Here are just a few examples from the latest edition of the Progressive Agenda for States & Localities, including hyperlinks to model bills:
More than 8,000 state and local police forces have received more than $5 billion in military equipment from the federal government. It’s dangerous, it’s expensive to store and maintain, and it’s useless in nearly all circumstances.
Corporations, using arcane tax avoidance schemes, are contributing far less in state revenues than ever before. Transparency is the first step to fix the broken tax system.
Innocent people are often jailed and the guilty go free because of false confessions made during custodial interrogations. Electronic recording of these interrogations very effectively addresses this problem by protecting innocent people and preventing law enforcement abuse.
Several states have enacted a pregnant workers’ fairness act to allow pregnant women to continue working with limited accommodations. Accommodations may mean use of a different chair, more frequent breaks, assistance with manual labor, or less hazardous work.
Many wealthy individuals and corporations evade taxes. One study indicated that people who make between $500,000 and $1 million per year underreport their incomes by more than 20 percent. More tax enforcers will pay for themselves.
Too many states still don’t protect LGBT residents from employment and housing discrimination, but there is a growing movement in support of LGBT fairness.
Immigrants often choose not to report crimes because they fear harassment or deportation and this can put the public at risk. To alleviate this fear, law enforcement and other government agents must be prohibited from inquiring into the immigration status of victims and witnesses of crimes in order to encourage cooperation and increase public safety.
Payday lending employs unfairly high interest rates, all but ensuring borrowers’ inability to repay loans, and trapping low-income Americans in a cycle of debt.
The Minimum Standards for Subsidized Jobs Act requires companies that receive economic development subsidies to pay their employees a minimum wage that is at least one dollar higher than the federal/state minimum wage. These companies are also required to provide their employees with health insurance benefits.
Bees are dying off at an alarming rate. The state of Maryland enacted this law to limit the use of bee-killing pesticides.
The Racial Profiling Prevention Act prevents citizens and residents from being subjected to discriminatory policing practices. The act prohibits law enforcement officers from the stopping, detainment, and searching of any person based on their actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age or gender. It also requires data collection and transmission of the number of people stopped, as well as their characteristics, the nature of the stop, as well as the outcome.
Too many Americans are prevented from exercising their right to vote because of voter intimidation or suppression, or by mistakes by election officials. Legislation can prevent these problems through three avenues.
States can and should analyze the true costs of privatization and identify where outsourcing does not really serve the public interest.
This bill would ensure that public funds are used efficiently, by leveling scrutiny at companies that receive expenditure subsidies. It provides for tax commissioners to review and appraise tax expenditures, as well as report on them. It also provides for the creation of a tax expenditure sunset review commission.
With the rise of standardized testing, pre-packaged lessons, and charter schools, there has been a noticeable decline in public awareness of how education funds are spent.
Third-party debt collectors are flooding courts with lawsuits attempting to trick consumers into paying charged-off debt, resulting in unfair and often erroneous default judgments.
For the moment, most state legislatures are controlled by conservatives and there’s not a lot that progressives can enact in those states.
But most large cities, towns and counties are controlled by moderates or progressives. The question is, what can we do there? Lots. Here are just a few examples from the latest edition of the Progressive Agenda for States & Localities, including hyperlinks to model bills:
Ban the Box
Dozens of cities have removed the check boxes from employment applications that ask whether the applicant has a criminal record. This helps to reduce recidivism by providing qualified applicants with employment opportunities.
Climate change impact plan
Some of the effects of climate change can be predicted and some of its damage can be mitigated with planning. Localities should create commissions to study the local effects of climate change (e.g. flooding) and what policy changes could address them.
Earned sick leave
Forty percent of private sector workers and seventy percent of low wage workers lack access to paid sick time which is bad for workers, their employers, and public health.
Job piracy cease-fire
Many cities offer tax breaks and subsidies under the guise of “business recruitment” in order to lure companies from neighboring jurisdictions. This often degenerates into tit-for-tat job piracy. This model is based on a law from Missouri.
Electronic recording of interrogations
Innocent people are often jailed and guilty ones go free because of false confessions. Electronic recording of interrogations very effectively addresses this problem, protecting the innocent while helping convict the guilty.
