#is now directly responsible and automatically supporter that gov | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

As recently as 2015, automatic voter registration did not exist in the United States. Yet today, 16 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted (though in several cases, not yet implemented) some version of AVR. Almost overnight, it has become a core part of the agenda for those who want to make it easier for more people to vote. This year alone, AVR bills have been introduced in 39 states.1 Where they can’t convince the legislature, AVR advocates sometimes take their case to the people — Alaska, Michigan and Nevada have all enacted the policy via ballot measure. And someday, AVR could become a national mandate: It was a centerpiece of H.R. 1, the voting-rights bill passed earlier this year by the newly Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

AVR is meant to help people register to vote without needing to remember to do so — states just automatically register eligible citizens whenever they first interact with a government agency, usually the Department of Motor Vehicles, though some states include other agencies as well. Say you’re in California and you’re renewing your driver’s license. Unless you opt out, you’re going to be on a voter roll by the time you leave the DMV. AVR proponents say this can inject thousands of new voters into the electorate and help achieve near-universal voter registration.

That logic assumes, though, that being unregistered is the main thing that stops some people from voting. There’s another option: that unregistered people are mostly those who were never going to vote anyway. If that’s the case, turnout wouldn’t change much no matter how many more people got registered.

To find out whether states that automatically register voters saw an increase in electoral participation, FiveThirtyEight collected registration and turnout statistics from all eight jurisdictions that implemented AVR in time for the 2018 general election (Alaska, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont). To our knowledge, this is the first time this data has been made public for multiple states, and therefore the first opportunity to see how registration trends changed.

Our analysis shows that people who were registered through AVR do vote — but not necessarily at the same rate as those who register themselves. Let’s run through the numbers:

From the day they first implemented AVR through their 2018 voter-registration deadline,2 those eight places automatically registered around 2.2 million new voters. (Although, as we’ll talk about in a minute, some of those voters surely would have registered without AVR.)

As many as 6 million existing voters who interacted with a government agency had their voter registrations automatically updated — for example, by replacing an outdated address.3

Millions were registered by automatic voter registration

Number of new voters registered by AVR and number of existing voters whose records were updated via AVR, through the 2018 election

Jurisdiction start of AVR data New AVR Registrants AVR updated registrations Alaska March 1, 2017 46,088 321,303 California April 1, 2018* 624,871 1,607,328 Colorado March 1, 2017 240,968 634,369 D.C. June 27, 2018 7,685 40,505 Georgia Sept. 1, 2016 702,635 2,335,739 Oregon Jan. 1, 2016 516,695 Up to 907,494** Rhode Island June 11, 2018 6,835 37,810 Vermont Jan. 1, 2017 26,852 9,696

Numbers include all people who used AVR to register or update their registration. It’s impossible to know how many AVR users would have manually registered or updated their registration in the absence of AVR. * California’s AVR program didn’t start until April 23, 2018, but the state reports data by month, so the data starts on the first of the month. ** Oregon only reports AVR registration updates by year, so its data includes updates to registrations that were processed after Election Day, though Dec. 31, 2018.

Source: Election officials

In the four jurisdictions that reported turnout among the newly registered voters, between 42 percent and 54 percent of them cast a ballot in 2018.4 Voters who registered through a means other than AVR turned out at rates between 46 percent and 76 percent in these places, though some of these people did have their registrations updated through AVR.

In Colorado, Oregon and Vermont, overall turnout was significantly higher than turnout among people who were registered automatically, which means people who registered themselves were much more likely to vote. However, in Rhode Island, the AVR and overall turnout rates were about the same. And in the District of Columbia, turnout was actually higher among those who had been automatically registered than among the general population.

Turnout rates among automatically registered voters

The number of voters registered via AVR who turned out to vote in the 2018 general election and how their turnout rate compares with overall turnout

Jurisdiction AVR Voters AVR Turnout Rate Overall Turnout Rate* Colorado 107,206 44% 68% D.C. 4,184 54 46 Oregon 219,262 42 70 Rhode Island 3,245 47 48 Vermont** 2,058 to 11,754 8 to 44 57

Numbers include all voters who used AVR to register regardless of whether they would have manually registered in the absence of AVR. AVR turnout data is not available for Alaska, California or Georgia. * Among registered voters. ** The only data available from Vermont was that a combined 11,754 people whose voter registrations were either created or updated by AVR voted.

Source: Election Officials

Now for the caveats. A kind of statistical counterfactual haunts these numbers: We can’t know how many of these voters would have registered (or updated their registrations) without AVR. For one thing, new eligible voters are created every day as people turn 18 or become citizens, and many of them could be captured by AVR before they get around to registering themselves to vote. And even those who were previously eligible might have added themselves to the rolls without AVR. Take, for example, someone who just moved to Colorado or a past nonvoter who’s fired up about the 2020 race: They both may have planned to register themselves but the DMV got to them first. And it’s possible that AVR registrants who would have registered even without AVR wound up turning out at higher rates than those who wouldn’t have registered otherwise, which would drive up turnout numbers for the whole group.

