Laws Archives - the bird on fire

We Need to Abolish the Electoral College

September 7, 2022 by szachik@pvs.org 1 Comment

We’re concluding our look at causes. Indiana, who feels strongly about many things, expresses passion for the Electoral College–not for keeping it, but for abolishing it.
Blog Advisor Zachik

By Indy Behr, Junior

What is the Electoral College?

In the United States, Presidential elections are not actually decided by the people directly. They are decided by a compromise made between the Founding Fathers in the Constitution called the electoral college. A candidate wins the election by winning at least 270 of the 538 possible electoral votes. Voters decide how a group of electors vote, and these electoral votes are then certified every four years on a day you may recall, January 6, and the events that transpired on this day in 2021 have led to the Electoral Count Reform Act being introduced in Congress, which would make several changes to the electoral college certification process such as establishing the Vice President’s role in certifying the vote as ceremonial and raising the objection threshold to 20% of both the House and Senate, as opposed to the current system where only one member of each body is required to object.

The electoral college is an antidemocratic institution that allows a minority of voters to determine the future of our country, and it no longer has any use. I believe that America cannot truly be referred to as a democracy until the electoral college is abolished, and until then, serious reform is required.

*Supporters of former President Donald Trump* *storm the US Capitol* *as a Joint Session of Congress is counting the electoral votes of the 2020 Presidential election.*

Disproportionate Representation

If anyone should be upset about the electoral college, it should be us Californians. Wyoming, the least populated state in the US, has 581,000 citizens, according to the US Census Bureau. Due to its size, Wyoming has only one Representative in the House of Representatives and, like all states, two Senators. The amount of electoral votes a state receives is simply the amount of people in their Congressional delegation. This means that in Wyoming, one electoral vote represents 135,000 citizens. California has a population of 39,538,000, and has 55 electoral votes (this will change to 54 in the 2024 Presidential election). Therefore, one electoral vote represents 712,000 people. However, one electoral vote represents just 195,000 people in Wyoming. Yes, you heard that right, a voter in Wyoming has more than three times the voting power as someone in California. Some Republicans argue that Democratic voters concentrated in big cities choosing who wins in the end is unfair, but guess what? That is where the actual people live!

Forgotten States

Another issue with the electoral college means that during a Presidential election most states are not visited by candidates, and most states don’t even see candidates’ TV ads as there is no point. This is because some states are so partisan that it is near impossible for a candidate to win. The fact that candidates feel that trying to promote their candidacies to voters is a waste of time is incredibly problematic in my opinion, and unfortunately the candidates are indeed making a strategic decision in this case. The electoral college is for the most part a winner-takes-all system, meaning that regardless of how narrow or wide a statewide win is, all electoral votes go to the winner, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska. In 2020, six million Californians voted for Donald Trump, and two million Ohioans voted for Joe Biden. Despite this making up almost 10% of the total popular vote, these people never had their voice heard. Donald Trump never made a single visit to California because he knew that it was simply impossible to outright win the state, meaning winning swing votes would not benefit him. In this model presented by the New York Times, we can see that TV-ad buys in the 2020 Presidential election were concentrated in just a few states. California did not have a single ad! Trump and Republicans spent many millions on ads in Florida and won in the end, and yet he won one million more votes in California than in Florida. In spite of this, California’s winner-takes-all system gave all electoral votes to Biden, and Florida gave all electoral votes to Trump.

Faithless Electors

Though luckily in 2020 we did not see any, in 2016 we saw a massive uptick in what are known as faithless electors, likely due to both major party candidates being relatively unpopular. Many people do not realize this, but electors are actual individuals assigned to vote for one party in the event they win. These electors are selected by the state party of the winning candidate. However, in almost half of the states, electors are able to vote for another candidate regardless of the will of the voters. Trump was expected to win 306 electors, yet only won 304. Clinton won 227 instead of 232. Seven of the 538 total electors voted faithlessly. Do you know who Faith Spotted Eagle is? I didn’t, yet she won an electoral vote in 2016. The late Colin Powell, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, won three electoral votes. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) won two electoral Vice Presidential votes, one being with Powell, one from Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

