Tag Archives: law

Neither Democrats Nor Republicans Can Afford To Act Like Sheep,Louise Annarino,1-14-2013

Neither Democrats Nor Republicans Can Afford To Be Sheep,Louise Annarino,1-14-2013

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
 Edward R. Murrow  

My first foray into political activism began when I read about apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa. My eight year old mind was stunned at the racism which was stamped “approved” by the Rhodesian government. Even more shocking was its apparent acceptance by the United States. I had heard about boycotts,and their use to end segregation. Thus,I could not understand why we were a willing trade partner spending millions of dollars in Rhodesia. My father suggested I ask his childhood friend and our congressman, Rep.John Ashbrook (R-OH) about this when he held his next week-end office hours. I made an appointment for the following saturday. At 10 a.m. I found myself dressed in my sunday best outside the door to his office at the Licking County Court House, nervous but serious about getting answers.

Congressman Ashbrook respectuflly overlooked my awkward effort to hoist my short self up into a chair placed before his desk. He did not even smile at the picture of my legs sticking straight out,too short to even bend over the edge of the seat. He took my concerns seriously and respectfully explained the realities of global politics. At that time Rhodesia was the largest producer of chromium, which we sorely needed for miltary and defense industries. He explained why we needed it and what we had to overlook to get it. He agreed that it was a deal with the devil and not to be taken lightly. He promised to put pressure on Rhodesia and South Africa to end apartheid, to seek alternative sources of chromium and other trade items with countries practicing apartheid, and to look for other ways to address the issue of racism.

Every time anyone in Congress discussed an issue realted to my concerns or new related legislation was introduced he mailed me copies of the legislation and or discussion printed in the congressional record. Over the years,until his sudden death while running for the U.S. Senate, we corresponded on a variety of issues. Few of which we took similar positions on. By then I had become a registered Democrat,but remained an appreciative constituent of the ultra-conservative John Ashbrook. I was starting to love politics.

When Sen.John F. Kennedy ran for president I was ten years old. All of my friends,and the nuns at school,swooned over his good looks and were thrilled to support a Catholic candidate. Our religion and patriotism was under attack by democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey during the primary,and I decided to set the record straight. I researched American history,looking for Catholics who had served in government as patriots to illustrate the ill-considered attacks made against Sen.Kennedy’s ability to lead the country without allowing Catholism or the papacy guide his decisions. By the time I was finished I had ten pages of Catholic patriots on my list.

I learned that the father of the U.S. Navy John Barry,the first captain commissioned by the Continental Congress refused 100,000 British pounds to dessert the American navy and captain any British ship of his choosing. He was outraged. John Fitzgerald was General George Washington’s private secretary during the Revolutionary War. The treasurer who held and disbursed funds during the revolution was Catholic as well as two signers of the U.S. Constitution one who a signed the Declaration of Independence. Lafayette and Pulaski were Catholic. Page after page I listed individuals entrusted by fellow patriots to serve and protect the cause of revolution and the establishment of the new government. I mailed the list to Sen. Kennedy and asked him to use it to put Humphrey and others in their place when they used Catholicism to cast a cloud over Kennedy’s ability to lead the nation. I still have the letter Sen. Kenndy sent in response,thanking me for the information. Imagine my surprise a year later when he quoted from my list during the general election debate, when Vice-President Richard Nixon brought up the issue. My Republican Dad was cheering on Kennedy and patting me on the back for a job well done. I was hooked on politics.

It was years later,while an intern at the Ohio Attorney General’s Office the summer between my second and third year of law school that I really began to understand the inner workings of political institutions, and the people who run them. I did not expect politics to intercept law so easily. The tension between the two is a strong undercurrent. Fortunately,most individuals handle it deftly,appropriately, and ethically. Those who don’t are called to account. What amazes me is not that some try to manipulate government institutions,including courts,for political and economic gain;but that so few do so. Also, the ready aceptance of bi-partisan cooperation,until recently,has been quite impressive.

