President Obama hosts G8 leaders at Camp David (White House/Pete Souza)

• Greece will go to the polls again June 17 to elect a government that will either continue austerity or default and start fresh. Expect bankers to push the meme in the global media that if Greece does not destroy its own people, Western Civilization will collapse.
  
• President Obama lifted sanctions on Burma or Myanmar, whichever you prefer. Quite frankly, the entire Myanmar policy amounts to a major diplomatic coup for the president and Secretary Clinton.
  
• More signs that President Obama's sactions regime against Iran is taking its toll:
  

  Inflation is now officially running at about 20 per cent, although economists say prices of the goods most Iranians worry about are rising at a much faster rate.

  "This budget will deflate the economy. To have what is almost zero growth with a growing population like Iran's, in real terms the country is going to contract severely. It is a truly bad situation," added Emadi.

• North Korea appears to be up to its old habits:
  

  Ten thousand rolls of tobacco, 12 bottles of sake and a handful of second-hand Mercedes-Benz cars are among the latest reported breaches of a UN ban on luxury goods sales to North Korea, according to a confidential draft UN report.

  Guess who that stuff is for.
  
• Syria remains unstable. President Obama calls for political change, but stops short of military involvement.
• It is a good time to go to London if you can manage it. Soon, the Oylmpic Games will begin.

Coward. (Darren Hauck/Reuters)

It is well understood that Democrats do not like Mitt Romney's policies. In fact, our leading politicians will go out of their way, as we Democrats are wont to do, to praise Mitt Romney's character. We practice the rather high minded view that our disagreement with him and his party is not personal, but purely a matter of phiolosophical and political differences. We think it is impolite to call Mitt Romney "weird." That it is unseemly to ask questions about his church or the things taught from its pulpits. We cannot attack the character of his family or his associates. We think ourselves better than this sort of thing, content in being able to look at ourselves in the morning for not having gone done the road Republicans often do not hesitate to travel. Speaking for myself, however, my perception of Mitt Romney has almost nothing to do with his policies, most of which are standard nutcase Republican fare. There are plenty of other Republicans who parrot the same talking points as Mitt Romney, but they don't get up to the top of my thermometer. I even find Limbaugh a mere bufoon. But there is so much about Mitt Romney that makes me detest him more than any public figure I've known in my life. In my mind he's the worst kind of person that should be involved in politics. It basically comes down to this: Mitt Romney has spent his entire life preying on the weak and defenseless, always from a position of complete safety for himself. In other words, he's a coward.

His propensity for lying is well known. His lack of any central convictions about anything other than his own ambitions well documented. As he's run for the highest office in the land, we are now getting enough stories about his life that allow us to examine it as a whole. Consider his willingness in his youth to engage in violent hazing with a gang of similary privliged ruffians against a defenseless outsider. Consider his callous mistreatment of his own household pets. Think back about the episode when Romney talked about how illegal immigrants ended up maintaining his lawn and his open hostility toward them today. Consider how harshly he has treated his own employees when money was at stake. Look at how he has treated his fellow competitors for the Republican nomination. In every case, Romney has always attacked the weak with particular viciousness. In every case, Romney has kept his distance, doing it all from the comfort of an office tower or lordly estate. Do you think Mitt Romney would personally deliver a pink slip to a steelworker? Would he personally walk up to a gardner and fire him to his face? Would he attack a gay person without a pack of toughs behind him? He offers $10,000 bets to people who don't have $10,000 to bet. He braggs about the joy he takes in firing people. Worse thing about it is, he does it in a way that makes it appear that he truly believes that he's doing you a favor. "Pranks and hijinks," he says. "Politics aren't bean bags," he says. An overbearing gorilla calls a woman a slut over the airwaves and his response is "not the sort of words I'd have chosen." The man is a coward. He won't confront the strong and forces himself on the weak. His entire life, that's all he's done. You can't find one instance where Mitt Romney actually stood up and fought for someone other than himself. Find a case where Mitt Romney put himself at risk on someone else's behalf. Look and see if you can find a single case where Mitt Romney sacrificed something for someone else's benefit. You can't because he doesn't.

