Credit: LA Weekly

In anticipation of the next court hearing in June, opponents of California’s top-two nonpartisan primary filed another brief on Tuesday, May 21.

The Rubin v. Bowen case is one of the long lasting lawsuits against Proposition 14, which created a top-two nonpartisan primary system in California after being approved by voters in 2010. The plaintiffs opposing the new system include members of the Green Party, California Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party.

In the briefs submitted on Tuesday, the plaintiffs repeat the same arguments they have been making since the beginning of the trial in November 2011. Among these arguments is a reiteration that political parties have a “constitutional right” to be on the November ballot.

This is the same argument rejected by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case brought by the Republican Party challenging Washington state’s nonpartisan primary. In fact, California’s Proposition 14 was amended by its authors to specifically comport with the 9th district’s ruling.

This continued opposition to the top-two primary by minor parties, their members, and their candidates lies on a misunderstanding of the essence of the reform. By voting in favor of Proposition 14, voters decided to put their right as citizens to pick whomever they want in June — regardless of party affiliation — before the right of private organizations — the parties — to have a guaranteed spot in November.

Where the plaintiffs saw a maneuver to discriminate against minor parties, Californians actually saw an opportunity to break free from the partisan electoral structure. With this lawsuit, the plaintiffs are arguing that their right as parties to be on the ballot in the general election supersedes the right of Californians to choose a nonpartisan primary system, whereby all candidates and voters participate equally.

The plaintiffs point out that the top-two primary system resulted in less minor party candidates to reach the general election than in the past. While this is true, it does not take into account the fact that while more minor party candidate were on the November ballot under the old system, not a single third party or non-partisan candidate actually won an election in the last 100 years in California.

Besides, the authors of Proposition 14 continue to argue that the nonpartisan primary isn’t about candidates, its about voters. The measure was adopted with the hope that changing the electoral process would change California’s political environment by forcing candidates, regardless of party affiliation, to be responsive to the entire electorate, not just their partisan base. Minor parties would be better off spending resources to target districts where they can actually win under the new system (like a Green in San Francisco?), instead of fighting for their old spots on the general election ballot that guaranteed defeat.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Credit: “Pennsylvania State Capitol”/ Shutterstock.com

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania held primary elections where voters could choose either a Democrat or Republican candidate who would then proceed to the November ballot in the state’s municipal elections.

Like 17 other states, Pennsylvania has a closed primary system, meaning that only voters registered with the Democratic or Republican parties are allowed to vote. This system prevents over 1 million voters, who have registered as independent or with a minor party, from voting in the primary.

However, like in all states, these partisan primary elections are ultimately funded by the taxpayers. For this year’s primaries, the bill is estimated at $20 million. Although such a system has historically been the status quo, a growing share of independents in the American electorate are now speaking out.

On Tuesday, Matt Zencey, a writer for Pennlive and The Patriot-News, published a piece in which he argues that the closed primary system in Pennsylvania potentially violates the state’s constitution:

“Then there’s that whole “free and equal” elections thing in the Pennsylvania constitution. Although the courts have yet to consider the question, I believe that a taxpayer-funded election which excludes a particular class of duly registered voters is not “free and equal” under Pennsylvania’s constitution.”

More ideas to address this issue are currently being discussed. State Sen. Rob Teplitz supports a bill that would allow independents to register with one of the two main parties in order to vote in the primary before reverting to their original status. Yet, this remains a cumbersome process that would still not offer true equality to voters not registered with the two main parties, leaving many non-party affiliated voters feeling separate, but equal.

Matt Zencey and Jennifer Bullock, founder of Independent Pennsylvanians, both consider the nonpartisan top-two open primary a likely solution to the issue. A third solution, evoked by Barry Kauffman from Common Cause, could be to make the parties pay for their primaries.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

The Pew Research Center released a new public opinion poll and it shows a disparity between how the American people perceive the actions of the Presidency and the Congress. The poll also shows public perception of the two branches as being uncooperative.

President Obama’s job remains approved by a majority of Americans (51 percent) while both Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have less than a one-third approval rating. Republican leaders, with 22 percent job approval rating, the lowest rate for congressional leaders from either party in 20 years.

