Current National Popular Vote Whip Count

by: JRB

Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 08:11:49 PM EDT

For:
Sen. Dick Codey (D)
Sen. Joseph Coniglio (D)
Sen. Ray Lesniak (D)
Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D)
Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D)

Against:
Sen. Leonard Lance (R)

Assembly

For:
Asm. Joseph Cryan (D)

Against:
Asm. Bill Baroni (R)
Asm. Michael Carroll (R)
Asm. Joseph Pennacchio (R)

An interesting observation from Michael Patrick Carroll

by: JRB

Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 07:56:48 PM EDT

The President of the United States is the President of the United States, not the president of the people of the United States. The point is, the states mean something.

If it's the will of the states that interests you more than that of the people, think about this: the majority of our states are overlooked under this broken system. Both parties' resources and attention are heaped upon a dozen or so swing states. This is because candidates are seeking an Electoral College victory -- not a victory of all fifty states (and even less so of the people, if that's your interest).

So, it would be in the interest of all fifty states -- not just the people -- to sidestep the Electoral College with National Popular Vote legislation.

National Popular Vote coming to New Jersey?

by: JRB

Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 11:08:06 AM EDT

The Senate State Government Committee will consider legislation that would require New Jersey's electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins the national popular vote, not necessarily the statewide count in New Jersey. S-2695, sponsored by State Senators Richard Codey and Raymond Lesniak, seeks to include New Jersey in an "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" ...

Read about the plan in former Senator Birch Bayh's Blue Jersey op-ed, 'A Fifty State Strategy Every Year.' He even mentioned Codey's call to make New Jersey a "Presidential Player" rather than "an ATM machine." The op-ed is pasted below the fold.

The Fight to Restore our Rights

by: Thurman Hart

Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:42:20 PM EDT

I have some more details up at our blog.  I urge you to call the rest of our NJ Democrats and get them all signed on to these very important bills.

Op-Ed: A Fifty State Strategy Every Year

by: Birch Bayh

Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:33:01 AM EST

Howard Dean's 'Fifty State Strategy' was controversial enough for a midterm election, as some party leaders feared it would "squander" the resources needed to win seats. Now, throw a presidential race into the mix -- a time when both parties siphon their resources into the handful of battleground states that sway the Electoral College. What good is a fifty state strategy when 60,000 votes in Ohio are more influential than 1.5 million nationwide?

This limited strategy requires that candidates running for the nation's highest office completely ignore three-quarters of the states, including the three most populous: California, Texas, and New York. Democrats and Republicans alike should ask, 'Why are our national leaders elected by only reaching out to a fraction of our states?' It seems inherently illogical, and it is.

The Electoral College has outlived whatever positive role it once played as a choice of convenience and compromise. Long overdue, the President and Vice President should be chosen by the same method every other elective office in this country is filled-by citizen voters of the United States in a system which counts each vote equally.

I have felt this way for some time. 30 years ago last month, I introduced a proposed Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and provide for direct election of the President and Vice President. As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, I held hearings, received testimony from 38 witnesses (not to mention hundreds of pages of additional statements and academic studies), and amassed nearly 2,600 pages of research on the need for electoral reform.

To me and others involved with this process, it became clear that while the Founding Founders had incredible wisdom and foresight, they were dealing with a much different society. The Electoral College was designed for the realities of their time, not ours.

Legislating Violations of the Constitution

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf

Sat Sep 30, 2006 at 12:18:41 PM EDT

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

More after the jump.
 

Bergen County Group Supports Librarian, Army Officer

by: dfa_lewis

Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 05:07:26 PM EDT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Bergen County—Michele Reutty, the embattled Hasbrouck Heights library director, has gained the support of Bergen Grassroots, a public interest group headquartered in Teaneck. (Text of resolution)

In a separate resolution, Bergen Grassroots announced similar support for Lt. Ehren Watada, who has refused orders to go to Iraq and is now facing a court martial. (Text of resolution)

Desecrating the Flag

by: ljf75

Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 10:52:32 AM EDT

The proposed Amendment said nothing about blithely ignoring science and evidence of far reaching phenomena such as climate change because the facts don't fit their beliefs. 

It did not define as gross malpractice standing incompetantly amidst a disaster of epic propertions and saying 'my good buddy did a great job, as good as he could do, what do you expect - big government is inherently incompetant, and hey, it was an act of God, but I am a super patriot, and there's a war going on and we were attacked by cowardly terrorists and I'm a war hero and don't I look good on camera?

The proposed Amendment said nothing about claiming a monopoly on patriotism, claiming 'no patriot could dissent or disagree, and therefore anyone who disagrees is not a patriot.'

The Amendment should ban shredding the Constitution or burying it in with illegal torture, illegal wiretaps and improper 'Signings' while waving the flag.