The Nuns arrived at St. Michael’s Church in South Providence to the music of the Extraordinary Rendition Band and St. Michael’s own drummers.

During the discussions the Nuns learned about the obscene child poverty rates in Rhode Island, the criminality and disconnect of many of our elected leaders and our state’s support for the fossil fuel industry and the environmental racism such support entails. The meeting filled the basement of St. Michael’s.

From Providence the Nuns headed to Hartford, Scranton and Newark before arriving in Philly on  July 26. You can follow their progress here.

Frances Fox Piven is a legend. Her work was instrumental in the creation of the welfare rights movement and the war on poverty.  Last night, Piven gave a talk entitled Strategic Voter Disenfranchisement: How Political Party Competition Shrinks the Electorate at the RI Center for Justice (in collaboration with the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown.)

With Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton neck and neck in the polls, said Piven, starting her talk, “I thought, I’ll talk about voter disenfranchisement, but I want to talk about that in the context of this election… I actually think this is an important election.

“The strangeness of this election. It’s really kind of amazing… Things are happening that can’t be explained by the truisms that political scientists repeat to each other.”

For instance, asked Piven, who has served on the board of the Democratic Socialists of America, how can Bernie Sanders get away with calling himself a socialist? What has changed?

For Piven, the answer is that America today is a land of broken promises. “People rise up when the promises that have been made… have been broken. Life is very uncertain and insecure. You’re earning less money, your pension may be at risk. There is soaring inequality. Some people are getting so rich.”

The system is rigged and not in our favor. A very few are very rich and the rest of us are doomed to live lives in poorer and meaner circumstances than our parents. Yet there is a counter to this, said Piven, and that counter is electoral democracy.

“Many activists are skeptical of electoral democracy,” said Piven, yet, “political institutions nevertheless create a realm of equality. At least in principle, everyone has one vote. Those votes, when aggregated, can depose rulers. You can kick the sons of bitches out!”

Since it is well known that “when electoral rights expand people do better,” said Piven, democracy becomes a threat to the status quo. Therefore, it behooves the rich and powerful to fight back. “The threat of democracy is met by manipulating electoral procedures.”

Some of the manipulations of electoral procedures were built into the country’s structure by the Founding Fathers, said Piven. The Senate, for instance, guarantees two Senators from every state, even if no one lives in the state. The Supreme Court is another example. The Court is only marginally influenced by voters, being nominated by the President to lifelong positions. “Walling off certain parts of the government and saying this part of the government is not exposed to the electorate” circumvents the power of democracy said Piven.

And of course the final way of challenging the power of electoral democracy is by “suppressing votes and voters.”

“In Political Science we have a ‘faith’ and one of the axioms is that competing parties expand voter engagement,” said Piven, but, “Competing parties exert themselves to make it hard for voters that may vote for their opponents. That’s just as logical, but you won’t find that in any textbooks, but it has happened in American history.

“At the turn of the 20th Century, immigrants became the constituency of the machine bosses. These machines traded voter allegiance and voter loyalty for favors. Businessmen had a problem with that arrangement because they wanted efficient services. [Political] machines are not good at providing the kinds of services that lead to business expansion. Municipal reform organizations were business organizations,” said Piven. The machines used voter registration, literacy tests, poll taxes and other methods of voter suppression to drive down immigrant voter turnout significantly.

And this is happening today, with voter suppression laws being enacted across the country.

“Every presidential election turns out to be the most expensive in history because of the concentration of wealth spilling over” into the political arena, said Piven. “There is no wall” between money and politics. “Inequalities outside the electoral arena spillover.” Today we conduct polls to see how voters are thinking but we also track political contributions. Dollars and votes seem to be equally important.

This money, and the voter suppression we are seeing in politics, is aimed squarely at the “new electorate.” This rising block of voters tend to be more progressive. Black voter turnout has increased, immigrant groups continue to expand, the youth vote jumped in 2008 and 2012 and there’s been a “shift in the women’s vote since 1980 and the Reagan elections,” said Piven.

Given the shift in voters, “Conservatives shouldn’t be able to get elected,” said Piven. But through the manipulation of voter eligibility, they do.

And it isn’t ending, said Piven. Right now there’s an effort underway to change the formula for representation from the number of members in the population to the number of active voters. This is a vicious circle, and it’s by design.

Taking away “our ability to influence government” is another broken promise.

“Broken Promises in the economy and politics probably accounts for the surge in movements over the last few years,” said Piven. “This was the beginning of a new movement era.”

She noted three in particular:

“First there was Occupy, the press mocked them at the beginning. Then everyone started using Occupy’s slogans and language. Then there was the Fight for $15. SEIU had a significant role in promoting $15 as the goal. They wanted to build the union. That didn’t happen. What happened instead was that a movement took off that has been affecting local politics,” and then of course there’s Black Lives Matter.