Credit: Pew Research Center

Despite having their actions disapproved in general, the Republicans in Congress are considered to do a better job, or as good of a job, than Democrats on three major issues: economy, immigration and gun control.

However, 80 percent of Americans believe that Obama and Republican leaders are not working together, up from 65 percent in February 2011. Forty-two percent believe that Republicans are to blame rather than Obama (22 percent).

The study also shows that most Americans say that Obama stands up for what he believes in (76 percent), that he fights hard to pass his policies (67 percent) but only 49 percent think he is able to get things done.

Credit: Pew Research Center

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Credit: Angie Newsome

Gerrymandering, the process by which the redistricting process is used to favor a party or candidate, is considered to be one of the reasons behind the current extremely partisan political environment. The North Carolina legislature is pushing a bill that would create a nonpartisan redistricting commission.

Under the current system, the redistricting process is controlled by the state Legislature. As a result, the party in power will tend to draw districts so that they mostly favor its candidates. During the 2011 redistricting process, Republicans benefited the most from the new electoral districts.

To avoid this problem in the future, redistricting reform has been introduced in the North Carolina House of Representatives. HB 606, sponsored by two Democrats and two Republicans, and co-sponsored by 57 members of both parties, would make the redistricting process nonpartisan by leaving it in the hands of an independent advisory commission.

The commission would be made up of four people selected by House and Senate leaders from the majority and minority parties. The four nominees would then choose a fifth person to be the chairman.

The five-member advisory commission would draw the lines without consideration for “voter registration statistics, past election results and racial statistics, except as required by the federal Voting Rights Act.” The map would then be submitted to the legislature to be voted on. If the proposed plan fails twice, the Legislature would take over the redistricting process.

With its current support, the bill will likely pass the House. However, it is uncertain if the Senate will do the same. Last year, a similar initiative was successful in the House, but failed in the Senate.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Credit: M.LIBERT/«20 MINUTES»

On Tuesday, France became the fourteenth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. The French Parliament, after months of legislative process and a very vocal opposition from the French Catholic community, finally passed the law creating marriage equality.

Soon after his election in May 2012, socialist President Francois Hollande made the legalization of same-sex marriage a priority. With more than 55 percent of the French population in favor of legalizing the union of same-sex couples and a majority in parliament that would support the law, this should have been a smooth process.

On the contrary, the nation of the Declaration of Human Rights saw its parliament discuss the law for nearly 200 hours in chaotic conditions unworthy of modern democracy. Representatives on both sides were disciplined 126 times during the debates, but they came to blows, starting a brawl requiring a suspension of the session.

The outbreaks of criticism were not limited to the parliament. Opponents of the law, mostly the French Catholic community, organized many protests in Paris that gathered several hundred thousand people coming from all part of France. Despite the pacifist nature of most of the protesters, a number of homophobic verbal or physical attacks have sadly been reported.

During the six months of heated arguments, same-sex marriage was calmly adopted in other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, conservative Prime Minister David Cameron pushed the House of Commons to vote in favor of the legalization, despite the opposition of some members of his party.

Uruguay became the twelfth country in the world and second South American country to legalize same-sex marriage on April 10. New Zealand‘s conservative-controlled parliament also adopted same-sex marriage a week later.

In the end, despite all the protests, the name-calling, and the violence, France finally came through and legalized same-sex marriage. It is now time for celebration for many French people and, more importantly, for appeasement for the whole country.

If only this historical moment could have been concluded with the same humor displayed by Maurice Williamson, a conservative member of parliament in New Zealand.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Credit: Oxfam

The UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty started on Monday. The goal of the conference is to come to an agreement on the international trade of weapons, which has plagued the world for decades.

Once again, the U.S. will play a vital role in the success or failure of these negotiations and to lead to a strong arms trade treaty. However, to come to any kind of acceptable agreement on the world-table, the United States will have to stop listening to its gun lobby.

The last attempt to come to an agreement lasted eleven years, before talks failed in the summer of 2012. This delay was both welcomed and encouraged by political interests in the U.S.

The strategic benefits for President Obama, who was in the middle of a presidential campaign, were obvious. Yet, for the numerous human rights organizations in favor of the treaty and the estimated 325,000 lives that have been taken by armed conflicts worldwide since the failure of the July conference, the consequences were more than political.