Most cities and counties don’t protect LGBT residents from employment and housing discrimination and no federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination against LGBT individuals. All localities should prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
Limit inquiries into immigration status
All of us are less safe when immigrants are afraid to report crimes because they fear harassment or deportation.
Language access for public services
Many Americans need language assistance in order to ensure access to city services and programs while navigating local bureaucracies.
People who work for the government or for government contractors must be paid a living wage. Otherwise they are forced to rely on taxpayer-funded programs to support their families, which makes no sense as public policy.
Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs)
Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (such as IUDs) are proven to dramatically cut both teen pregnancy and teen abortions. Every locality should adopt policies to increase access to LARCs.
Minimum standards for public money
Companies that are subsidized by a locality should be required to provide good wages and reasonable benefits. It makes no sense to subsidize poverty-level jobs.
Plastic bag fee or ban
Localities can cut litter by discouraging the use of single-use plastic bags that end up getting thrown away.
Pre-Kindergarten for all
Children in poverty often begin kindergarten already one or two years behind. Universal high-quality pre-K is the most cost-effective initiative to improve educational—and life—outcomes.
Millions of Americans are the victims of racial and ethnic profiling, which fuels hostility and distrust of police, undermining public safety for all.
Prevent fraud by "crisis pregnancy centers"
Crisis Pregnancy Centers are anti-abortion offices that try to lure in pregnant women by impersonating legitimate medical clinics. Localities can prohibit their fraudulent advertising, as San Francisco and Oakland have done.
Cities and counties can and should analyze the true costs of privatization and identify when outsourcing does not really serve the public interest.
A “clawback” is a subsidy contract clause that provides a money-back guarantee if developers fail to fulfill the promises they made to get a subsidy.
Support nonprofits that deliver social services
Localities should create an office that assists nonprofit service organizations in their interactions with government.
Tax expenditure sunset
Tax expenditures subsidize private companies but never receive the same scrutiny as budget items. Tax expenditure sunsets help ensure that public funds are used efficiently.
Americans need strong protections and effective services from cities, counties and towns and there is a great deal those jurisdictions can do. PLI is ready to help you promote these ideas!
Last Friday (August 12), Donald Trump told a nearly all-white crowd in Altoona, Pennsylvania that he was concerned about voter fraud in their state. In dog-whistle language he said he’d “heard some stories about certain parts of the state, and we have to be very careful.”
Trump went on, warning that Pennsylvania doesn’t have a voter ID requirement (it was struck down by the courts) so “Maybe you should go down and volunteer or do something.” About Election Day, he said: “We have a lot of law enforcement people working that day…. We’re hiring a lot of people. We’re putting a lot of law enforcement. We’re going to watch Pennsylvania, go down to certain areas and watch and study, and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.”
Trump’s campaign followed this by asking supporters to sign up to be a “Trump Election Observer.” His website asks them to “Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election!”
The purpose of this blog is not to rag on Trump, it’s to point out that voter harassment and intimidation is nothing new. Over the last few election cycles, campaigns have tried to suppress the vote of millions of Americans. Just a few examples:
- Two years ago, Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) campaign sent official-looking mailers to low-income voters saying “Election Violation Notice” and warning that “You are at risk of acting on fraudulent information.”
- College students in New Hampshire, North Carolina and Kentucky were falsely told that they were not allowed to vote.
- Sheriff’s Deputies in Siskiyou County, California went door-to-door to houses of Asian Americans of Hmong descent, armed with rifles, telling residents the punishment of voter fraud.
- Alabama tried to suppress minority voting by closing down 31 DMV offices in rural, majority-black counties across the state.
- In Philadelphia, flyers in low-income neighborhoods warned that people with outstanding warrants or unpaid parking tickets could be arrested at the polls.
- In Fayetteville, North Carolina, black residents who walked from an Obama rally to a nearby early voting center were heckled and harassed by white protesters.
- For more, see this brand new op-ed in the New York Times.
Today, more than 50 years after the historic Voting Rights Act was enacted, voter suppression is still fairly common. This is in part because the Act is limited in scope and in part because most violators are never punished. Federal law also does nothing to prevent mistakes by election officials.