In 2016, Hilary Clinton won the state of Washington over 500,000 votes, or 15.7%, yet a whopping 33% of the electors voted for candidates who did not appear on the ballot. Though some of these candidates received a small amount of write-in votes, Powell won three votes, or 25% of the total electors, with a grand total of zero votes. In 2004, John Edwards was Democrat John Kerry’s running mate, and yet in Minnesota he received both the Presidential and Vice Presidential nod from one elector. And, because these slates of electors are selected by the victor’s party, these electors are often relatives of politicians or retired lobbyists. Both former President Bill Clinton (D) and his wife Hillary Clinton (D) were Biden electors in New York, as were the New York City Comptroller and the Temporary President of NY’s State Senate. A Florida State Senator, Keith Perry (R), was a Trump elector in Florida. The only disqualifying factors for electors are being an incumbent US Senator or Representative, and since the Civil War, having engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the country.

Faithless Colorado elector Michael Baca casts his ballot in 2016. He chose to support a former Ohio Governor, Republican John Kasich, rather than Hillary Clinton.

Popular Vote Winners Losing

In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, the individual who won a plurality, or in 1876, an outright majority of the popular vote, lost the election. The electoral college gives so much more power to residents of smaller states that in 2016, despite winning the popular vote by 2.8 million or 2% in 2016, Hillary Clinton lost by 77 electors. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore defeated Republican George W. Bush by over 500,000 in the popular vote yet lost by five electoral votes in the end, or four if you do not recognize a faithless elector who did not vote at all. In the end, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court forced Florida to end an ongoing recount, and according to CNN, “The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all . . . . The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush.”

Florida vote counters try to determine which candidate was selected on a ballot in 2000.

Conclusion

To me, it is very clear we need to abolish the electoral college. However, this would require a Constitutional amendment which has an approximately 0% chance of passing within my lifetime. It would require 67% of both the House and Senate to pass, which itself is completely impossible considering the Senate also has the issue of disproportionately representing smaller states, and it then would require 38 states to ratify it through their legislatures, even more unlikely. So, in the meantime, we are going to have to continue dealing with the electoral college. However, we can support reform so that we can scrap the winner-takes-all system like Nebraska and Maine have done, and we can also support banning faithless electors. But, if you really want your voice heard, your only option is to move to a swing state like Wisconsin.

Though support among Republicans has dropped, most people still support abolishing the electoral college as of 2018.

Rethinking Speed Limits

May 5, 2021 by szachik@pvs.org 1 Comment

Speed limits are frustrating obstacles us drivers have to face. Roman offers an alternative solution by promoting decriminalizing city speed limits.

By Roman Rickwood

Speeding is the number one traffic violation in the United States (blinetrafficschools.com). For me, speed limits within the city are pretty much necessary because of the amount of cars on the road, as well as the numerous amounts of pedestrians, commuters, and cyclists. Thus, when I first began thinking about decriminalizing speed limits, I quickly ruled out decriminalizing city speed limits. Speed limits in and around city streets make sense to me. As someone who has been a licensed driver since December, I am just now learning how to judge when the light will change. So, speed limits should be based on how long it would take someone to safely decelerate and come to a complete stop. In my opinion, when speed limits are being set it is based on a few things. These include 1) the condition the street is in, 2) the number of stoplights, 3) foot traffic, of course, 4) congestion. I inevitably came to the conclusion that speed limits on roads with street lights and pedestrians are necessary. With all that being said, let’s talk about highways.

Germans at loggerheads over autobahn speed limits | News | DW | 27.01.2019 — Germany’s autobahn

Most highways in California have speed limits from 60 mph to sometimes 75 mph. I will be blunt when I say that these limits are far too slow. Most major highways within California have four lanes. It is generally known amongst drivers that the furthest left lane is known as the fast lane, and the three right lanes are generally going to be for slower traffic. When you go down the highway you see almost all the semis in the first two right lanes. This is because the majority of semis are governed at 60-65 mph, so, for example, on the I-10 the only vehicles you see in the first two right lanes are either semis, or people that are hauling trailers. This system works well because it allows these massive machines to be more safe and they have less worry about being cut off and having to brake rapidly. However, if we go two lanes over, we see a completely different story. We see people going with “the flow of traffic.” To see a different model of traffic flow, I looked at the autobahn between Berlin and Hamburg in Germany. This is famously known as the “Highway with no speed limit.” There have even been records of 300 kph hit on the autobahn. As it is explained, it seems that there are certain lanes with speed limits that are done for the protection of 18 wheelers and regular commuters who don’t have cars capable of hitting these incredible speeds. The autobahn has a 26% lower chance of having a deadly accident than other roads and highways with speed limits, a 2017 study shows (motorbiscuit.com). Knowing all this, I think we can all come to the conclusion that while decriminalizing speed limits sounds radical and dangerous, once you look deeper into it it makes more sense.