I recall a case in which the state of Ohio hoped for an outcome which would protect the state and state coffers. However, Ohio law dictated a different outcome, unless we could find strong precedent which would allow the Ohio Supreme Court to oveturn Ohio law on the issue before it. The Democratic AG and the Republican-led Supreme Court each knew that the failure of the legislature to change the law earlier had brought the state to this unfortunate impasse. Several interns worked around the clock to find a case strong enough for the court to hang its hat on. They succeeded and the state’s interest,and taxpayer’s interest was served by the court’s final decision. Politics and law at a crossroads is an exciting intersection for a legal intern.

What I abhorred was the quiet assumption that government workers would donate to political parties,increasing their chances of retaining their positions. This was not stated outright. No such request was ever made. But one could see that attending political events,fund-raisers and showing party support bolstered one’s professional standing whether democratic or republican. I decided I wanted no part of politics. I just wanted to practice law and rise or fall on my merits,not on my political contributions.

After law school,I worked for the non-profit Legal Aid Society of Columbus where my focus was on my clients and the law,without the subtle pressure of financing candidates or political parties. I continued to volunteer for candidates,make contributions to their campaigns, knock on doors, stuff envelopes,do lit drops etc. But these efforts were unrelated to my practice of law. When I left the Legal Aid Society five years later to become Associate Director Of Legal Affairs at Ohio University I made sure during my interview that the position would not be a political appointment, and that I would never be asked to contribute to a specific candidate or party. I was assured that was the case.

However, when the next Attorney General was elected he realized Ohio law had not been strictly followed by his predecessors and announced he would do so. Ohio law stated that only the Attorney General could represent a state agency or institution in any hearing or court,before any agency or commission. The hiring of each attorney by state universities would require approval by the Attorney General, and each attorney would be appointed his Assistant Attorney General. I was right back where I had started!

When I met with the Attorney General he agreed that no one from his staff would ever request my political participation in,nor contribution to any political event or campaign. And, he never disappointed me. Nor did he allow my failure to attend such events to color his view of my professional performance and standing with his office. Other attorneys were appalled at my unwillingness to mingle politics and my legal practice. But,I refused to be a sheep and follow the flock. It would be too easy to be eaten by the wolves which surely would appear. It only takes a few wolves to decimate a flock.

When I see what is happening in republican political circles I worry about all those republicans who are fair and reasonable,who seek consensus, who prefer bi-partisan discussion, and who understand that legislation can be improved by listening and learning from the other side of the aisle. They have allowed wolves to come among them in sheeps clothing. Democrats are not immune from such an incursion,especially if they act like sheep. We are watching too many republicans being eaten alive not to understand it can happen to democrats as well. No one in either party can afford to act like sheep.

2 Comments

Filed under POLITICS

THE BIG LIE:IF YOU REALLY WANT TO VOTE YOU'LL FIND A WAY LIKE I DO, By Louise Annarino, August 15, 2012

THE BIG LIE:IF YOU REALLY WANT TO VOTE YOU’LL FIND A WAY LIKE I DO,By Louise Annarino, August 15, 2012

I was once a Legal Aid Attorney who helped those poorest among us, many of whom worked 2 part-time jobs and still were income eligible for our services because their income fell below the poverty line. Many of our clients were people of color;most were not. Most were first or second generation migrants to Ohio from West Virginia and Kentucky looking for a better life in the urban “north”. Many of my clients, African-American and white were born at home because they lacked health insurance and could not afford to buy it. Because they were born at home the only record of their birth might be their name entered in the family Bible. Some did not even have that. When I became Managing Attorney of the Senior Citizen Unit I often had to assist claimants for social security retirement who lacked the requisite birth certificate to prove their identity and age. We were able to provide the family Bible, or an affidavit from someone present at the birth as evidence. This was deemed sufficient proof. This effort took months, not days. Life lived in poverty means longer hours and more effort to accomplish what is easily done when one has sufficient income. Obstacles are everywhere and multiply in geometric progression for the poor,working poor, disabled and elderly.