No, Mitt Romney is not a patriot. No, Mitt Romney is not a great guy. No, Mitt Romney isn't a wonderful guy in private. Mitt Romney is an self-indulgent, egomaniacal, sociopathic coward.

There are plenty of reasons to vote against Mitt Romney even if he agreed with us on policy. He isn't the kind of person who should be in public life, except perhaps as a "heel" character on pro wrestling. People like him should peak in high school and then go learn their life lessons through hard knocks in obscurity. Had it not been for Romney's wealth and pedigree, that is exactly what would have happened. Perhaps it is rather low brow to want a public leader who actually has a heart and a moral compass that aims true. Who laughs without ulterior motive. Who doesn't think legal entities are the same thing as human beings. But if there are voters who vote against Mitt Romney because they just can't stand him, that's fine with me. I'm right there with them.

The jury box in the Pershing County, Nevada courthouse.
(Ken Lund/Wikimedia)

Growing up, I seem to remember being taught or hearing the phrase about a right to a trial by a "jury of your peers." I didn't know then that nowhere in the constitution are "peers" mentioned, only the word "impartial." I got taught black history at home, not in school, and my parents discussed the news of the day at the dining table, so I was aware that in many parts of the U.S. we couldn't vote, and the phrase "all-white jury" was often attached to stark injustices taking place. I will never forget the 67 minutes it took for an all-white, all-male jury to acquit the murderers of Emmett Till.

I was eight years old in September of 1955. Over half a century later, blacks, other people of color, and women are still being kept off of juries by the use of several methods, including peremptory challenges and various limitations to the jury pool.

So though the Constitution's Sixth Amendment speaks to impartiality, the question then becomes "can an all-white, all-male jury in the U.S. be impartial?" We have to examine what role discrimination plays in both jury selection, and trial outcomes.

These issues have been well documented by the Equal Justice Initiative, who issued a report on Race and Jury Selection in 2010, which was widely distributed at the time, in media like the NY Times.

And now Duke University has issued a study demonstrating that all-white jury pools in Florida convict black defendants at a 16 percent higher rate.  

Duke University Jury Study

Juries formed from all-white jury pools in Florida convicted black defendants 16 percent more often than white defendants, a gap that was nearly eliminated when at least one member of the jury pool was black, according to a Duke University-led study. The researchers examined more than 700 non-capital felony criminal cases in Sarasota and Lake counties from 2000-2010 and looked at the effects of the age, race and gender of jury pools on conviction rates.  

The jury pool typically consisted of 27 members selected from eligible residents in the two counties. From this group, attorneys chose six seated jurors plus alternates. "I think this is the first strong and convincing evidence that the racial composition of the jury pool actually has a major effect on trial outcomes," said senior author Patrick Bayer, chairman of Duke's Economics Department.

"Our Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury of our peers is a bedrock of the criminal justice system in the U.S., and yet, despite the importance of that right, there's been very little systematic analysis of how the composition of juries actually affects trial outcomes, how the rules that we have in place for selecting juries impact those outcomes," Bayer said.

Error 404: Candidate not found.

The reason Americans Elect was unable to generate much popular support is simple: Not many moderates believe both that President Obama is too liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservative. Further, not many moderates feel there is no place for moderates in either the Republican or Democratic parties.

Given the narrative weight behind the idea that polarization in American politics is alienating a vast swath of the center, these claims may seem counterintuitive. However, a look at the raw data from two recent Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation polls provides strong supporting evidence.

First, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from April 26-29, only 35 out of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed indicated both that President Obama is too liberal and Mitt Romney is too conservative (see questions 5 and 6, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). Only 18 of those 35 respondents self-identified as moderate, or about two percent of all registered voters surveyed.

Second, in the Daily Kos/SEIU poll conducted from May 10-13, only 92 of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed thought there is no place for moderates in either the Democratic or Republican parties these days (see questions 12 and 13, a .zip file with the raw data can be found at the bottom of the page linked). What's more, only 14 of those 92 self-identified as moderates.

In looking to find a viable, centrist, third-party presidential candidate for moderates who feel left out by both the Democratic and Republican parties, Americans Elect was drawing on roughly two percent of all registered voters for its base of support. As such, it is unsurprising Americans Elect was unable to generate sufficient participation to produce a nominee. While the idea that the two major parties have both abandoned the center may be popular in the opinion sections of several prominent news organizations, that idea does not have much traction with the American people.

