Mediaboss Marketing

Three young leaders from Asia are in the Cowboy State learning about government and U.S. democracy.

Zahkung Tu Mai, Kelvin Yii Lee Wuen and Ooi Tze Howe are participating in a program in which leaders under 40 visit the United States. Young American political leaders then visit foreign countries as part of the exchange.

The idea behind the 51-year-old American Council of Young Political Leaders program is for people to learn from each other, which will ultimately result in better representation and policy for folks at home, said Bryan Pedersen of Cheyenne, a former state lawmaker who has participated in the exchange and is passionate about its benefits.

Pedersen and Dick Shanor, a Cheyenne city councilman and Wyoming Department of Education chief of staff, have largely organized the leaders schedule in Wyoming, which included visits to public meetings and the Wyoming Supreme Court. They also spent a week in Washington.

Pedersen said hes been to India and Pakistan and later Japan.

The experience taught him how to be empathetic toward people with different backgrounds. When working with others, he said he looks for their different talents, temperaments and convictions.

A better understating of where (people) come from will lead to a more constructive dialogue, he said.

And that leads to better legislation and policy, he said.

Zahkung, of Myanmar, is learning about tourism efforts in Cheyenne.

Myanmar, also called Burma, was ruled by the military for five decades, Zahkung said.

Htin Kyaw recently became president. He is counseled by Aung San Suu Kyi, a renowned human rights activist who was under house arrest by previous regimes for years.

A social scientist, Zahkung said that he was struck by the amount of support and collaboration among the tourism industry, the city of Cheyenne and Wyoming.

The government is very supportive, which you will not see in my county, he said. We have to engage a lot with the government in my county.

Yii, a doctor and attorney in Malaysia, is interested in Shanors work on City Council and at the Wyoming Department of Education.

The main difference between the United States and my country is the decentralization of education here in the United States, he said. The states have autonomy.

Yii said the strength of the U.S. system is that instruction and curriculum can be tailored for different cultures and state priorities.

He sees a weakness in the system in that there arent a lot of national standards to ensure education is fair across the nation, he said.

In Malaysia, he said, schools are equally funded across the country. In the U.S., some states spend more on education than others, he said.

Tze Howe, who goes by TH in the United States, is also from Malaysia. He is an engineer for Schlumberger.

TH is encouraged by the level of civic engagement in the United States. He attended Cheyenne City Council and Laramie County Commission meetings and was amazed at the number of members of the public who attended and commented on local development projects and business licenses.

Theres not that level of engagement in Malaysia, he said.

When he returns home, he would like to educate people on their rights, the separation of powers in government and the Malaysian constitution.

People dont really understand the background, the reasons the system is set up in such a way, he said. Theres not much discussion on how we can make the system better. So Im positioning myself to improve that, to make a difference on what I have learned over here.

Follow political reporter Laura Hancock on Twitter @laurahancock

Read more from the original source:
Asian leaders learn about American-style democracy in Cheyenne ... - Casper Star-Tribune Online

(Photo: AP/Robert Willett/The News & Observer)

People celebrate at Davie Street Presbyterian Church in Raleigh on May 15 after learning that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider reinstating North Carolina's 2013 elections law.

This week, after years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court decision striking down North Carolinas restrictive 2013 voting law. The lower court had ruled that parts of the law illegally target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.

That outcome is a victory not only for North Carolina voters but also for our democracy. For the political process to function, state and federal lawmakers must respect baseline democratic normsthe laws and traditions that guard the integrity of our democracy against extreme political gamesmanship and threats to minority rights.

When state lawmakers cross those lines, as they did in North Carolina, it is up to the courts to protect core democratic values and the rule of law.But in North Carolina, and in other states around the country, lawmakers are again trying to manipulate the rules of the game to their own advantage, this time putting the state judiciary in their crosshairs.