There are also movements on the right, but these are “not among low wage workers or immigrants. [These movements] are occurring among middle class people, a little older, above the median income. Donald Trump is speaking to those people and their imaginary past…” There are “strong currents of religious fundamentalism and macho culture, gun culture, imaginary pioneers… We’ve got to live with that.”

“Movements are not majorities,” said Piven, “movements are spearheads…

“Movements have played a key role in shaping the United States since the revolutionary period.” Piven mentioned three movements in particular that had gigantic political implications.

The abolitionists freed the slaves, FDR became a radical due to the rise of the labor movement, which brought social security, labor rights, welfare policy, and public housing policy, and the civil rights movement which finally did emancipate blacks, shattered Jim Crow in the South.

“The troubles caused by movements become troubles for politicians and governments,” said Piven, “Movements communicate issues politicians wanted to avoid – showing people they could become defiant and shut things down.”

Too often “activists dismiss elections but there’s an interplay,” said Piven, but, “movements nourish electoral politics. Sanders couldn’t have run without Occupy.”

“Movements made Sanders possible,” said Piven, wrapping up her talk, “I think Sanders could win the nomination. But I don’t know what will happen in a general election. It’s amazing. There’s no precedent…

“What really worries me is Sanders as President. He would be in the White House surrounded by politicians determined to block him at every move. Movements at that juncture will become very essential to a Sanders presidency because movements can shut things down. That is the kind of popular weapon that could be equal to the gridlock Sanders could be facing.”

Renowned scholar Frances Fox Piven will explore strategies used by political party operatives to disenfranchise voters from opposing parties, including, in recent years, Republican Party operatives focused on disenfranchising voters of color. Professor Piven will discuss complexities surrounding claims of “voter fraud” and strategies for community resistance tonight (Thursday) at the Rhode Island Center for Justice, Room 204, 150 Washington St, Providence at 7pm.

Frances Fox Piven is an internationally renowned social scientist, scholar, and activist whose commitments to poor and working people, and to the democratic cause have never wavered.

“As co-author, with Richard Cloward, of the classic 1977 treatise, Poor People’s Movements, Piven has made landmark contributions to the study of how people who lack both financial resources and influence in conventional politics can nevertheless create momentous revolts,” wrote Mark Engler and Paul Engler. “Few scholars have done as much to describe how widespread disruptive action can change history, and few have offered more provocative suggestions about the times when movements — instead of crawling forward with incremental demands — can break into full sprint.”

Piven’s professional accomplishments in the world of academia place her among the ranks of the most important social scientists of the last century, but it is not only Professor Piven’s academic work that marks her career for distinction. Rather, it is the unique and exemplary ways that she has bridged the worlds of academia and social activism to advance humanizing social policy reform that sets her apart.

Co-sponsored by the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University and the Rhode Island Center for Justice.

[From a press release]

“Many groups that have the power to make life decisions for others don’t ever have to live out the consequences.” – Frances Fox Piven

In Rhode Island, Democrats have near total control over the state government, yet we see almost none of the economic advantages that other blue states, like neighboring Massachusetts and Connecticut, enjoy. Our General Assembly will not pass reasonable gun legislation, moves to prevent cities and towns from raising the minimum wage, passed the biggest tax cuts for the rich in the nation, slips anti-reproductive rights legislation into the budget at the eleventh hour (preventing real discussion around the issue) and is the only Democratically controlled legislature in the country to have passed voter ID.

In short, our Democrats are political and economic conservatives and on core issues of concern to progressives, have more in common with the national Republican Party than the national Democratic Party platform.

That’s why RIPDA’s voice is so important and deserving of support. They are the conscience of a political machine in Rhode Island that would much rather be unbothered by thoughts of the poor and vulnerable. They consistently fight back against the worst abuses of state government, and they do so with virtually no funding, just the dedicated work of a gung ho group of volunteers.

Mike Araujo, honored this year with the Progressive Hero award, worked tirelessly to eliminate the tipped minimum wage, which unfairly discriminates against women and opens them to sexual harassment in the workplace. After a year long battle the tipped minimum wage was increased for the first time in decades, meaning there is still much work to be done, and you can bet that Araujo will be leading that fight. He’s also a terrific speaker and advocate.

So come on down to Ogie’s Trailer Park Thursday night and enjoy some fine food and fine company. Think about joining the RIPDA and moving the Rhode Island Democratic Party out of the hands of neoliberal blue dogs and into the hands of the working class, where it belongs.

There’s work to be done, and the RIPDA is doing it.

Order your tickets here.

Vincent was speaking at an ACLU panel discussion held at the Providence Public Library in August entitled, “The Voting Rights Act at 50: The Promise and The Struggle.” Hilary Davis of the ACLU directed the event, and in addition to Vincent, Kate Bowden of the RI Disability Law Center and Lee Ann Byrne of the RI Coalition for the Homeless attended.