(Click for larger image)

Follow @DailyKosComics on Twitter

Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital is one of the few quantifiable ways voters can see how he intends to approach employment issues and corporations, and the Obama campaign has done a terrific job of pointing out the "vulture capitalist" Romney so desperately tries to hide. In fact, they launched a new website this week highlighting the swath of devastation Romney left behind. It gives details about the different companies they stripped of all assets in order to maximize profit to investors.

Also this week, Joe Biden gave a speech where he was on fire -- as on fire as I've ever heard him -- about the differences between the middle class and the 1 percent and why Romney's Bain Capital profit model was guaranteed to benefit only the rich while further destroying the middle class and leaving them farther behind. It was a speech for the ages. It also had Republicans on the run, scurrying to counter the message in the Wall Street Journal and wherever else they could spread the word.

So this morning on Meet the Press Mayor Cory Booker just managed to undo all of that work with a few measured sentences. Start at about 5:31 of the video clip embedded above and watch until you hear Booker tell the panel that he's "uncomfortable" with the attacks on private equity. Via TPM:

Appearing on NBC?s ?Meet The Press? on Sunday, Newark Mayor and Obama bundler Cory Booker said he was ?uncomfortable? with the Obama campaign?s attacks on Mitt Romney?s career with Bain Capital.

?It?s a distraction from the real issues,? Booker said, of both attacks on Bain and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. ?It?s either gonna be a small campaign about this crap, or it?s gonna be a big campaign about the issues the American public cares about.?

?I?m not about to sit here and indict private equity,? Booker added. ?If you look at the totality of Bain Capital?s record, they?ve done a lot to support businesses ? to grow businesses. And this to me, I?m very uncomfortable.?

Well, Mayor Booker. Thank you so much for that false equivalence. The Bain Capital issues strike right at the heart of what this campaign is about. Are we a country of financialists or a country of opportunity and growth for the middle class? Is the goal to maximize profit at the expense of workers or is the goal to simply strip the value from companies in order to reward the private equity investors.

To be clear, there is absolutely no equivalence between the bogus Reverend Wright revival and Romney's actions while at Bain Capital.

Digby:

If Romney can't be criticized for his vulture capitalism and we can't "indict" private equity then what does he think this campaign should be about? The deficit? Some abstract notions of "jobs" and "the economy" without any reference to the fact that it was the financial sector and "private equity" that caused this situation in the first place? Sounds perfect. For Wall Street.

Sadly, this is exactly the kind of concern trolling that will make the Village declare that the Democrats are hitting below the belt by criticizing Bain Capital and the Dems will fall in line. Indeed, the fact that it's Cory Booker who's saying it today indicates that it's the Democrats themselves saying "stop us before we hurt the Masters of the Universe's feelings again."

Yes, this. Exactly this. Already the RNC has popped out with their version of "even Democrats agree with us" on this issue, thanks to the careless remarks of Mayor Booker, and even though he attempted a halfhearted walkback via Twitter, he did a terrific job of stepping on the success of last week's campaign messaging.

Please, politicians. Stop being so darn polite on these shows. Stop assuming that people like David Gregory will actually try to insert facts into factless discussions. Bain Capital and Romney's conduct while there is absolutely relevant to this election and no one should think otherwise.

Click here to view this media

I was fairly sure that wingnut Rep. Steve King would say something completely ridiculous or untrue as soon as I saw his name on the list of guests on C-SPAN's Washington Journal earlier this week. The crew over at Think Progress proved me right when they flagged this portion of King's interview that morning:

Steve King Claims Obamacare Will Grow The Number Of Uninsured, Calls For ?Personal Responsibility?:

During an appearance on CSPAN?s Washington Journal Thursday morning, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) claimed that the Affordable Care Act would increase the number of Americans without health insurance, dismissing analysis showing that 30 million people would gain coverage under the law.