In the short run, progressives and government officials must vigorously defend voters’ rights. But in the longer run, states should adopt legislation that goes beyond federal law—a statewide Voter Protection Act.
Our model Voter Protection Act combines the best practices of laws in California, Connecticut and Illinois. It employs three avenues to ensure that every eligible voter is allowed to vote:
- Penalties for intimidation and suppression—Heavy penalties would be imposed for both voter intimidation and suppression. Most states currently prohibit voter intimidation but not fraudulent suppression. Many state voter intimidation laws also have inadequate penalties.
- Voter’s Bill of Rights—Every polling place would be required to post a Voter’s Bill of Rights. Seven states (CA, CT, FL, IN, MN, NV, NJ) currently have a Voter’s Bill of Rights.
- Election Day Manual of Procedures—A book that clearly sets out election rules would be available to both voters and officials at the polls. New Jersey and Washington have laws requiring an election manual.
In the United States, the right to vote should be sacrosanct, because without that right we don’t have a democracy. Our election system must be completely free, fair and accessible.
by Alexandra Didenko, PLI Policy Intern
Nowadays we get used to hearing that women can do or be anything. In fact, that’s true only in theory. Certainly, the role of women has increased in all aspects of life, including politics. And this is not surprising: women are at least as capable as men to be stable, tolerant, and perseverant, especially in critical situations. Yet, according to a World Value Survey, almost 20 percent of Americans agree that “on the whole, men make better political leaders than women do.”
That’s one reason why only 20 percent of the Members of Congress, 25 percent of statewide elected officials, 25 percent of state legislators, and less than 19 percent of mayors are female. But there are many other factors as well.
There is a history of social expectations that women remain passive in society; for a long time, they were expected to remain strictly in the roles of homemakers and mothers. This gender stereotype is still present in many cultures to this day, including certain areas in the U.S. And some continue to believe in gender stereotypes, for example, that being a good political leader is like being a good driver, and women are not good in both. And it gets even worse because women are sometimes valued more for their beauty instead of their experience and intelligence. For example, in 2009, Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, wanted to, “line up some ‘fresh faces’ for the 2009 European parliamentary elections” by running models and actresses as legislative candidates for his party.
Research conducted by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation found that when evaluating a female politician, the American voter tends to analyze two components: the personal appeal of a woman (if she is attractive or not) and her achievements in the professional arena. Even if a woman has achieved outstanding professional success, but the voter does not find her attractive, he will most likely not give her his vote. When it comes to a male candidate, a voter would assess him as a man and a political leader simultaneously. Moreover, even if a male candidate’s track record is far from perfect, the voter will likely support him if he likes him personally. Furthermore, if a female politician belongs to the Republican Party, she is treated as a Republican first and then as a woman. In case of Democrats, the perception is the opposite: gender comes first. Independents, though, tend to prefer women candidates.
Still another factor is that women are often underestimated because of their perceived lack of experience in policy whereas men are considered to be more skillful, as in military or economics. On top of all of this, female politicians are often considered to be too soft and flexible based on their ‘natural’ qualities. This perception incorrectly leads many to believe that a female leader would be too weak defending their position and making difficult choices. Thus, the perceived lack of ruthlessness can be one of the obstacles that prevents women from being seen as full-fledged professionals in the political sphere.
Following this logic, men would have enough toughness for drastic measures. But the majority of countries are ruled by males, and if we consider all the wars and conflicts (Syria, Ukraine, etc.), wouldn’t it be better to have someone who will not immediately act drastically but have the capability to use diplomacy and find a compromise? A study conducted by Huddy and Terkildsen (1993) showed that female candidates can, in fact, win national office but they need to possess masculine traits and manage to convince voters about this by demonstrating competence in “male” policy issues. In order to succeed, the study says, it is vital for women to demonstrate two “male” qualities – strength and toughness.
There has been real progress in establishing gender equality, but much more needs to be done. Authentic democracy requires the full participation of all constituent groups, especially the largest group of underrepresented citizens – women.
by Gloria Totten and Aimee Arrambide, Op-Ed in the Austin American-Statesman
After last month’s milestone decision by the Supreme Court to strike down anti-abortion laws in Texas, there was a communal sigh of relief across the country from abortion rights supporters — a majority of Americans today. But those celebrations were soon muted when the conversation shifted to what’s next for the anti-abortion movement, with many sensing it was only a matter of time before a different game plan emerged.