If I still don’t have you convinced that an unregulated lane on major highways is a good idea, then this argument might.

Even with speed limits in place, people will still speed and drive recklessly, so you could think of this lane as a place where reckless and fast drivers can perform these actions without putting the lives of everyday commuters at risk. While there are a million gray areas, the main idea is this. There can be one or two lanes where people can drive as fast as they want without having fear of being pulled over. Here, people may take risks. Those adverse to risk can drive in the other lanes. I justify all of this with the argument of personal freedom and free will. After all, this is America.

Decriminalize/Criminalize Editor: Evan Spry

Sources:

Is the Autobahn Safer Than U.S. Highways?

https://www.idrivesafely.com/defensive-driving/trending/it-time-american-autobahn

https://www.blinetrafficschools.com/top-10-moving-traffic-violations-and-how-to-avoid-them/#:~:text=1.,where%20they%20may%20change%20frequently.

Bail, Felons, and Voting–What about it?

May 5, 2021 by szachik@pvs.org 3 Comments

One of, if not the most, controversial government systems in America is our justice system. Hannah describes three parts of the justice system she feels need changing.

By Hannah Hall

The American justice system is arguably good and bad. The good includes putting people away who are worthy of being put away due to their heinous actions. But, there are also some parts of our system that should be changed–some more obvious than others. In my opinion, there are three aspects of the justice system that I find unfair, and that I believe should be fixed.

#1 The Bail System

“Justice for all” is a huge part of America’s character. But how can we tag the word “all” to the end of the phrase if we have a bail system that creates inequity? It’s basically saying that if you are rich enough, you don’t have to completely face the consequences of your crime–one being detention. Let’s just say two people commit the same crime, maybe assault. In California, the bail would run between $10k and $1mil (allprobailbond.com). That is a heck ton of money if you ask me!!! A rich person, on the other hand, may look at that and say no biggie. Somebody could post bail and bust their buddy out. This is happening all while the other person who has no money and no rich connections completely loses freedom, career, income, and time home with family, and most importantly they sit in jail for who knows how long. All while the rich person gets to sit at home awaiting their trial. “Money bail is a price tag on freedom that only serves as a wealth-based discrimination,” says nonprofit Equal Justice Under Law (equaljusticeunderlaw.org). California voters in the last election battled over abolishing bail. The bail-bond industry survived this proposition.

Hannah’s Opinion: Abolish Money Bail.

#2 Felon Voting

In many states, felons lose their right to vote once they are released. But other states have certain processes to go through in order to restore a convicted felon’s right to vote. Some processes include a pardon from their respective governor, waiting until their probation is complete, or paying fees. In only Vermont, Maine, and the District of Columbia, felons never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated, and in 19 other states felons receive automatic voting restoration upon release (ncsl.org). I disagree with Vermont, Maine, and D.C.’s position on letting the incarcerated vote. I think that right comes at the cost of being convicted for a crime. You do it, you lose it…(sorry to the innocent people in jail!) However, I can fully say that I think a felon’s voting rights should be automatically restored upon release from imprisonment. All they should have to do is re-register to vote, then, boom, it’s done…rights restored.

Hannah’s Opinion: Restore Felons’ Voting Rights.

#3 Private Prisons

Luckily this one is on its way out. On January 25, 2021, our President Joe Biden signed an executive order to stop contract renewal between private prisons and the Department of Justice (newsweek.com). Starting off, there is no reason a prison should be run for profit. Simply, it is unethical to take advantage of an incarcerated population with few rights. Secondly, private prisons are criticized for being under-regulated (ojp.gov). This lack of oversight invites assault, poor food supply, and insufficient medical care. All people deserve basic human decency.

Hannah’s Opinion: Abolish Private Prisons.

If you have any incarceration-related opinions, please drop them in the comments. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Let us know what you think should be criminalized or decriminalized within the justice system.