The international arms trade, which is worth approximately $100 billion, is larger than the socio-economic development of many regions of the world. It is also responsible for the death of about 2,000 people a day. Yet, no international regulation has ever been put in place to control this trade. Tweet it: Tweet

The Arms Trade Treaty would create a framework that would prohibit the international transfer of weapons in situations where these weapons are “likely to be used for grave violations of international human rights, humanitarian law.” This is a standard already practiced by the U.S. and European countries.

But, because the US is the world’s biggest weapons manufacturer, making up to 40 percent of the global market, a treaty cannot exist without its participation. Major steps in that direction were taken when, on Friday, John Kerry said that he will support an arms trade treaty, “that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability.” Share the news: Tweet

However, the current environment political environment may not be ready for another heated gun debate, especially on an international level. The gun regulation talks that have followed the Newtown shooting have actually strengthened and funded the pro-gun lobby.

Just last week, Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS), Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA), with the support of  28 Senators and and 121 representatives, introduced a resolution in both houses raising concerns about the Arms Trade Treaty.

The Secretary of State addressed these concerns and reassured that the U.S. will only agree to a treaty that addresses the international transfer of conventional weapons. The American Bar Association also published a white paper in which they explained that the treaty, as drafted during the July conference, was on conformity with the U.S. Constitution and did not infringe on the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms and the issue of gun control is part of the American exceptionalism that informs the political debate in this country. However, this exceptionalism should not be achieved at the expense of the life of hundred of thousands of people.

The world needs the U.S. to do the right thing, and that is for its leaders to stop listening to the gun lobby for the next two weeks.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Since the official results of the election were published, a lot has been said about the disparity between the popular vote, in which the Democratic candidates received a majority of the votes, yet a majority of the House seats went to the GOP.

These results can be explained by the use of partisan gerrymandering, which is the practice of redrawing electoral districts to create an advantage for a particular party or group of people.

Electoral districts are redrawn for two reasons. The first reason is that the constitution requires states to allocate seats in the House of Representatives to each state based on population. Every ten years, the districts must be redrawn based on updated census information.

The second reasons is that, in the 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that the states must make sure that their congressional and state legislative districts have roughly the same population. Thus, even if the number of congressional seats in a state did not change, they still have to redraw the lines of the districts according to the demographic evolution.

The task of redrawing the electoral boundaries however has been subject to partisan manipulation for decades. In fact, 37 state legislatures have primary control of their own district lines, and 42 legislatures have primary control over the congressional lines in their state. In the other states, either a politician or an independent commission are in charge of the redistricting.

Thus in many states, the party who controls the state legislature when the electoral boundaries have to be redrawn can control the redistricting process. As a result, the GOP or the Democratic Party often draw the lines in their favor. Sometimes, they really go out of there way to achieve the desired result.

For a quick example, take a look at the 7th District in Pennsylvania which was drawn in order to transform a usually pro-Democratic district into a Republican district:

Credit: Brennan Center for Justice

Another example is the old 23rd district in California, the “ribbon of shame” as Gov. Schwarzenegger named it. This district snakes the cost of California for nearly 200 miles in order to avoid the GOP inland neighborhood and favor Democratic Representative Lois Capps.

Credit: Brennan Center for Justice

There are examples of crazy districts all around the country, and makes the political field less competitive at many levels. When one party takes the upper hand during the redistricting, it has the effect of making the district “safe” for a particular party for an entire decade.

As a result of making districts safe for one side of the partisan divide, both parties don’t have to spend as much money during the general election. This is because such districts are not competitive. In more practical terms, these manipulations take the democratic process away from the general electorate and give it to the partisan representatives that often draw the lines.

Districts were redrawn in 2010. Over the next 8 years, activists in many states will be pushing for changes like the recent initiative in California, which created an independent redistricting commission, or Florida, which added a new “Fair redistricting criteria.” Such initiative have attempted to take away the process from partisan hands.