But based on what we do know, AVR appears to deserve at least some of the credit for this boost in civic participation. For example, according to Colorado state election officials, the state saw a big increase in the number of people registering to vote at the DMV after spring 2017, which they attribute to the implementation of AVR. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice, an advocacy group that supports AVR (among a number of other causes), found that AVR was directly responsible for increased registration rates in several states. And then there’s the behavioral economics of it all. Reed College professor Paul Gronke told FiveThirtyEight that social science research has generally found that an opt-out system (like AVR) is more effective than an opt-in one (like having to actively register yourself).

The story, though, doesn’t end there. Each state implements AVR a little — and sometimes a lot — differently. What makes the system work better in some places than in others? It’s a big question for voting-rights advocates as they push to export the most effective versions of AVR to even more states.

How to register as many voters as possible

On March 16, 2015, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown made history by signing the nation’s first AVR law — and also, apparently, one of the most successful. According to our data, Oregon registered the most voters per capita per day5 of any jurisdiction in our sample. The state has gone from 73 percent of eligible voters being registered at the time of the 2014 election to 90 percent for the 2018 election.

Oregon’s success may be at least partly credited to the fact that AVR registrants are given the option to opt out not at the DMV, but in a notice mailed to them after the fact6; voters have 21 days to return the notice and cancel their registration. By contrast, most other states ask people if they want to opt out at the time of the transaction itself.

This kind of delayed system is controversial. Many AVR supporters prefer the back-end system — where voters are sent an opt-out notice after their transaction is over — because they believe it results in more registrations. Jeanne Atkins, who was secretary of state when AVR first passed in Oregon, said that a system like Oregon’s also minimizes the burden on DMV employees, who would otherwise have to walk voters through more of the registration process.

But others, such as election-law expert Christy McCormick, prefer a front-end system — where voters are asked if they want to opt out at the time of the transaction — because it puts the agency in voters’ hands. For example, what if an Oregonian wants to purposely stay unregistered for political or religious reasons? He might miss the mailing and get registered against his will. For some people, automatic registration could even be a safety issue. Voter registration records (including home addresses) are public information in some states (including Oregon), and although Oregonians can apply to keep their information confidential, someone who gets registered without realizing it and then misses the opt-out notice might not know that their address was publicly available — which could be dangerous for victims of stalking or those escaping domestic violence.

But registering voters is only half the battle. Oregon’s system hasn’t translated to a high number of new votes. Only 42 percent of automatically registered Oregonians turned out in the 2018 election — well below the 70 percent of all Oregon registered voters who returned a ballot. That means Oregon was either the worst or second-worst jurisdiction of the five we examined at converting new registrants into voters.7 Oregon struggled with this in 2016, too: 47 percent (118,494 out of 251,209) of automatically registered voters that year cast a valid ballot,8 whereas 80 percent of all registered voters did.

It’s easy to venture a guess about why the numbers are low: By definition, AVR-registered voters are those who were previously unregistered, suggesting many aren’t all that interested in politics, or at least aren’t already in the habit of voting. But not all places have such low AVR turnout rates.

How to get new voters to turn out

In the District of Columbia, only 46 percent of all registered voters turned out in 2018, but 54 percent of automatically registered voters did. And in Rhode Island, the difference between the overall turnout rate and the AVR turnout rate was less than a percentage point. What did these places do differently?

Councilmember Charles Allen, who introduced D.C.’s AVR law, credits the city’s high AVR turnout rate to the fact that the district sends postcards to every registered voter just before an election to remind them to vote. And in Rhode Island, a DMV employee verbally asks customers if they want to opt out, which Atkins theorized may make those who don’t opt out more likely to know they are registered — and therefore more likely to vote — than under a system like Oregon’s.

However, AVR advocate and progressive activist Sean McElwee disagreed that a one-time bureaucratic interaction is enough to get someone politically engaged; he believes campaigns are the best way to activate voters. Indeed, one way that AVR can actually lead to higher turnout is that automatically registered voters’ data is more up to date, making it easier to contact them and urge them to vote. Thus, AVR turnout may be a better measure of how successful campaigns were at targeting the pool of automatic registrants than how successful the government’s implementation of AVR was.

It could also be that D.C. and Rhode Island just got lucky. Other states with front-end opt-outs (notably, Colorado and Vermont) did not see high AVR turnout rates,9 and most AVR jurisdictions mail new registrants something — either an opt-out form or a simple reminder — saying that they are now registered (though they do it immediately after the transaction, not necessarily right before the election).