?Everybody in America has access to health care, and we even have many many organizations that make sure they fill those holes,? King explained. ?The effort was to increase the number of insured in America and that number does not look like it will increase under Obamacare?:

KING: We?re actually going to get more people uninsured under Obamacare and this creates the foundation for a one-size-fits-all federally-run socialized medicine system. We?re not completely there and I think we are a lot better off to let the free markets do this and encourage people to be personally responsible.

King?s analysis of health policy couldn?t be more wrong. While organizations and hospitals do provide emergency services to uninsured Americans, the cost of that uncompensated care is shifted to private premium payers, resulting in higher health care spending system-wide. Obamacare accepts King?s premise of encouraging personal responsibility and will require able-bodied citizens to pay for their own health care expenses beginning in 2014.

As they noted, King also expressed his opposition to requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parent's health insurance plans, which may end up being at odds with his own leadership, once they finally release their alternative plan to the public.

Click here to view this media

I'm not sure how the Republican party came to be known as the party of "compassionate conservatism," unless it was simply because they used to at least pretend to care about the problems of the middle and low-income class people. In this 2007 video of Republican Mitt Romney's exchange with a wheelchair bound man suffering from a rare and deadly form of muscular dystrophy, Romney's compassionate conservatism takes an icy cold form, as he turns his back on the ill young man, Clayton Holton, and walks away without answering his question.

This exchange, and others like it, will no doubt keep cropping up to haunt Romney throughout his campaign. His complete inability to relate to, or show anything resembling empathy towards mainstream Americans is stunningly on display here. If his position on medical marijuana was due to something he believes is a greater good, as a contender for president of the United States, he should certainly be able to articulate that.However this is likely due to the fact that Romney has no real solutions for real people's problems.

Transcript:

Sick Man: "I suffer from an extremely rare type of muscular dystrophy and I have to take medication or I'll die. Right now I weigh less than 80 pounds, I have all my life. Um, I have support of 5 of my doctors that I am living proof that Medical Marijuana works. I am completely against legalizing it for everyone but there is medical . . ."

Romney: "And you have synthetic marijuana that's available and other . . . "

Sick Man: "It makes me sick. I've tried it and it makes me throw up. I have tried all the medications they are and all the forms they come in after my stimulators, the steroids. I have muscular dystrophy, that's completely against my DNA."

Romney: "I'm sorry to hear that."

Sick Man: "My question to you is, will you arrest me and my doctors if I get medical marijuana?"

Romney: "I'm not in favor of medical marijuana."

(Romney looks away, moves on to next person mid-conversation)

Sick Man: "So, will you have me arrested? . . . "

Romney: "Hi, how are you?" (moving on to next person in line)

Sick Man: "Excuse me, will you please answer my question?"

3rd Person: "You're not going to answer his question, Governor?"

Romney: "I think I have."

3rd Person: "No, he asked you if you were going to arrest him. He asked if you were going to arrest patients like him, Governor? You're just going to ignore a person in a wheelchair?"

Romney: "I spoke with him."

3rd Person: "Yeah, but you didn't answer his question!"

Granted, the Obama administration's stance on medical marijuana isn't any more appealing to medical marijuana advocates than Romney's, and came under fire from Democrat Nancy Pelosi earlier this month for the continued raids on marijuana dispensaries. The difference is that I doubt Obama would turn his back and walk away from someone with a legitimate concern about any issue, let alone a sick man in a wheel chair.

At least Romney didn't throw this man down on the ground and cut his hair off.

Clayton Holton, while still wheel-chair bound, and suffering the effects of the muscular dystrophy as it ravages his body, he is able to maintain some semblance of normalcy in his quality of life. He continues to credit marijuana for keeping him alive, and remains a staunch advocate of medical marijuana.

[Video Credit: Heather, H/T Ministry of Truth]

This is not really a new post. But it is not exactly a re-publishing of an old post either. It is a lightly edited mashup or compilation of excerpts from several old posts – I hope it all makes sense this way, all in one place. The sources of material are these old posts:

Sleep Schedules in Adolescents (March 26, 2006) [More]

The honeycomb lattice is one of nature’s favorite patterns. In the two-dimensional crystal of carbon atoms known as graph­ene, for instance, the honeycomb structure arises from bonds among the atoms. Kenjiro K. Gomes of Stanford University and his colleagues have learned to make a honeycomb material in a striking new way. They place carbon monoxide molecules at regular intervals on the surface of a copper crystal, creating an imitation graphene layer. (The added molecules appear as black dots.)