It is too soon to know the extent of the changes these reforms have had. It is clear that without any change the gap between the will of the voters and the results will remain wide.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Credit: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/

On Tuesday, after ten days of debate in Parliament, the French Assemblee Nationale passed a law making same-sex marriage legal. The bill passed 329-229 vote. A week after the United Kingdom passed similar legislation, France became the thirteenth country in the world — tenth in Europe — to legalize same-sex marriage. Tweet it: Tweet

As these countries join the growing list of western nations legalizing same-sex marriage, some question if they are creating a new standard on the issue that could affect the United States in the near future. A glance at the manner these two countries dealt with this issue, which could not have been more different, makes it difficult to draw any certain conclusions. Nevertheless, the international climate for marriage equality is sure to enter the United States’ public discourse sooner rather than later. Tweet at @TheTaskForce: Tweet

In the UK, the law was championed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and passed 400 -175, with the support of 41 percent of the conservative members of parliament. The debate of opening up the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples was not without opposition from the Church of England and other religious organizations on top of factions within the Conservative Party. However, 62 percent of Britishnationals favored the law, resulting in a fairly civil national debate. Tweet stat: Tweet

Contrarily, in France, marriage for all was a promise made by socialist President Francois Hollande during the 2012 campaign. Despite a similar percentage of support — about 60 percent of the population — the debate surrounding opening marriage to same-sex couples has been long and violent; not only among the members of France’s Parliament, but similar scenes played out amongst the public as well.

Not one day passed without new verbal attacks made by a politician or religious leader comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia.

Between 350,000 and 800,000 people went in the streets of Paris to protest the law in January. Such opposition to legalize gay marriage in the very liberal, very secular France has surprised many, especially abroad. Time Magazine went as far to ask: “Is gay marriage too progressive for the French?” Tweet at @TIME: Tweet

Despite having the same result, the approach to same-sex marriage in France and the UK seems to be sending contradictory and confusing messages to the international community. On one side, it sends the message that conservatives can be a strong force behind the legalization of same-sex marriage. On the other side, it seems that even within a liberal nation, this issue is far from settled.

Neither of these conclusions are helpful in determining how the changes across the Atlantic could affect the issue in the United States. However, one main finding can be drawn. In both countries, the party in power successfully initiated the reform because it did so at a moment when the popular support for same-sex marriage was quite strong, in both cases above 60 percent.

In recent years, the support among Americans for same-sex marriage has increased, but still hovers around 50 percent. Once a significant majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, activists may decide the iron is hot enough to mount pressure on lawmakers in the U.S. to act. Tweet stat: Tweet

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

A recent Coca-Cola anti-obesity ad has spurred reactions from many; some bad, some good, but more importantly, it is proof that governmental intervention on topics like obesity is necessary.

Last week, for the first time on TV, Coca-Cola addressed the obesity epidemic with two new ads, “Coming Together,” and “Be OK.” This is, according to Steve Cahillane, President of Coca-Cola Americas, an effort by the Atlanta-based company to play a greater role in the obesity debate.

The videos have received criticism on social network websites, like Twitter.  Many people perceive the move as a desperate attempt by the company to clean its image.

This Just in.. #CocaCola joining the fight on obesty next we are going to hear that Jim Bean is sponsoring AA http://t.co/VA7ru3Z1

— Supper Sisters (@SupperSisters) January 16, 2013

Last summer, Coca-Cola and other members of the soda industry not only led a very aggressive campaign against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s soda ban, but also filed a lawsuit against the Board of Health in order to overturn the restrictions.

Coca-Cola’s new campaign is proof that government intervention on an issue such as obesity is good for three reasons:

1. Coca-Cola would not change its habits if not for government pressure

Coca-Cola’s response to attacks that drinking soda leads to weight gain and obesity cannot be unrelated to the lost battle against the New York soda ban. This means that government action has led to corporate change for the better.

In the ad, Coca-Cola prides itself in having voluntarily diminished the number of calories in the drinks accessible in school vending machines by 90 percent since 2006.

However, this self-regulation was not completely voluntary as it came at a time when state and local authorities started to enact legislation restricting the type of beverages that could be sold in schools; once again proving that corporate change followed government measures.

2. Coca-Cola applies the same principles as the government 

Coca-Cola’s strategy to reduce calorie intake in its ad confirms that the policies used by the government are the rights ones. The company chose to limit choices to low or no calorie drinks in school vending machines, putting a de facto ban on full sugar beverages.