These attacks on the courts magnify the heightened politicization of the federal bench. President Trumps assault on the legitimacy of a so-called judge, his assertion that the courts would be to blame for a terrorist attack,and his call to break up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after it ruled against the administration, all contribute to a political environment where state and federal lawmakers may feel less constrained by the conventions that ensure the courts are an independent check on the political branches.

Since North Carolina Democrats won control of the governors mansion last November, along with a majority on the states highest court, the Republican-controlled legislature has proposed, and passed, a slew of bills focused on entrenching partisan interests in the states courts. Its a worrying trend that risks normalizing political interference with the courts. Already this year, the legislature has twice overridden the governors veto on bills that made it through both chambers, and several other problematic bills have passed the House.

One new law, for example, reduces the size of North Carolinas intermediate appellate court by three seatsa seemingly small change with big political ramifications. Several Republican-appointed judges are expected to hit the states mandatory retirement age in the next few years, and the new law effectively prevents the states Democratic governor from filling those slots. Unlike previous court reform efforts, the bill was passed without input from the court of appeals, its judges, or the courts administrative body.

In a dramatic move just days before the legislature overrode the governors veto, Judge Doug McCullougha Republican who was expected to step down later this month when he reached the mandatory retirement ageresigned in protest so that the governor would be able to appoint a new judge to fill the seat before the bill became law. McCullough said, I did not want my legacy to be the elimination of a seat and the impairment of a court that I have served on.

Unfortunately, similar hijinks are cropping up around the country. A Brennan Center analysis found that lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced 41 bills targeting state courts, often to achieve overtly political goals. These measures range from efforts to manipulate the way judges reach the bench to brazen attempts to unseat sitting judges, to restrictions on courts jurisdiction and power. In Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina, bills have passed; in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Oklahoma, bills have been voted out of a chamber of the legislature.

One particularly troubling new trend is a group of bills that would allow state legislatures toin one way or anotherrefuse to enforce court decisions. This includes a bill that passed the Arizona House of Representative that would give lawmakers the authority to prohibit the use of state resources to implement federal court rulings, and a Washington bill that would empower the legislature to override state court decisions. So far this year, nine such bills have been introduced in seven states.

The potential ramifications of these political power grabs are significant. State courts hear more than 95 percent of all cases nationwide. Judges decisions affect everything from consumer rights to the environment to education fundingand because few state judges enjoy life tenure, and most state constitutions can be changed relatively easily, state benches are more vulnerable to manipulation than their federal counterparts. When the lines between judging and politics start to blur, it risks eroding public trust in our judiciary.

In June 1937, after FDR moved to pack the Supreme Court after it struck down his signature New Deal legislation, his own party rejected the effort as an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. Its hard to imagine a political leader so strongly defying his or her own party today. But thats what American democracy desperately needs: politicians willing to put a stop to the present metastatic greed for partisan power, especially when the integrity of the judiciary is on the line.

See original here:
A Test of American Democracy - The American Prospect - The American Prospect

Voter ID wouldnt make our democracy more secure; it would make it less accessible. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/Reuters

Nestled among a raft of Ukip-esque anti-immigration policies in the Tory manifesto is a plan to force people to show identification when they vote. No passport, no driving licence? No vote. The Tories say this would stop electoral fraud, but statistics suggest theyre interested in making it harder for people to vote.

According to data from the governments own report of the 51.4m votes cast in all elections in 2015, there were a mere 130 allegations of voting fraud in 2015. That amounts to 0.00025% of votes. Now, these figures cant be taken as exact; some of the allegations might be untrue, some go unnoticed. And as the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) pointed out, the report largely relies on anecdotes and self-professed claims to have witnessed (or even just heard about) electoral fraud. But even when taking all of this into account, youd be hard pressed to make the case that voter fraud is in any way a significant problem in the UK.

What this means is the Conservatives have decided that if they win on 8 June, theyll enshrine voter ID in law to deal with a problem thats far from widespread. Whats more, the ERS says that voter ID wouldnt stop vote-buying or coercion, even if it were a major problem. What it will do is make it more difficult for everyone else to vote. In fact, the Electoral Commission estimated that 3.5 million voters (7.5% of the electorate) would have no acceptable piece of photo ID never mind the people who forget their ID or lose it just before an election.