This week, the U.S. government slapped tariffs (pdf) of more than 31 percent on the price of solar cells made by Chinese companies that cooperated with a recent probe. Those companies that stayed mum face even higher tariffs--as much as 250 percent.

Lucky sky-watchers in the western U.S. are in for a treat Sunday: an annular eclipse. [More]

Earthquakes often precede explosive volcanic eruptions such as the devastating outburst from Mount St. Helens in 1980. But attempts to use tremors to predict the timing and force of such explosions have proved unsuccessful for decades. Now multidisciplinary teams of researchers have developed models that could help warn of disastrous eruptions hours to days before they happen.

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

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court today upheld a major provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case involving Shelby County, Alabama, affirming the need for legislation that helps protect minorities’ right to vote.

“This important ruling recognizes the need to uphold the Voting Rights Act in order to ensure every eligible American citizen can vote, regardless of race or language ability,” said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Our cherished right to vote is under a continuous attack in Alabama and across the country, and millions of voters could be blocked from voting in upcoming elections. It is crystal clear that we must have these protections in place so that does not happen.”

The ACLU had intervened in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, on behalf of the Alabama State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and four Shelby County voters.

Today’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirms that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – which protects racial and language minorities’ access to voting – should remain in place. Section 5 requires certain jurisdictions like Shelby County that have a history of discriminatory voting practices to get advance approval from the federal government before changing their election laws. Shelby County attempted to circumvent this requirement by implementing election plans that dilute the minority vote.

To read the court’s opinion, go to: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/shelby-county-alabama-v-holder-opinion-us-cou...

To read more about the case, including the original motion to intervene, go to: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-moves-intervene-alabama-voting-rights-ac...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – An amendment that would have explicitly banned indefinite detention in the United States and repealed a controversial section of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was voted down by the House of Representatives today. The final vote was 182-237.

Today’s amendment, introduced by lead sponsors Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.), was offered on this year’s NDAA. It was supported by a broad coalition of groups, which ranged from the ACLU to the Gun Owners of America to the United Methodist Church.

The vote for the Smith-Amash amendment was bipartisan, with 19 Republican members backing the amendment.

“Congress today rejected a chance to start to clean up the mess that it made last year with the NDAA indefinite detention provisions,” said Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel. “No president should ever have the power to order the military to imprison civilians located far from any battlefield. By rejecting this amendment, the House of Representatives failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.”

The coalition letter in support of the Smith-Amash amendment is here: www.aclu.org/national-security/coalition-memo-house-urging-yes-vote-smithamash-amendment-fy2012-national-defense
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice (DOJ) today released federal regulations implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), representing the first time that the federal government has issued national standards to help end sexual abuse in prisons, jails and youth detention centers.

The ACLU supports the DOJ’s efforts to prevent sexual abuse. While these regulations represent strong national standards to protect child and adult prisoners, including LGBT inmates, they have left unclear whether there will be adequate protection for immigration detainees.

Protections for Child and Adult Prisoners

The following statement can be attributed to Amy Fettig, senior staff counsel, ACLU National Prison Project:

“Sexual abuse should never be a penalty for any crime – and today’s regulations are the first step to ending the shameful history of prison rape in our country.

To uphold Congress’s intent in passing PREA, regulations are not enough on their own. DOJ must ensure the regulations are enforced through regular and independent oversight. The administration must develop a proper national monitoring tool and work with state and local correctional systems and the federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure full implementation of the PREA standards.”

Protections for Immigration Detainees

The following statement can be attributed to Joanne Lin, ACLU legislative counsel:

“By tasking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to promulgate its own PREA regulations, the administration has further delayed and left unclear whether hundreds of thousands of immigration detainees – overwhelmingly Latinos – who are annually confined in DHS detention facilities will receive adequate protection.

"DHS has an abysmal track record of preventing and investigating the serious and systemic problems of sexual assault and abuse in its facilities. With the continuing problem of rampant sexual assault in immigration detention facilities across the country, it’s highly questionable whether DHS is able to police itself, particularly because its own internal standards that will serve as a blueprint for PREA compliance fall far short of PREA’s protections for detainee safety.