It didn’t take long — just a few days — and once again, it’s happening in Texas.
Last week, Texas health officials proposed new rules that would require abortion providers to either cremate or bury fetal remains. These new rules were published in the Texas Register on July 1 with no announcement and are unlikely to require lawmaker approval. This means that absent a legislative process, these superfluous, invasive rules are being ushered into law by Gov. Greg Abbott himself. While other states have introduced bills like this since the now-widely discredited Committee for Medical Progress videos surfaced last summer, Texas is using the rule-making process to push this through under the radar. In light of the House Bill 2 decision, we can only expect Texas and other states to do this more often.Read more
by Aimee Z. Arrambide, JD
Program Manager & Reproductive Rights Policy Specialist
My father was an obstetrician-gynecologist in Texas. Shortly after Roe v. Wade, until he passed away ten years ago, my father performed abortions in San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and Laredo.
He wore a Kevlar vest to work every day, we had an FBI Agent assigned to us, and my family had to live in gated communities because he was threatened almost daily. People tried to trick me into giving out his home address. I was told that my father was a baby killer.
I now work as an Austin-based policy specialist on abortion rights and a board member for Fund Texas Choice. My office is in one of the abortion clinics that was closed by HB 2 and my dad’s Kevlar vest sits across from me as a reminder of his heroism.
So the Supreme Court’s recent abortion rights ruling—Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt—was personal to me.Read more
Political activists have a notion that there is something beyond logic and self-interest that drives the choices of average voters.
We know that low-income Whites often vote against their own economic interests. We know that very religious Americans often support unreligious and even immoral candidates. “What’s the Matter with Kansas” is nothing new. And yet we still cite candidates’ policies to explain the 2016 election.
Yes, people who read articles about politics—you and I—tend to pick our candidates based on the policies they trumpet. That’s reasonable because the point of governance is to adopt and enforce a set of policies. But you and I are not average voters.Read more
America is not really a nation of laws. Our legislative system governs only the most egregious behavior. The way Americans treat each other day-to-day—attitude and etiquette, willingness or wariness, prejudice or tolerance—is driven mostly by our national culture.
Our culture is a set of beliefs, customs and behaviors accepted by the great majority of citizens, in part because they consider it a matter of right and wrong, and in part because they fear condemnation by society at large.
Since the end of the “segregation now…segregation forever” era, the open, unapologetic use of bigotry has been suppressed. But now, a presidential candidate is about to become the nominee of a major party in large part because people encourage his use of hate speech and falsehoods. For example:Read more
Americans who avoid politics are far more likely to pay attention in a presidential election year. This is our chance to persuade.
I suspect you may want to talk about single-payer health insurance, a financial transaction tax, the TPP, and the need to reverse Citizens United. But that’s a conversation that only works within the progressive base.
Our non-political neighbors and friends are not particularly interested in listening to a laundry list of policies. But they are willing to hear us describe our progressive values. To these sometime voters, it’s not a question of where we’d like to take our country, it’s a matter of why.Read more
A just-released Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey found that Donald Trump supporters inhabit an alternate reality. They believe in obvious falsehoods. Why is that and what does it mean for political discourse?
The poll, released on May 10, found that Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by a margin of 47 to 41 percent in a head-to-head matchup. That’s just a snapshot and not a very interesting one.
But PPP went further. It found that only 34 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Donald Trump. Among that group:
- 65 percent believe that President Obama is a Muslim and only 13 percent think he's a Christian, 22 percent are unsure.
- 59 percent believe President Obama was not born in the United States and only 23 percent think that he was, 18 percent are unsure.
- 24 percent believe Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered while 42 percent think he died naturally, another 34 percent are unsure.
Millions of Americans are living in a political fantasyland. But that’s nothing new. In 2012, fully 63 percent of Republicans still believed that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” when the United States invaded in 2003. In a 2013 PPP poll, 58 percent of Republicans believed “global warming is a hoax,” 33 percent of Republicans were still convinced that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attack, and 20 percent of Republicans said they “believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.”Read more