Judiciary: Hearing on the History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Obama & Holder: The National Democratic Redistricting Committee

 The National Democratic Redistricting Committee

Former President Barack Obama highlights the damaging effects of partisan and racial gerrymandering on our democracy and calls on Americans to get engaged in the 2018 mid-term elections as it is a critical year for redistricting and restoring fairness back to elections. 

 The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) is the centralized hub for executing a comprehensive redistricting strategy that shifts the redistricting power, creating fair districts where Democrats can compete. To learn more about what you can do to fight for fair maps alongside the NDRC, visit www.democraticredistricting.com.

(Those example districts were the 13th & 14th Congressional Districts of Michigan.)

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & NADLER Call Out Trump's Misstatements On The Judiciary At Hearing On 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals

Washington, D.C. – At a hearing to reexamine the structure of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and senior Judiciary Member and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) today called out President Donald Trump’s dangerous misstatements about the Judiciary in response to court rulings that blocked his Muslim/Refugee ban.

In his opposition to restructuring the 9^th Circuit, Ranking Member Conyers said, “The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

“Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

“The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.”

Read Conyers' full Committee statement here.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler called conservatives’ calls to restructure the federal courts a dangerous attempt at judicial gerrymandering. In his opening statement he said, “What this debate is really all about is that conservatives do not like the more liberal rulings that occasionally emerge from the 9^th Circuit, and they believe they can manufacture a new circuit that will produce more conservative results.  That is a very different—and a more dangerous—matter.

“Like clockwork, we see proposals to split up the 9^th Circuit whenever it delivers a controversial decision with which conservatives disagree.  Whether it is ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance should not include the words “under God”; overturning restrictions on abortion or gay rights, or, most recently its unanimous decision to uphold the temporary stay on President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban, the 9^thCircuit has long been in the sights of Republican politicians.  Just last night, President Trump said at his campaign rally, “[p]eople are screaming, break up the 9^th Circuit. And I’ll tell you what, that 9^th Circuit – you have to see. Take a look at how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.

“But to manipulate the federal courts in order to achieve the political ends you seek is highly inappropriate.  Just as there is a nation-wide movement to end legislative gerrymandering, we should resist this form of judicial gerrymandering as well.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on, “The Department of Homeland Security’s Proposed Regulations Reforming the Investor Visa Program”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you Chairman Goodlatte. Last Congress, I had the honor of working with you, Chairman Grassley, and Senator Leahy in an effort to reform the EB-5 Investor Visa Program. While the proposed DHS regulations would go a long way toward addressing many of our longstanding and serious concerns with the program, there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution.

I remain confident that we can accomplish these important legislative reforms this Congress and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

I have taken a particular interest in the EB-5 Investor Visa program because I believe it has drifted far from the program initially envisioned by Congress.  As a result the communities that need investment the most – specifically, rural and distressed urban areas – struggle to benefit from the program and are unfairly placed in direct competition with developed, affluent areas.

When Congress established the EB-5 investor visa program in 1990, the intention was to create jobs for American citizens and to bring new investment capital to the United States.  To help encourage investment and job creation in rural or high unemployment areas, the EB-5 Program offered a reduced investment level of $500,000 for projects in designated Targeted Employment Areas (TEAs).

However, as reported by the GAO, academics, The Wall Street Journal, and many other news sources, the vast majority of EB-5 investment funds are going to projects in some of America’s wealthiest corridors.  They qualify as TEAs, or economically distressed, only by aggregating census tracts across many miles, and often across natural boundaries such as rivers.

This practice has been criticized by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, noting that “the EB-5 Regional Center Program has dramatically deviated from its original purpose – to spur job creation and development in rural and high unemployment areas.”  Steering investments to projects in our cities’ well-to-do neighborhoods comes at the expense of EB-5 funds for urban and rural communities. 

According to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional District that I represent, for instance, is the second-most impoverished district in the United States.  I am pleased to say that under the Obama Administration our economic environment began to improve.  It is slow, and we have a long way to go.  But for those Americans living in my city of Detroit, and in many other cities across the country, manipulation of Targeted Employment Areas has diverted a potential source of jobs and neighborhood improvement away from those it was intended to help.

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rules make a number of important reforms:

First, the rules would raise the higher investment level to adjust for inflation from 1 million to 1.8 million and would raise the lower investment amount from $500,000 to $1.35 million.

Second, the rules would reduce the difference between the statutory and Targeted Employment Area investment levels and would allow for conforming adjustments based on inflation beginning five years from the effective date.

Third, the rules would significantly reign in manipulation of targeted employment areas.

I am encouraged by this development from the Department of Homeland Security and consider the proposed rulemakings as movement in the right direction. However, I must reiterate, to achieve the necessary reforms to the EB-5 program there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution. And, absent significant reform – either regulatory or legislative – I will not be able to support continued authorization of the program.

In closing, I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to appear before our Committee and I look forward to an open and honest debate about the proposed regulations and the future of the EB-5 Program.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©