"DHS has asserted that it will promulgate regulations consistent with PREA in eight months that will go above and beyond its model internal standards. The ACLU will continue to press DHS to ensure it fulfills its obligation to extend PREA protections to all immigration detainees."

Protections for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Gender Non-Conforming Inmates

The following statement can be attributed to Leslie Cooper, senior staff attorney, ACLU LGBT Project:

“The rule includes significant protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming inmates, who the DOJ recognizes are at greater risk of sexual abuse in confinement. We are especially pleased that the rule requires that the determination of whether to house transgender and intersex inmates in male or female facilities must be made on a case-by-case basis, and bans searches of these inmates for the sole purpose of determining their genital status.”
 

Legislature’s Revision Leaves Worst Aspects of Draconian Law Intact

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

MONTGOMERY, AL – Alabama lawmakers today approved a slightly revised version to its notorious anti-immigration law, which the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama said did nothing to address the many flaws in the measure.

The bill was passed by both houses of the Alabama legislature and will now go to Governor Robert Bentley for signature.

“Alabama took a step backward in approving this ill-conceived measure,” said Olivia Turner, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “Lawmakers were deaf to the concerns of many residents, business owners and police who realize this law is a bad idea. Alabama will continue to pay a severe price for a law that is almost impossible to enforce properly and blatantly unconstitutional.”

Instead of meaningful reforms, Turner said, the bill:

• Maintains the requirement from the original bill, HB56, that schools check the citizenship status of their students.
• Continues to require police to detain and arrest people based only on a reasonable suspicion that they are undocumented immigrants. Turner said that would further tax overcrowded jails and strain the resources of law enforcement agencies already strapped for funds.
• Undermines public safety by failing to provide adequate protection for crime victims after they cooperate with law enforcement, thereby discouraging them from reporting crime for fear of being questioned about their immigration status.
• Continues to ban landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants.
• Creates a “Scarlet Letter” provision that would require the state Department of Homeland Security to publish on its website the names and locations of undocumented immigrants who have appeared in state courts.

“The Alabama Legislature has done virtually nothing to solve the civil rights disaster they created,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Two federal courts have already blocked key provisions of the law from going into effect, because they violate the U.S. Constitution.  If the Alabama legislature wants to avoid a loss, they should repeal the law.”

The federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked two provisions of HB56 on March 8. One voided contracts signed by undocumented immigrants. The other bans undocumented immigrants from obtaining licenses and certain other services from Alabama. The appeals court and a lower court had previously blocked other provisions of the law from going into effect.

The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups appeared before the 11th Circuit on March 1 and argued that HB56 and a similar law in Georgia endanger public safety; invite racial profiling of Latinos, Asians, and others who appear foreign; and interfere with federal law. The court said it would not rule until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in the challenge to Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. That ruling is expected in late June.

Judge Again Rules for Civil Libertarians in Struggle Over TRU-ID

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

Judge Paul Innes of Mercer County Superior Court today upheld a temporary restraining order obtained by the ACLU-NJ to suspend TRU-ID, New Jersey's implementation of the federal Real ID Act. This decision means that New Jersey citizens who do not wish to comply with TRU-ID may opt to obtain their licenses using the existing 6-point ID system instead, at least until a more complete hearing for a preliminary injunction scheduled for August 3. The ACLU-NJ expects the State to appeal today's ruling.

During today’s hearing, Judge Innes recognized the TRU-ID implementation as "a wholesale change in the requirement for issuance of a New Jersey driver’s license."

The ACLU-NJ filed its lawsuit against the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission on May 4 because the MVC failed to issue accompanying regulations as required by law, denying the public a chance to comment on the new licensing standards. The MVC first made its news public in early April.

The ACLU-NJ and many other groups have concerns about the national Real ID and New Jersey-based TRU-ID programs based on privacy, costs and personal safety.

ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs issues the following statement in response to today's ruling:

"Today’s decision reaffirms the fact that New Jersey can't impose a unilateral decision that affects the lives of all residents without first hearing citizens' concerns. Democracy means consent of the governed, not acquiescence to the government."