Decriminalize/Criminalize Editor: Evan Spry

Sources:

https://www.allprobailbond.com/blog/types-of-crime/common-california-crimes-bail-amounts/#:~:text=Assault%20Charges&text=Bail%20amounts%20for%20assault%20range,a%20%2450%2C000%20to%20%24100%2C000%20bail.

Click to access 181249.pdf

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-moves-end-federal-use-private-prisons-after-pledging-reduce-mass-incarceration-1564700

Let the Gays Get Married!

May 3, 2021 by szachik@pvs.org 1 Comment

The LGBTQ+ community has been an integral part in our society since society began. Unfortunately, community members have also been marginalized through harsh and restrictive laws. Erik explains how important same-sex marriage legalization is on a global scale.

By Erik Bearman

Same-sex marriage, or any form of queer-marriage, has been scrutinized for centuries. Queer-marriage may be legal in the U.S., but it’s not in some other countries. It’s high time that queer-marriage be decriminalized everywhere on Earth.

History of Queer People in Different Cultures

It may surprise you to know that homophobia is a recent development in human history. Many ancient cultures were totally accepting of queer people. For example, “the Toltec civilization condoned homosexuality” and even had two gods that embodied male and female homosexuality (Chronology of Mexican gay history). In Ancient Greece, the Sacred Band of Thebes was an elite military division of 150 pairs of male lovers. The Band was crucial in overthrowing Spartan rule in Thebes during the Battle of Leuctra (www.britannica.com).

As you can see, queer people have long existed and have had a strong influence on society. So, why are they so marginalized today?

Why Queer-Marriage Was Hated

According to Professor of Sociology at the University of Winchester Eric Anderson, “Intolerance toward homosexual behaviour grew particularly in the Middle Ages, especially among the adherents of Christianity and Islam” (www.britanica.com). You’ve probably heard of Leviticus 18:22. The infamous line reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (King James Bible). Many religious people who oppose the queer community often cite this line as evidence that being gay is sinful. However, several scholars argue that this line is a mistranslation and that Leviticus was actually condemning sexual abuse. The words for “boy” and “man” were similar. The translation should read, according to argument, as an edict against pedophilia.

As colonialism spread in more recent centuries, so did the homophobic views of leading religions. Many countries who once accepted queer people began to reject the community and even persecute them.

Decriminalizing Queer-Marriage

I want the record to state that I don’t want to decriminalize queer-marriage across the world because I am the son of two lesbians. I want to decriminalize queer-marriage because it’s the right thing to do and there is no science to support queer-marriage criminalization. As long as it’s consensual, and all parties are 18 or older, there should be no problem with people marrying whomever they want. Children are not hurt by the union. According to a study that tracked children born in the Netherlands after 1994, “children from same-sex couples outperform children from different-sex couples on standardized test scores at the end of primary education by 0.18 standard deviations” (washingtonpost.com).

Decriminalizing queer-marriage isn’t only a right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do!

Decriminalize/Criminalize Laws Editor: Evan Spry

Sources:

Child Marriage in the U.S.

April 30, 2021 by szachik@pvs.org 1 Comment

There are many laws in our country that are rooted in manipulation and exploitation, but not many that have survived completely untouched to this day. Jake highlights the prevalence of child marriage and how to stop it. Jake calls for repealing the laws that allow adults to marry the underage.

By Jake Sonderman

18 U.S.C. Section 2243(a) states: “Whoever… knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who—

has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and
is at least four years younger than the person so engaging;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.”

This is also known as statutory rape, meaning that any sexual acts with a minor are illegal, consensual or not. But, there are exceptions. The first is if the defendant can establish, with a preponderance of evidence, that they did not know the other person’s age. The other is:

“(2) In a prosecution under this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the persons engaging in the sexual act were at that time married to each other” (18 U.S.C. Section 2243(c)). This is called child marriage, and it is horrifying.

You might be thinking, does child marriage actually happen in the U.S.? Danna Pollard, founder of the Survivor’s Corner, asserts that underage marriage not only exists in the U.S. but is much more prevalent than people think. Pollard herself was married at 16, to a man twice her age. She was groomed for two years, and her mother signed the papers allowing her to enter into the marriage. She was consistently abused in the marriage but had no legal recourse as a married minor in Kentucky. Not even the neighbors constantly calling police on the husband was enough. Eventually, as an adult, Pollard filed for divorce (cbsnews.com). Pollard also attests that child marriage is perpetuated through families, as most child marriages require parental consent, and that it is likely a rural phenomenon linked to poverty.