Below is the link to the official Pennsylvania site for information on Voting ID requirements. It is too long and complex to include entire piece within this blog. Click to see what I mean. Notice it may take a person 2 visits to accomplish the task. While the cost for the ID may be waived when sought for voting purposes, the cost for substantiating documents is not waived, and they cost more than the photo ID does.( SEE full requirements at http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml ) One might also need to bring a second resident to the location if they do have a mortgage, current dated rental lease, or utility bill; requiring the cost of transportation and scheduling coordination for two persons. Easy to get one of your children to go anywhere with you? What if you are a single working Mom and your children are too young to swear to the truth of your claim of residence? There is no one to affirm your residence.

How does one know where to go and what the hours of operation are? This,too is unclear and requires time to explore. What if the person in need of voter ID has no computer, nor access to one to get answers to such questions about the process.  Census data shows that 9.9% of Pennsylvanians do not speak English at home. Will they understand the complex instructions even if they are able to use a computer?(See more at  https://www.dot4.state.pa.us/locator/locator.jsp#top?20120815232903273=20120815232903273 ) Please note that the site stresses:

PennDOT Driver License and Photo License Centers only accept payment by check or money order. No cash or credit cards are accepted.

What if you do not have a checking account? What if you cannot convince a bank to provide you customer service  for a money order when you are not a customer? How much does a money order cost at a Pay-Day Loan ?

What if the person cannot travel by bus to the locations listed? Are cabs available and/or affordable? What if the person needing voter ID is disabled? Elderly? Blind? Nine locations in Pennsylvania have no such sites. Those which do are open 1 day a week.Pennsylvania has the fewest state workers in the nation. Who will be there to help move this process forward? (see Rachel Maddow 8-15-2012)

The judge in PA  found no discriminatory impact by the PA voter ID law even though evidence indicated more than half those affected are African-American. The African-American population of PA is only 11.3%, not more than 55%. Obviously, African-Americans are unfairly bearing the brunt of this law. 12.4% of all Pennsylvanians live below the poverty level. Per capita income is $27,049. ( see more at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html ) How can people with such income levels have time to take away from work and afford the cost of so doing? How?

The State’s attorneys who asked  Judge Simpson to refuse to block the voter ID law admitted “that they are ‘not aware of any incidents of in person voter fraud.’  Instead, they insisted that lawmakers properly exercised their latitude to make election-related laws when they chose to require voters to show widely available forms of photo identification.” Others argue that the same ID required to vote is required to buy beer. Really? Passports? Mortgage statements? Utility bills? One can buy a beer in numerous locations, even grocery stores. Voter Photo IDs are not so readily or easily available.(see more from Pennsylvania’s Republican viewpoint at http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/15/pennsylvania-judge-refuses-to-block-voter-id-law/ )

The standard for an injunction is that the plaintiff  must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits [i.e., win at trial], that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Judge Simpson found no irreparable harm even though 15% of Pennsylvanians lack voter ID, and it seems unlikely they will be able to obtain it before the November election. This is about more than the November election however. This is about the losing the RIGHT to vote and replacing it with the PRIVILEGE of voting, if one can afford it. That seems to place the issue squarely in the public interest,and in violation of the constitutions of  Pennsylvania and the United States of America.

And the competing interest to protect against voter fraud ? The “Brennan Center’s exhaustive research revealed that there is little to no reliable evidence of impersonation fraud. And, of course, this form of fraud is the only misconduct that the new voter identification requirements in HB934 will address.” (see more http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/testimony_on_pennsylvania_hb_934/ )

Of course this case will be appealed and the Justice department may file further action to protect African-American voters’ denial of equal protection. The uncertainty lies in the time it will take to correct the problem. Time is of the essence;not because those likely to vote for the Democratic party candidates and President Obama are being disenfranchised, but because hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are being disenfranchised.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS