Here?s one reason we?re stuck in slow growth mode: the budget crunch among state and local governments.

The figure shows the yearly percentage point contribution to or subtraction from real GDP growth from the state and local sectors since the late 1980s.  The trend bounces around but the recent cliff dive is evident.  It?s also why we keep losing jobs in these sectors month after month.

Paul Krugman weighs in:

But it?s even worse than he says. Why? Because if you look at what?s being cut, it?s heavily focused on investment:

That is, we?re sacrificing the future as well as the present. Oh, and the cuts that aren?t falling on investment in physical capital are largely falling on human capital, that is, education.

It?s hard to overstate just how wrong all this is. We have a situation in which resources are sitting idle looking for uses ? massive unemployment of workers, especially construction workers, capital so bereft of good investment opportunities that it?s available to the federal government at negative real interest rates. Never mind multipliers and all that (although they exist too); this is a time when government investment should be pushed very hard. Instead, it?s being slashed.

What an utter disaster.

As JBC in the Krugman comment thread says: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Indeed. And as any arson investigator will tell you, the most avid watchers are the guys who started the fire.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:

If John McCain doesn't win Florida, he almost certainly won't be the Republican nominee.  And if he does win Florida, his only chance of avoiding a crushing defeat in November will be to embrace the same moneyed interests he's declared are among the biggest problems facing America.  

Some months back McCain's campaign applied for federal matching campaign funds.  (The money comes from individual taxpayers who voluntarily check off a $3 contribution on their income tax return.)  In December seven campaigns were officially notified that they qualified for matching funds.  However, because of a funding shortfall, none of the federal matching funds have been released.  Apparently the fund reserves the money needed for the general election before it starts to pay out matching funds for the primary, and until monies arrive from this year's tax returns, the fund doesn't have enough money to deliver money for the primary.  John Edwards secured a bank loan against the federal funds, so he is officially locked in to abiding by the spending limits in the event he gets the nomination.

McCain qualified for $5.8 million in matching funds.  He could do as Edwards has done, and get the money now by securing a bank loan against the eventual payment from the US Treasury.  But McCain has been anything but "straight talking" regarding his money; until he receives the money from the Treasury or borrows against it, he's not locked in to the system.  Thus, he's currently trying to evade the federal spending limits if he can raise enough money to stay viable, but holding out the option of taking the federal funds if he can't survive through tonight.  

Tweet of the Day

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Republican insiders are freaked out over the possibility of Newt Gingrich becoming their presidential standard bearer. That's the technical term: freaked out. And that they are so freaked out over that possibility at least speaks to their not having completely lost touch with reality. They have completely lost touch with the American people, but they haven't completely lost touch with reality. Not completely. At least not yet. But in light of their support for the personification of so much that is so wrong and so unpopular in this country as alternative to Gingrich, their prospects for retaining at least a partial grip on reality are not good. And they did choose Mitch Daniels to rebut President Obama's State of the Union speech. Which speaks for itself.

The Occupy movement is not overtly political, at least not in the traditional sense of that word. It does not adhere to any political party or any individual political movement, but it is symbiotic with many political movements, and its goals align very well with traditional Democratic Party populism. The Democratic Party has been adrift from its populist traditions, and in many ways that made the Occupy movement necessary, but many Democrats seem to be recognizing what is happening. They seem to be rediscovering the Democratic Party's populist tradition. The Republican Party has no link at all to populism. The Republican Party, since at least the Reagan era, has been the party of the economic elite, waging neoliberal class warfare and then feigning outrage at what Republicans consider to be the class warfare of merely calling the Republican Party on its actually waging class warfare.