In creating a new line of smaller sized products, Coca-Cola is emphasizing that limits on the sale of super-sized sodas is not without warrant.

3. Campaigns Such as the Coca Cola one Remains Insufficient and Misleading

Mark Bittman, food columnist at the New York Times, had the perfect description for the Coca-Cola ad: “So professional. So brilliant. So smart. And so deceitful.” Tweet this quote: Tweet

If this obesity campaign is a start in recognizing the link between soda and obesity, Coca-Cola presents its product as just another type of food, with its share of calories.

Missing from the campaign, however, is that sodas account for seven percent of the American adult calorie intake, more than any other ingredient. Also, calories from sugary drinks are different than other calories as they have no nutritional value at all. At best, they are calories that you do not need. At worst, they are linked to diseases such as obesity and diabetes, according to Mark Bittman.

These discrepancies between the world described in advertisements and reality are a normal part of any corporation’s marketing strategy. However, it is a last reminder that when it comes to an issue such as obesity, leaving it to the industry to self-regulate is an illusion.

If we do want to commit this country to solve the issue of epidemic obesity, people will have to accept that governmental initiatives are needed to make progress.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.

Credit: UN

The question of gun control has fiercely reentered the American dialogue and in 2013 the issue is set to incur an intense battle within Congress.

If the issue of gun control in the United States desperately needs to be addressed, President Obama needs to act on a second front and support an historical treaty regulating the arms trade. In March 2013, the UN will reconvene in another attempt to reach an agreement on an international treaty that would regulate the trade of conventional weapons.

This upcoming conference is the last opportunity to reach an agreement in the UN structure, according to Dr. Natalie Goldring, a senior research fellow at the Center for Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

The issue of regulating the international arms trade has lasted more than two decades. According to NGOs in favor of the treaty, there are approximately 639 million small arms and light weapons in the world today, killing one person every minute and leaving millions of others living in fear. Easy access to weapons in conflict zones has been detrimental to the progression of peace, as well as allowed devastating human rights violations; Sudan, Syria and Congo being the most recent examples of such atrocities.

Additional costs of the arms trade include its impact on the economic development of conflict regions such as Africa, as well as widespread corruption in arms transactions. However, contrary to others goods, there has never been an agreement on the international trade of arms in a global market where it is currently more difficult to trade fruits than guns.

Among the countries reluctant to see stricter market regulation for guns are China, Iran, Egypt, Syria, but also the United States, the world’s number one weapons dealer with 40% of the market for conventional weapons. In fact, in 2006, the United States, under the Bush administration, was the only country to oppose the resolution that started the negotiations for an international treaty on the sale of small arms and light weapons.

In 2009, the Obama administration broke with this tradition, and entered negotiations before withdrawing again at the last minute. This was the major reason behind the failure of the negotiation round in July 2012. The November election was coming, and as usual the gun control issue was a topic to be avoided by political campaigns. The NRA had an effective campaign about the potential consequences the treaty would have on the 2nd Amendment, leading 51 Senators to oppose the treaty.

The purpose of the treaty is to create a framework that would prohibit the international transfer of weapons in situations where these weapons are ”likely to be used for grave violations of international human rights, humanitarian law.” The treaty is in no way addressing the issue of how the United States manages its internal weapon trade, and thus would have no affect on the 2nd Amendment.

While it is expected that in an international negotiation not every player will leave completely satisfied with the result, the absence of agreement from the biggest weapons manufacturer in the world will considerably affect the chances of a successful outcome. Thankfully, the United States has agreed to participate in the March negotiation round.

The Obama administration appears to be serious about tackling the scourge of gun violence in the U.S., but its legacy could be truly great by successfully addressing gun trade around the world. The U.S. delegation should actively participate in helping the UN Arms Trade Treaty conference be a success, as well as make sure that the pro-gun lobby does not misinform the public and endanger the treaty’s success.

In July, the US delegation already imposed many restrictions in the treaty in order to make sure the Second Amendment remains protected. Despite these guaranties, the NRA has already announced they will continue to oppose the Arms Trade Treaty.

Now is time for political courage to finally tackle an issue which has been too costly for humankind for far too long.

Lucas EavesThe Frog and The Eagle - A Frenchman's journey in the land of the free.