By Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica

Hundreds of teen-agers are raped or sexually assaulted during their stays in the country's juvenile detention facilities, and many of them are victimized repeatedly, according to a U.S. Department of Justice survey.

The teens are most often assaulted by staff members working at the facilities, and fully 20 percent of those victimized by the men and women charged with protecting and counseling them said they had been violated on more than 10 occasions.

"Today's report illustrates the fundamental failure of many juvenile detention facilities to keep their youth safe," said Louisa Stannow, executive director of Just Detention International, a California-based health and human rights organization.

The Justice Department survey — covering both secure juvenile detention facilities and group homes, the less restrictive settings into which troubled youngsters are often ordered — involved more than 8,500 boys and girls. In all, 1,720 of those surveyed reported being sexually assaulted.

Continue reading »

Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5

by Suevon Lee ProPublica, Aug. 30, 2012,

Aug. 30: This post has been updated.

A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. Section 5 has blocked photo voter-ID laws, prohibited reduced early-voting periods in parts of Florida and just Tuesday barred new redistricting maps in Texas.

It's the reason South Carolina is in federal court this week to try to convince a three-judge panel its photo voter-ID law will not disenfranchise minorities. It's the reason that Texas went to trial on the same issue last month — and on Thursday, lost.

Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional.

Under the provision, certain states and localities with a history of anti-minority election practices must obtain federal approval or "preclearance" before making changes to voting laws. In present day, that requirement is burdensome, "needlessly aggressive" and based on outdated coverage criteria, two petitions filed in July with the U.S. Supreme Court argue.

Section 5 applies to nine states — Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and Alaska — and currently to parts of Florida, California, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire. The original coverage formula looked at whether states imposed unfair devices like literacy tests in November 1964, whether less than 50 percent of the voting-age population was registered to vote as of that date, or if less than 50 percent of eligible voters voted in the November 1964 presidential election. In 1975, the formula expanded to include jurisdictions that provided election materials only in English when members of a language minority made up more than 5 percent of voting-age citizens.

Momentum is building at the highest levels to narrow or even eliminate this provision. In a 2009 majority opinion to a Section 5 challenge from Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Texas, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that preclearance and the coverage formula "raise serious constitutional questions," though the justices didn't settle them at the time. In January, in a separate concurrence to the judgment in the Texas redistricting case, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that Section 5 is unconstitutional (for more on how that case reached the Supreme Court, see our previous explainer).

Continue reading »

A plan heavily favored by Republican leaders to cut 8 percent of the Pentagon’s budget effective January 2nd now has them scrambling to undo their own handiwork. The effects the military will undergo as a result of the 10-year, $600 billion round of cuts remains unclear, but Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other legislators have said that the belt-tightening measures, which will rein the defense budget back down to its 2007 level, would force the military to make choices that will effect local communities. “The soft underbelly that I’m trying to exploit is, ‘What does this mean to your state?’” Graham told reporters.

With the first round of cuts starting with the 2013 budget -- which begins on October 1st -- Republicans are warning that the defense cuts could be disastrous. Leading Democrats don't seem to be showing them any mercy, either.

Via:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has given no indication that he will undo the cuts without a broader deficit reduction deal that would include revenue increases — and no such negotiations are under way.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Republicans were given the choice during the debt ceiling negotiations between automatic defense cuts or automatic tax increases in the event that the so-called supercommittee failed to reach a deficit deal. They chose the defense cuts.

“The consistent pattern here is they have chosen to defend special interest tax breaks over defense spending,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “They made that choice.”

.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is echoing the same dire warnings as the Republicans, especially since the administration has already agreed that the Pentagon will contribute around $450 billion in deficit reduction over the next decade. "Tack on $600 billion more and the impact will be debilitating," Pentagon officials say:

Via:

Congress has already been warned that the automatic spending cuts early next year — especially from the Pentagon — could help trigger another recession.

But the $1.2 trillion ax to defense and domestic spending might trigger something else: an election loss.
...
One study showed that deep defense cuts would cost 1 million jobs nationwide — hitting heavily in California, Virginia and Florida.

Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has been warning his state, which thrives on Pentagon spending, of the impending defense cuts. It seems he may be weakening when it comes to raising taxes...

Via:

For now, Democrats and Republicans are waiting for the other side to blink. And the pressure may be working. Mr. Graham said the sentiment for raising revenues by closing tax loopholes or imposing higher fees on items like federal oil leases is expanding in his party.

Asked about the “no new taxes” pledge almost all Republicans have signed, he shrugged: “I’ve crossed the Rubicon on that.”

Animation: Newt Thinks He'll Win South Carolina (Actual Audio) from scottbateman on Vimeo.

Gingrich made the claim while explaining to CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer Sunday why he is a more attractive candidate to South Carolina voters than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“Well, I think it’s very hard for him,” Gingrich said.

“I don’t want to pick weakest or strongest. I think it’s very hard for him to differentiate Romneycare from Obamacare. It’s very hard for him to differentiate appointing liberal judges, which he did when he was the governor of Massachusetts. These are things that are going to come up and I think for the conservative movement it makes it more difficult frankly. And that’s why I think here in South Carolina I’m probably going to win next Saturday because as a Georgia Reagan conservative, I fit much more comfortably with the average South Carolina Republican.”