Mitt Romney explains his vision for America's middle class. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)

 

This cycle should be no different, especially now that the Republican pretenders to the throne are even more renegade than they ever have been in recent memory. In this current primary contest, the first three states have been won, respectively, by three distinct yet equally odious candidates: a former senator with a Google problem who believes that rape victims should make the best of a bad situation should they be unfortunate enough to conceive as a result of the crime; a vulture capitalist who likes to fire people and never met a policy position he didn't like if he felt it could get him a better shot at an even higher office; and ... Newt Gingrich. Yet even in spite of that, I cannot muster up the energy and enthusiasm to watch the continuing Republican immolation of just about everything that is fair and right in this country. While Gingrich's proposal about lunar statehood provided a sliver of respite, it has not been enough to turn the tide or lighten the gravity of this situation.

To make matters worse, my interest was rising again after Gingrich won the South Carolina primary and appeared to be gaining a crescendo of support. But his newfound lunacy has now caused his base in Florida to crater. And as Gingrich's support wanes, Mitt Romney's now appears to be waxing at exactly the right time to win Florida, eliminating his final rival for the nomination that was long assumed to be his, and leaving the Republican Party in a relative sea of tranquility.

Lunar guffaws aside, the battle that will unforld once Mitt Romney wins the nomination will be a battle for the soul of America, but not in the way usually intended by Republican candidates. In his recent State of the Union Speech, President Obama laid out his vision for what America could and should be. Even if the speech was not a progressive's dream from every policy standpoint, it focused very strongly on a few central themes with which we can all agree: reforming the tax code to end the rewarding of outsourcing, reinvesting in American manufacturing and the middle-class jobs that come with it, and investing in the education that will allow American workers to have the skills required to do the jobs of both the present and the future.

Mitt Romney has consistently presented a different vision. It's an ideology that professes that if only plutocrats like him were less restrained by consumer protections, labor, and regulations, that they could produce all the jobs America needs through trickle-down economics, even as the stepladders to the middle class that government has already provided continue to be gutted in the name of personal responsibility. It is a vision born of a decades-long effort to rehabilitate the principles of Ayn Rand and transform them into a socially acceptable philosophy on governance while interweaving a theocratic social agenda thought unthinkable only a few years ago.

I was technically a teenager when 9/11 occurred, and just beginning to become interested in politics in a serious way. At that time, I was outraged by every single Republican attempt to erode our civil liberties while continuing to gut environmental protections and government services while enriching those who needed it the least. I was outraged precisely because I viewed it as an excess brought about by the temporary insanity that resulted from our national trauma, combined with the radicalism of the Bush administration. I expected that the election of Barack Obama would end the radical and imperial interregnum that was the Bush administration, marginalize the so called "dead-enders" and unify the country in a new era of sanity and political civility.

The truth was not as joyous, as history has shown. But I am no longer outraged, because it is far more difficult to be outraged at what is expected. Instead, as we prepare to face Mitt Romney in November, I am simply resolute: there's a job that needs doing. Neither Romney nor the future nominees of his party can be given four years to unleash their plutocratic fancies against America's middle class. Outrage won't guarantee that outcome, but hard work will.

Japanese-American farm mother awaiting relocation
(Dorothea Lange, NARA)

As the daughter of a Tuskegee Airman, I didn?t need Hollywood to teach me its history. My dad and his friends?former airmen?taught me not only the history of their service, but the harsh truths of how they were maligned by racists here at home.

No disrespect to George Lucas, whom I applaud for his latest film production, Red Tails, but the tales of the ugliness faced by not only the Airmen, but other non-white members of our military and their families, still aren't grist for the big silver screen.  

Reading some of the commentary and criticism about his film was beyond aggravating?particularly those whining, "But ... but ... but ... it's been done already!" Sure, there have been other films, like HBO's Tuskegee Airmen, but until every history book documents them, and every child in America knows the stories of the 332nd Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group of the U.S. Army Air Corps (Tuskegee Airmen) and the Navajo Code Talkers, I don't care how many versions are made. I still have students who don't have a clue when I bring these subjects up in class.