Why, then, have the Tories inked this policy into their manifesto? There are two explanations, neither of which looks particularly good for the Conservatives. One is that they simply dont care about making our democracy more democratic; the other that theyre cynically finding ways to actively undermine the Labour vote.

Its likely that this change would mean that lower-income voters would find it more difficult to vote. As the New Statesmans Stephen Bush observed, theres concrete evidence for this within the UK: Northern Ireland already requires voter ID, and when the process was trialled there, it was found that poorer people were less likely to have the necessary identification, so free voter ID cards were introduced. The Tories have no plans to do the same in the rest of the UK. Voter ID wouldnt make our democracy more secure; it would make it less accessible.

In the US 31 states now enforce voter ID laws, and these have had a disproportionate impact on marginalised groups. The American Civil Liberties Union found even if free voter ID were offered, hidden costs would act as obstacles for people on low incomes. Similarly, a 2014 report by the US Government Accountability Office showed a disproportionate impact on black and younger voters. In the UK we already have a democratic deficit among these groups people who tend to be (but are not exclusively) Labour voters.

People of colour who are on the electoral roll are as likely to vote as their white counterparts. But according to the 2010 Ethnic Minority British Election Study study, 78% of minority ethnic people, and only 59% of Black Africans, were registered to vote in comparison to 90% of white people. For young people, the picture is even worse, youth turnout dropped between 1992 and 2005. Its now about 40%.

This should be set against a broader picture of a concerted effort by the Conservatives to reduce the number of traditional Labour voters on the electoral register. In 2014 they ended the system where the head of a household could register all eligible voters; this meant, for example, students would no longer be automatically registered at their home address.

The Tories have also slashed short money, used to help fund opposition parties, and introduced the Lobbying Act that gagged NGOs, charities and trade unions, but left the Tories corporate supporters largely untouched.

The Tories will say that voter ID is about making democracy more robust. This couldnt be further from the truth. Its hard to see how this is anything but an attempt to further reduce turnout, and to undermine Labour.

Read this article:
No passport, no vote: why this cynical Tory plan will suffocate ... - The Guardian

It's easy to chastise governments for broken promises and voters these days are used to a few of them emerging after every election.

For many voters across Canada, a promise to change our voting system figured prominently during the 2015 federal election, with the prime minister infamously declaring that the first-past-the-post system was dead.

Now, two years into his mandate, electoral reform seems to be abandoned at the roadside.

Is the promise of a more equitable, fairer and more proportional method of electing our government truly dead? Does the chance to change our politics for the better disappear with an announcement in the foyer of the House of Commons?

You might be surprised to learn that in less than a month, our MPs will vote to decide whether to move forward on electoral reform, or leave it in the dust.

Acting on this cornerstone campaign promise, Trudeau established a House of Commons special committee on electoral reform (ERRE) composed of MPs from all five parties tasked with assessing the options for reform.

While the new mandate letter given to Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould in February falsely states otherwise, the report actually found an appetite amongst Canadians for a change to our electoral system.

Last December, the committee released a 333-pagereport, titled Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform,which illustrates clear consensus among experts that our system should be more proportional, consensus among Canadians on the need for more government co-operation across party lines, and consensus among parties on a process for changing the system.

NDP Democratic reform critic Nathan Cullen has been holding town-hall meetings in Liberal ridings across the country in an effort to resurrect electoral reform. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

On May 31, the ERRE all-party committee's report on democratic reform will be brought to a vote in the House of Commons, to determine whether the issue will be carried forward or abandoned as Trudeau has indicated is his preference.

As the prime minister is fond of saying, it is the responsibility of our MPs to "be the voice of our communities in Ottawa." With over 80 per centof the Liberal caucus consisting of newly elected MPs, one would hope that they will take the time to engage their communities ahead of this pivotal vote.