The history of voter disenfranchisement was briefly discussed, as was the Voter ID laws that the RI General Assembly passed a few years ago. Many politicians feel that having to show a picture ID at the polls is not an undue burden, but Hilary Davis pointed out that years ago, many thought poll taxes, now seen as exclusionary, were not a big deal. Poll taxes, Jim Vincent added, “were designed to disenfranchise a whole group of people so that they couldn’t participate in our democracy.”

After the Voting Rights Act was passed 50 years ago, the percentage of registered black voters rose from 25 to 62 percent. More than that, the Voting Rights Act “provided the right to assistance in the voting booth. This allowed the illiterate, or the disabled, to vote,” said Kate Bowden.

For 47 years or so the Voting Rights Act was doing great. “Then states began to role back voting rights,” said Davis, adding that the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the VR Act when they struck down key provisions. “Over night… states started to enact laws to limit access… It was within a number of hours of Supreme Court decision that laws were introduced to limit voting rights.

And these laws are racially biased. Before Obama was elected President, seven states had laws restricting voter rights,” said Vincent. The number is around 25 now, and Rhode Island is not exempt.

“Rhode Island rushed to pass a [Voter ID] law,” said Davis, “Unlike most laws this is based on a couple of anecdotal incidents… Stats show their is virtually no evidence of voter fraud. Mail ballots became easier to obtain, the only place where fraud was found…No one thought that a Democratic [Party majority] state would manage to do that.”

Lee Ann Byrne said that for the homeless population though, “obtaining an ID is important to access many services… it comes at a major expense” and “despite the availability of the free IDs, it doesn’t make sense to get one that is good only for voting.”

Furthermore, said Byrne, “Poll worker training is a bit spotty” on the issue of voting without a permanent address. “We have a highly mobile population, our constituents almost never have an ID that matches their address.” And denying someone the right to vote or forcing them to cast a provisional ballot under these conditions, is not the law.

People can become embarrassed or caused distress at the polls if they can’t be certain about their right to vote. “There is a concern about being challenged or turned down when they make the effort,” said Byrne. To date only about 900 voter IDs have been issued by the Secretary of State’s office. Before the introduction of voter ID in Rhode Island, there were “zero prosecutions for in person voter impersonation’” but since the passage of the law, said Davis, otherwise qualified voters have been turned away.

Being forced to get a photo ID in order to vote, said Vincent, “is a form of poll tax.”

Another issue of voting concern to the ACLU is “prison based gerrymandering.” Right now the 4000 inmates at the ACI are counted as living in Cranston, on Howard Ave. These people are unable to vote, meaning that the citizens in this district have more voting power than people in the rest of the state. Their vote counts as more because there are less people voting in their district.

The state Senate passed legislation to correct this problem, which would count those people at the ACI as living at their home address, but it has not moved in the House.

The panel discussed other issues, such as long lines and long waits at the polls in some districts, which may cause people to lose out on their chance to vote if time is scarce, broken voting machines, lack of childcare at polls, mail ballot fraud, the need for early voting and issues regarding the Board of Elections.

The ACLU recommends two things needed immediately for the needed reform of our elections. First, the ACLU needs people to volunteer as poll monitors. Poll monitors would note when voters are turned away, when equipment malfunctions or when other irregularities occur. Secondly, the ACLU would like to see the voter ID law repealed.

To accomplish the second goal the public needs to talk to our legislators. Too many people think showing an ID at the poll is no big deal, but for the homeless, the disabled or the poor, securing an ID can be a terrific burden. Thoroughly discouraged, eligible voters may decide to skip voting all together, and this can’t be good for our putative democracy.

Those opposed to democracy today pretend that they are fighting Voter Fraud when actually they are fighting Voters. As Rep Joseph Trillo says, “I don’t want everybody to vote unless they are informed on the issues.”

Tom Door is spinning in his grave…

Featuring Joseph Trillo, Cale Keable, Arthur Corvese, Antonio Giarusso, Michael Marcello, Arthur Handy, Brian Newberry, Teresa Tanzi, Michael Chippendale and Nicholas Mattiello.

Case in point:

Some of the ID’s being considered for people who need to prove their identity in order to vote do not actually exist, according to Kate Bowden of the RI Disability Law Center. “For example, we represent many people who live in public housing, I’m not aware of a public housing corporation that issues IDs for the people who live there, and public housing ID is one of the IDs on the list.”

Telling people they can vote using a form of ID that doesn’t exist smacks of a Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake” level of classism and disregard.

Marion went on to explain that provisional ballots, which may be cast by those without proper ID, are a different kind of ballot, and there is no guarantee  that such votes will be counted or any recourse for voters to take to ensure that they are counted.