I am pleased that Lucas had the courage to present the Airmen through a black lens, with an all-black cast. There is no white hero or heroine to make our history palatable and salable for "general" (read: white) viewing audiences. We have enough of that already, whether it is in The Help or Blindside.

I find myself wondering if any major producer will step up and tell the tales of the Nisei and Japanese Americans during WWII.

442 Insignia

The history of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team is one that we should all be proud of:

The unit became the most highly?decorated regiment in the history of the United States Armed Forces, including 21 Medal of Honor recipients. The motto of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was ?Go for Broke.?

Yet it wasn't until seven decades later that they received the Congressional Gold Medal.

It is not just important to honor the service of veterans; it is equally important that we are aware of the ugly reality of the round-up and internment of Japanese Americans, authorized by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Executive Order 9066, on Feb. 19, 1942. While the motto of the 442nd was "Go for Broke", their community was broken up, dragged off and demeaned, and many internees died, broken-hearted and shamed.

From the streets ... (David Shankbone)

[My grandfather's generation] understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share -- the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement. The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.  

?President Obama, 2012 State of the Union Address

... to the halls of Congress

Regarding the question in my title, my answer is yes. Let me present you with evidence. Consider President Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address delivered on the heels of the devastating landslide loss to the Republicans in the 2010 election, in particular this line:

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again. [...] That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together.

We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of new investments that they make this year. And these steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year. [Emphasis supplied]

You'll excuse me for thinking that was one of the low points of the Obama presidency. Celebrating the capitulation to the Republicans in extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich as an example of "working together" to grow the economy was, I hope, the nadir of the Obama presidency. A "the era of big government is over" moment.

To be clear, the president had spent the year arguing for lowering the deficit (more on that later) by repealing (or more correctly, letting them expire) the Bush tax cuts for the rich. His "narrative" changed as a reaction to the loss in the 2010 elections. But what was clear was that, at the time of the 2011 State of the Union, the state of the political narrative in the nation was in a terrible place?Austerity Now! and succor to the "job creators" was the order of the day. Consider the president's policy proposals in his 2011 State of the Union address:

When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test. That's why instead of just pouring money into a system that's not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all 50 states, we said, "If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money." Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than 1 percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. And these standards were developed, by the way, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that's more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids.

Race To The Top! Ugh. More:

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. (Applause.) I know that debate will be difficult. I know it will take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.

Yay! Border security! Ugh. And the piece de resistance?Austerity!:

[T]he final critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt. We are living with a legacy of deficit spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. (Applause.) Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we've frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.

There is a nod to lowering "tax expenditures" (provisions in the tax code that exempt certain activities from normal tax code application):

The bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

On income inequality, here is what the president said in his 2011 State of the Union speech:

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success.

That's it. A stray paragraph in a 45-minute speech. And even that paragraph was weak tea, wrapped in the clothing of reducing the deficit.

It seems safe to say that income inequality was not a theme for the Obama administration in 2011. Deficit reduction, "reforming" entitlement programs and "Austerity!" were. And the coverage of the speech reflected that. But in 2012? Let's review Tuesday's State of the Union speech on the flip:

enlarge

Credit: Matt Bors

From the very talented Matt Bors. Open thread below...

Happy Sunday!

Click here to view this media

It's a sign of a self-actualized, mature adult to accept responsibility for one's failings, attempt to correct them and to acknowledge the lessons learned.

Then there's Newt Gingrich.

Never to be mistaken as a self-actualized, mature adult, Newt Gingrich has already blamed his philandering on his great love for his country. So is it little wonder that when he flops in his one purported skill that will allow him to beat Obama--debating--it is someone else's fault?

[Guest host Jake] Tapper noted that both of Gingrich?s surges in the polls were thanks to his powerful debate performances, and asked him what happened during both debates last week, where many analysts thought Romney came out much stronger and helped himself get back into the lead in Florida. Gingrich conceded he did not do his best at the debates, but had an explanation all ready.