While Trudeau was able to pull a 180 on the promise to change our electoral system, that doesn't mean that we should allow our MPs to do the same. Many Liberal MPs adopted and were elected on this promise as well. And MPs across party lines are feeling the pressure to carry through on this monumental promise in the upcoming vote.

Individual MPs have made their stance on democratic reform clear, from Skeena NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who is holding consultations and town halls across the country on the topic, toWinnipeg Centre Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette, who sent out a newsletter to constituents promoting electoral reform the same week in February as Trudeau's announcement.

Another Liberal MP wrote an article publiclyapologizing to his constituents for the broken promise. It is clear that interest in the topic is not dying as the government moves to advance its agenda.

Defying the voting patterns of cabinet is often seen as an act of defiance, but has been increasingly common under theTrudeaugovernment as MPs have felt the confidence to express their views and those of their communities. We've seen this precedent in other matters, such as the recent vote on legislation aimed at preventing discrimination with genetic testing, when Liberal backbenchers defied cabinet's instructions and passed the bill with no substantive changes.

Many voters chose the Liberals because of their support for electoral reform, recognizing that their vote could better reflect their beliefs down the line. Some even voted strategically to remove Conservative MPs with the hopes that a new government would introduce a new electoral system that would eliminate the need for strategic voting next time around.

All Canadians deserve the opportunity to vote for the policies and visions that appeal to them with the expectation that their choice will be represented on the floor of the House.The vote to reopen the electoral reform debate at the end of May can bring us one step closer to a better form of representative democracy. All of our MPs, particularly Liberals who adopted this promise, need to listen to the wishes of their constituents and remember that acting on electoral reform is part of their mandate.

That's why Leadnow is reaching out to people across the country ahead of this crucial vote on May 31. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change our system for the better. The next two weeks present a critical window of opportunity for all of us to remind our MPs that they were elected to fulfiltheir election promises, even if their leader chooses not to stand by those commitments.

Drop by your MP's office or give them a call, write a letter and tell a friend to do the same. But most of all, remind them that when the 2019 election comes around, you'll remember how they voted in the House of Commonson May 31, 2017.

About the authors

Joseph Wasylycia-Leis is a long-time community organizer passionate about public engagement and social change. He currently works as the campus sustainability co-ordinator at the University of Winnipeg and has been a community organizer with the independent advocacy organization Leadnow since the 2015 federal election. He has previously worked with the Manitoba NDP.

Laura Cameron is a graduate student in the master's of Indigenous governance program at the University of Winnipeg. Heracademic work looks at Indigenous governancein the context of climate change impactand adaptation across the Prairies. Her volunteer work includesbeing an organizerwith Leadnow on a national campaign for electoral reform.

Original post:
Electoral reform: Window of opportunity opens to revive our democracy - CBC.ca

I am 62 years old. I was born right after the McCarthy era. I lived through the Cold War and nuclear scares. I lived through Vietnam protesting, the 1968 Democratic Convention and Watergate.

Right now I believe we are in a crucial period. I believe democracy itself is under attack and that people need to speak out. Some of it is so subtle that most Americans don't even realize that it's happening.

President Donald Trump is one of the big dangers. Whether he likes it or not, the American people get to know what he is doing. And not everyone gets their news from Twitter. But Trump is not the only issue.

A study of students a few years ago showed many college students thought there should be more limits to First Amendment rights. We are letting fears of terrorism give more power to government and law enforcement. The internet allows people to get slanted news from websites that offer only viewpoints they want to read and hear.

Maybe I'm being overly panicky. Maybe American democracy is too strong for my worries to overthrow it. But I think it's time for important people to speak up for democracy, and the news media is still the best way to spread the word. The McCarthy era and J. Edgar Hoover should be a warning that democracy is neither free not automatic. We sometimes need to fight for it.

Laurence Siegel, Manteno

More here:
Our democracy is in trouble. It's time to fight. - Chicago Tribune