Are we setting up a two-tiered voter system? One for those who have money and “proper” ID and a second one for the poor? It certainly smells like class warfare to me.

• Jim Vincent, NAACP, “strongly supports” voter ID repeal

Contrasting the opinions of the Democratically controlled Rhode Island State Senate with those of President Obama demonstrates how out of sync Rhode Island politics have become.

Had President Obama testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee using the words he spoke in New York, the conversation might have gone something like this. (All quotes come directly from Obama’s New York speech.)

Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. Voting is a time when we all have an equal say. Black or white, rich or poor, man or woman, doesn’t matter. In the eyes of the law and in our democracy, we’re all supposed to have that equal right to cast our ballot to help determine the direction of our society. The principle of one person, one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status company.

But, says Senator Raptakis, if even one person votes under false pretenses, doesn’t that undermine our electoral process? The President agrees.

Yes, we’re right to be against voter fraud. We don’t want folks voting that shouldn’t be voting. Let’s stipulate to that as the lawyers say. But there is a reason why those who argue that harsh restrictions on voting are somehow necessary to fight voter fraud are having such a hard time proving any real widespread voter fraud. So I just want to give you some statistics. One recent study found only ten cases of alleged in person voter impersonation in 12 years. Ten cases. Another analysis found that out of 197 million votes cast for federal elections between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters out of 197 million were indicted for fraud. For those of you who are math majors, as a percentage, that is 0.00002%. That’s not a lot. So let’s be clear: the real voter fraud is those that try to deny our rights by making arguments about voter fraud.

Senator Metz takes the microphone and tells the President that he has heard anecdotal evidence to the effect that voter fraud has been attempted and taken place. The President is not convinced by anecdotal evidence, because such evidence is useless in determining public policy. Obama counters the unsubstantiated claims of Senator Metz with a fresh dose of reality.

In some places women could be turned away from the poll just because they’re registered under their maiden name but their driver’s license has their married name. Senior citizens are told they cannot vote until they come up with the right I.D. About 60% of Americans don’t have a passport. Just because you don’t have the money to travel abroad doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to vote here at home.

Now the Senators are getting annoyed. They don’t want to hear logical arguments and ethics. They want to solve imaginary problems and ensure their reelections. It is suggested that repealing the Voter I.D. law will send the signal that voter fraud is somehow okay in Rhode Island. Obama looks confused, and decides to explain his position in such a way that even a Rhode Island State Senator might understand.

It is wrong, deadly wrong, to deny any of your fellow Americans the right on vote. It’s wrong to it make citizens wait for five, six hours just to vote. It’s wrong to make a senior citizen who no longer has a driver’s license jump through hoops to exercise the right she has cherished for a lifetime. Americans did not sacrifice for the right to vote only to see it denied to their kids and their grandchildren.

There are a whole bunch of folks out there who don’t vote for me, didn’t vote for me, don’t like what I do. The idea that I would prevent them from exercising their franchise makes no sense. Black or white, man or woman, urban, rural, rich, poor, Native American, disabled, gay, straight, Republican or Democrat, voters who want to vote should be able to vote.

Period. Full stop.

You can watch President Obama’s full speech below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rjGh1QK4gk

One of the untold stories about the Voter ID fight in Rhode Island is that it has distracted us from making actual improvements to our election system that could have a direct and measurable improvement for voters. Just this week the Pew Center came out with a 50 state ranking of election administration.  While the average state improved 4.4 percent from 2008 to 2012 Rhode Island stagnated. So Rhode Island, which was once hailed by the Brennan Center as a leader in voter registration, is now losing ground.

Two of the other bills being heard last night would help us catch up:

S 2676 by Senator Gayle Goldin creates a system for online voter registration.  In 2008 there were only two states that allow voters to register to vote, or alter their registration, using an online tool.  As of last week, there are 22 states that have authorized such systems.  In states where online voter registration has been adopted tens of thousands of citizens have taken advantage.  Since we know that the more likely threat to election integrity are poor voter rolls, a system of online registration is the real way to reduce our dirty rolls and prevent registration fraud.  Here’s the kicker; online voter registration not only makes it easier for people to register and change registration, but it saves cities and towns a ton of money.

S 2237 by Senator Erin Lynch creates a system of in-person early voting.  Currently 32 states have some sort of in-person early voting.  Rhode Island clings to a system from the 19th Century designed to accommodate an agricultural society where in-person voting only happens on Election Day.  Senator Lynch’s bill would provide for evening and weekend hours accommodating citizens who lead 21st Century lives.  In recent years Rhode Island has shortened Election Day by an hour and increased the number of voters per precinct.  As the rest of the country makes advances, we retreat.  In-person early voting has even been cited such as Hurricane Sandy.

While it’s right to be concerned about Rhode Island’s Voter ID law, let’s not forget there are a lot of areas where we need to make improvements.