?I was amazed. I?m standing next to a guy who has the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in my lifetime? I don?t know how you can debate someone with civility if they?re prepared to say things that are factually false.?

Gimme a break. You can dish it out but you can't take it, Newt. Like all big bullies, Gingrich is bluster with nothing behind it, folding like a house of cards when someone is able to push back.

*This* is the GOP's last, great hope for besting Obama in a debate? Hehehehehe...thanks, GOP.

Parts of Thailand were left unrecognizable at the end of last year, after the country experienced its worst floods in 50 years. [More]

Ten steps to a healthier life and more wealth through embracing the bacteria around you.

The Slightly Longer than Five Second Rule.

In journalism, there’s what you call your dog-bites-man situation. Which is anything too common and expected to be a good story (unless the dog is one of those Resident Evil hellhounds, or the man is Cesar Millan). An example of a dog-bites-man science story is yet another confirmation of Einstein and relativity.

How many chargers do you own? One for your cellphone? Another for your laptop? Yet another for your tablet, podcast player or even electric toothbrush? It adds up.

When we drive somewhere new, we navigate by referring to a two-dimensional map that accounts for distances only on a horizontal plane. According to research published online in August in Nature Neuroscience , the mammalian brain seems to do the same, collapsing the world into a flat plane even as the animal skitters up trees and slips deep into burrows.

Join us for the first stop of a national tour to address the issue of prosecutorial oversight in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Connick v. Thompson, which granted prosecutors almost complete immunity for their intentional misconduct. Panelists from all aspects of the criminal justice system will discuss systemic and legal approaches for reducing prosecutorial error and misconduct.

Monday, February 6, 2012
6 to 8:30 PM
Jacob Burns Moot Court Room
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Speakers include:
Maddy deLone, Executive Director of the Innocence Project, who will moderate the panel; 
John Thompson, whose $14 million civil award for the prosecutorial misconduct that caused him to spend 14 years on death row was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, Founder and Director of Resurrection After Exoneration and Voices of Innocence;  
Ellen Yaroshefsky, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law at Cardozo School of Law;
Hon. Richard Buchter, New York Supreme Court Judge and former Queens Assistant District Attorney;  
Hon. Elisa Koenderman, New York Supreme Court Judge and former Bronx Assistant District Attorney; 
Sarah Jo Hamilton, Principal at Scalise & Hamilton, LLP, and a former trial counsel and first deputy chief counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for New York’s First Judicial Department; and 
Ross E. Firsenbaum and Shauna Friedman,  Senior Associates at Wilmer Hale, who represented Arthur Ashe Courage Award Winner Dewey Bozella, who was wrongly convicted of murder due to police and prosecutorial misconduct and was exonerated after serving 26 years in New York prisons.

Light refreshments will be served following the panel discussion. More info here.

Seating is limited.  Pease RSVP by February 1 to info@prosecutorialoversight.org.

Florida Law Limits Donations by Minors to $100 but Adults And Corporations Can Donate up to $500 per Election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

MIAMI – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLUFL) today filed a legal challenge on behalf of Julie Towbin, a 17-year-old resident of Boca Raton, challenging Florida’s law limiting political contributions by minors because the law limits the Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Current Florida law (statute 106.08(1)(b)(2)) limits donations made by minors to state and local candidates to $100 per candidate per election while adults and corporations may contribute up to $500 per candidate per election.

“The law goes overboard by restricting my ability to access the political process, effectively support candidates for office and express my views as others do.” Towbin said. “The state is violating a right guaranteed to me by the First Amendment – the right to engage in political speech.”

Towbin is a high school senior who, in addition to earning money from a job as cashier in a restaurant, earned more than $7,000 as a Congressional House Page in 2011. She keeps her funds in a bank account in her name. She is registered to vote and plans to cast her first ballot in the November 2012 elections.

