thanks to Lisa Danetz and Launa Zimmaro!

LWVN was lucky to have two great speakers this week:

Thanks Lisa Danetz for joining us at Thursday’s Topic Meeting and sharing her knowledge and thoughts on voter suppression, gerrymandering and issues with absentee ballots. Thanks as well to Frieda Dweck, who organized the topic meeting. We came away with a deeper understanding of how big these issues are and their effects on our voting system.  We hope to continue this discussion in the future and appreciate Lisa’s and Frieda’s time as well as those who joined us.

Thanks as well to Launa Zimmaro, member of LWV of Concord and state legislative specialist on environmental issues, and to Bonnie Carter for planning Sunday’s meeting and for hosting us.  Launa spoke about LWVMA priorities of carbon pricing, clean energy alternatives and state legislation on environmental issues.  Launa also discussed issues stopping some of this legislation from becoming law and what we can do about them. Look for more information on these topics along with updates from LWVMA on legislative priorities.