Between 2000 and 2015, at least 207,459 minors were married in the United States. 87% percent of the minors married were girls. Of these minors, six were 12 years old, 51 were 13, and 985 were 14 years of age. 86% of these minors married adults. 15% of the adults who married these minors were above the age of twenty four. 460 of these adults were over forty. The largest age difference in these marriages was a 74-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old girl in Alabama (PBS). Nicholas Syrett, author of American Child Bride: A History of Minors and Marriage in the United States, argues that indeed child marriage is a “rural phenomenon and it is a phenomenon of poverty” (PBS).

There is currently a perfectly legal way to commit sexual assault. Minors can be married off by parents with no say in the matter. This law reeks of a time of racism, sexism, and bigotry. There is no argument for child marriage. There is no argument for keeping this law. It is time for action. Repeal 18 U.S.C. Section 2243(c), and outlaw child marriage.

*Pollard’s non-profit and plan of action can be found at https://survivorscorner.org/stop-child-marriage

Decriminalize/Criminalize Editor: Evan Spry

Sources:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243

http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-marriage-united-states-donna-pollard/#:~:text=Biden%20Administration-,Child%20marriage%20is%20%22extremely%20prevalent%22%20in%20U.S.%3A%20%22,The%20cycle%20perpetuates%20across%20generations%22&text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20more,to%20data%20analyzed%20by%20Frontline.

Really Dumb Laws in California that Don’t Need to Exist

April 30, 2021 by szachik@pvs.org 2 Comments

For our last Editor’s Theme Pick, Evan assigned the staff, “Laws That Should be Decriminalized OR Legal Actions That Should Be Made Criminal.” After all, the world that we live in is defined by the laws that we follow. Sara found some crazy California laws that should not exist and are downright confusing.

By Sara Habibipour

Have you ever heard of really absurd laws that are just so random they make you say, “Why?” I know I do all the time. I’m sure there’s oodles more, but here’s some of the weirdest, dumbest laws in the state of California that I’ve come across.

In Carmel, California, it’s illegal to stand on the sidewalk and eat ice cream.
Also, in Carmel, women are required to have a permit to wear heels more than two inches in height. This law was authored to defend the city from lawsuits over accidents happening on the irregular pavement, although local police don’t cite any violations.
In Los Angeles, it is illegal to wash your neighbor’s car without their permission.

CSF, better not be washing your neighbor’s car (without permission, in LA).–Photo Credit: Mr. Griffin

In San Francisco and Long Beach, it is illegal to store anything other than automobiles in a garage. This law is very frequently broken!
Between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., it is illegal to walk a camel down Palm Canyon Drive in Palm Springs.
In San Francisco, any person classified as “ugly” may not legally walk down any street.
A frog that dies during a frog-jumping contest cannot be eaten and must be “destroyed” as soon as possible.

It is illegal for women to drive a vehicle in a robe.
In Walnut, it is illegal to put a rock in your driveway.
In Arcadia, peacocks have the right of way in an intersection. Not pedestrians . . . peacocks.
In Eureka, it is illegal for men with mustaches to kiss a woman.
In Long Beach, it’s illegal to curse on a mini-golf course.
In Blythe, it is illegal to wear cowboy boots unless you own two or more cows.
It is illegal for any Californian to ride their bicycle through a swimming pool.
In Oakland, it is illegal to rob a bird’s nest from a cemetery.
If you’re going to rob a bank in California, don’t think about even using a water gun. It’s prohibited.
In Chico, bowling on the sidewalk is illegal.

In Dana Point, it’s illegal to poop with your bathroom window open.
In Fresno, you legally can’t annoy a lizard in the park.
In Indian Wells, foretelling the future for donations is illegal.

In San Diego, it’s illegal to shoot jackrabbits from the back of a streetcar.

Luckily, if you break these laws it’s not necessarily an arrestable offense. But, why bother having such minor laws? What purpose do they serve in society? Do they really help maintain civil order? If you can answer that, let us know in the comments.

Decriminalize/Criminalize Editor: Evan Spry