In September, 2011, Towbin was interested in attending a fundraising dinner for the Palm Beach County Democratic Executive Committee, of which she is a member. But she was told that purchasing a regular $150 ticket to the dinner may be a violation of the $100 limit on contributions by minors.

Because of her concerns about violating the law by purchasing a ticket to the fundraiser and making contributions to local candidates in 2012, Towbin wrote the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, the Palm Beach County State Attorney, the State Attorney General and to the Florida Elections Commission which would be responsible for hearing potential violations and issuing penalties such as criminal referrals for prosecution and fines. Receiving no assurances that buying the ticket would not result in legal penalties, Towbin did not attend the fundraiser and has not made any campaign contributions over $100.

“It’s clear that this Florida law limits a citizen’s access to political discourse based solely on age,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “The right to speak politically as well as hear political debate is clearly protected and our laws should encourage everyone – especially young people – to engage with democracy instead of cutting people off from the process.”

The statutory age limit restriction applies only to Florida and local candidates. Under federal election rules, even though she is a minor, Towbin may contribute up to $2,500 – the same amount allowed for adults – to candidates for federal office such as President or Congress.

“The Constitution does not allow the state to treat speech differently based on who is doing the speaking,” said James K. Green, cooperating attorney in the case. “If the state has a need to limit contributions to a set amount – in this case $500 – the amount needs to be the same for everyone without exception.”

The suit was filed today in the Southern District of United States Court in West Palm Beach and asks the Court to declare Florida’s law unconstitutional as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The suit also seeks an order blocking the state from enforcing the age limit restriction on supporting candidates.

“Florida law gives more speech and political participation rights to corporations and political action committees than seventeen year olds who will vote this year,” Towbin said. “More than being unconstitutional, the law institutionalizes apathy among young people – it says your voice is worth one-fifth of someone else’s.”

A copy of the complaint filed today is available here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2012-01-26-TwobinComplaint.pdf
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

A former student who endured severe and persistent harassment throughout junior high and high school has gained a major settlement from the Aberdeen School District, the ACLU of Washington announced today. The ACLU has represented Russell Dickerson III in a lawsuit saying that school district officials were aware of the harassment but failed to take steps reasonably calculated to end it. Under terms of the settlement, Dickerson will receive $100,000 from the district. Additionally, the ACLU will receive $35,000 in legal fees.

“Public school officials must be held accountable when they fail to meet their responsibility to act decisively when a student is subjected to harassment by his peers. This settlement sends a message to school districts statewide to take strong action as soon as they learn that a student is being bullied,” said Sarah Dunne, ACLU-WA legal director.

“I learned from my parents that you should never give up. You should fight for your rights – you don’t just walk away,” said Dickerson.

Russell Dickerson III, now 20, is an African-American resident of Aberdeen. For six years, from 2003 when he entered junior high until 2009 when he graduated high school, other students harassed Dickerson on the basis of his race, sex, and perceived sexual orientation.

At Miller Junior High, Dickerson was called names by other students and found notes in his backpack and taped to his back calling him “stupid nigger” and “dog.” Students tripped him in the hallways and threw food at him in the cafeteria. In one incident, three students pushed him to the floor in the hallway and smashed a raw egg on his head; only one of the students was disciplined.

At Aberdeen High School, the harassment escalated, with Dickerson subjected to a continuing barrage of viciously derogatory insults about his race, physical appearance, and suspected sexual orientation. Dickerson suffered physical harassment, with other students pinching and fondling his chest, spitting on his head, and throwing objects at him. Although an assistant principal discouraged Dickerson from reporting misconduct by the student’s peers, the student and his parents repeatedly reported incidents of harassment to district administrators, both verbally and in writing. Yet the district failed to take adequate steps to end the harassment.

In 2007 students in the district created a website mocking Dickerson and his perceived sexual orientation, and posted threatening racist comments on it. Students discussed the website at school. Grays Harbor Superior Court issued a no contact order between Dickerson and one of his harassers who had threatened on the website to lynch him, yet Dickerson became the target of retaliatory harassment after reporting the website to school authorities.

The school district’s failure to act created a hostile educational environment for the student. His academic progress was hindered, he was isolated at school, he felt discouraged from using his locker, and he avoided extra-curricular activities that put him in contact with his peers. Further, the student suffered extreme emotional distress, including an inability to concentrate on studies, serious depression, despair, and anxiety.

Filed in December 2010 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, the lawsuit said that the deliberate indifference to ongoing harassment by the school district, which receives federal funds, violated federal law – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The district’s negligent inaction also violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys Michael Scott, Joseph Sakay, and Alexander Wu of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. and ACLU-WA staff attorneys Sarah Dunne and Rose Spidell represented Dickerson.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

AUGUSTA – The Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee today voted to table LD 199, which would require voters to present a photo ID before voting, and are considering action that would turn the bill into a study of Maine’s electoral system.

“Thousands of Mainers, and especially older Mainers, don’t have access to a photo ID,” said John Hennessy of the AARP of Maine. “These folks have been voting in their communities for decades, but could have been turned away from the voting booth for no good reason. The committee deserves tremendous credit for looking beyond politics to put aside voter ID.”

Secretary of State Charlie Summers also presented a report to the Legislature today that identified potential clerical and procedural errors in the state’s Central Voter Registration System.

“The Secretary of State is entrusted to protect the right of Mainers to vote and already has the authority and the obligation to ensure that elections are administered appropriately,” said Shenna Bellows. “If there are administrative problems, then the Secretary of State should fix them now without any further study.”

The Secretary of State also suggested that some undetermined number of votes may have been cast inappropriately during the last few years.

“Maine elections are well-run and secure, and they have helped our state to become a national leader in voter participation,” said Ann Luther of the League of Women Voters of Maine. “If the Secretary of State has identified isolated problems, then he should investigate them now and make sure that anyone who has violated the law is prosecuted. A study is unnecessary because he already has that responsibility and authority.”

 

Legislation Would Cause Backlog of DNA Tests and Violate Privacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

COLUMBUS- The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio will testify today before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee opposing Senate Bill 268. The legislation will expand the government’s ability to take DNA samples from felony arrestees by allowing the state retroactively to seize genetic information from past arrestees and those charged with a felony but not arrested. In 2009, the Ohio General Assembly passed S. B. 77, which allowed the state to obtain DNA samples from those arrested on felony charges.

“DNA is perhaps the most personal information our bodies contain, and the government must not simply take it without considering the privacy of Ohioans,” said ACLU of Ohio Associate Director Gary Daniels. “Those who have been arrested for a crime have not been found guilty in a court of law, nor have they had any opportunity to defend themselves. This system allows innocent people’s genetic information to become property of the state without any due process.”

“Neither this legislation nor current law provides meaningful opportunity for innocent Ohioans to remove their DNA from state databases if they were wrongfully accused of a crime,” added Daniels. “By expanding the power to collect DNA even further, state legislators will open a Pandora’s box where law enforcement may abuse their ability to arrest to perform an end-run around due process protections.”

S. B. 268 would direct the DNA information to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to check against past records and keep on file. News reports have indicated that BCI and local law enforcement often have long backlogs on testing DNA evidence such as rape kits. On December 5, 2011, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine recommended that local law enforcement send rape kits to BCI for testing, and pledged to add staff to accommodate the increase. Recently, the Department of Justice and state officials in Michigan and Illinois have warned legislators against adding additional DNA collection categories in order to avoid creating additional logjams.

“Unnecessarily collecting DNA will clog law enforcement systems, violate Ohioans’ privacy, and increase costs,” concluded Daniels. “State legislators should focus on testing rape kits and other evidence that has sat on shelves rather than adding more DNA to test that may lead to nothing.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be at 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2011 in the North Hearing Room of the Statehouse.