To that point, Whitney Quesenbery, the co-director of the Center for Civic Design, an organization that consults on the usability of forms and systems related to the voting process, offered one last theory for D.C. and Rhode Island’s high turnout rates: Both places rolled out AVR during the summer of 2018. That means that everyone who was automatically registered in those jurisdictions went through the process within a few months of the election. Accordingly, all new voters there received two or three reminders of their registration status in the thick of campaign season — first, when they registered at a government agency; second, when they received confirmation of their registration in the mail; and, in D.C., third, when they received the usual pre-election postcard.

What’s the data not telling us?

Most of these numbers tell the story of AVR’s successes, but not its failures. California stands as a cautionary tale of how AVR can create serious problems when government agencies are incompetent or unprepared. There, the legislature dropped AVR in the lap of an understaffed, overcrowded DMV with an outdated computer system the department described as “a 40-year-old dinosaur,” and the state rushed to get AVR in place before the June 2018 primary. Not surprisingly, the rollout was a mess, exposing the system to foreign hackers, glitching out on users and failing to register some people in time to vote. Users complained that the interface was confusing, and DMV employees were not properly trained to answer their questions.

An audit found that the system created nearly 84,000 duplicate voter registrations in its first five months, which county election officials had to laboriously fix one at a time. More than 171,000 people were not registered with the political party they should have been. Worse, the system introduced inaccuracies into 23,000 people’s voter records, including 4,600 people who opted out but were registered anyway. Most seriously, the state admitted in October 2018 that employees making sloppy data entries had wrongly registered an additional 1,500 people — including at least a few noncitizens.

“While California’s system design and rollout was particularly mismanaged, it demonstrates the problems that [AVR] risks generating,” Lisa Dixon, the publications director for Lawyers Democracy Fund, an election-integrity advocacy group that’s opposed to AVR, wrote in an email to FiveThirtyEight. Basically, any time you give more agencies access to the voter database, more agencies could screw it up. And in addition to the California fiasco, Lawyers Democracy Fund says there are plenty of other reasons to oppose AVR. For one, it can bloat the voter-registration rolls, which can slow down voter processing and make for longer lines at polling places. (Although it’s worth noting that having inaccurate or out-of-date voter records, which AVR can help remedy, also creates problems at polling places.)

Automatic voter registration began as a way to get more voters on the rolls — and the data we have so far suggests it has succeeded. However, we should be careful not to overstate the case for AVR. Doubtlessly, at least some of the people who registered and voted under AVR would have done so in its absence. And there are still valid reasons to oppose AVR, as it can cause serious problems in addition to its benefits.

And in their own ways, both sides of the debate agree that AVR is not a cure-all for the problem of low turnout. As our data shows, many people who were automatically registered still did not vote in the 2018 election. Organizations like campaigns still have to finish the job.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Nathaniel Rakich

4 notes · View notes

tcifiscal · 5 years ago

Text

Virginia Families Are Facing Hunger and Instability Due to the Pandemic: Legislators Should Use Available Federal Funds and Reserves to Help

Too many Virginia families and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat and pay their rent or mortgage in the face of continued devastation from COVID-19 on the main street economy and our daily lives, even as tech stocks drive the stock market to record highs. With consumer spending hurt by high unemployment rates for everyday working people in Virginia and a slow rebound in the service industry and brick-and-mortar retailers, state sales tax revenue is projected to be well below levels from a year ago. The state is also projecting much slower growth in employee income tax withholdings compared to pre-pandemic assumptions. This means that less new state revenue is available even as families, schools, and communities need more help to meet the economic and health crises. The good news is that the state of Virginia has available resources to help meet these increased needs, and policymakers can choose during this special session to deploy those resources to help communities navigate this challenging time.

In particular, policymakers have yet to allocate $1.3 billion of the $3.1 billion the state received from the Coronavirus Relief Fund in the federal CARES legislation. State leaders currently have until Dec. 30 to spend these funds and it’s critical that leaders direct these resources to families and communities. The state has also yet to make use of the $1 billion it has wisely saved in its two reserve funds, which can also play a critical role during this time.

The challenges Virginia faces

Before the impact of COVID-19, the economists and business leaders involved in the state revenue forecasting process expected employment, personal income, and state revenue to continue growing over the next several years, resulting in $22.7 billion in general fund revenue during the current fiscal year (FY 2021) and $23.5 billion in revenue in the next fiscal year (FY 2022). Given the necessary adjustments to daily life to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, Virginia’s economic and revenue forecasters have sharply reduced those projections, resulting in a $1.3 billion (5.9%) reduction in forecasted revenue in FY 2021 and a $1.4 billion (5.7%) reduction in FY 2022.

At the same time state revenues are forecast to decrease, Virginia families need more financial help to prevent a rise in hunger and housing insecurity. Even before the $600/week federal boost to unemployment insurance benefits expired, 10% of Virginia adults reported that their household sometimes or often didn’t have enough to eat in the last seven days, a share that jumps to 18% of adults who are living in families with children. And 1 in 5 adult renters in Virginia was already behind on rent in mid-July. All told, about 400,000 children in Virginia were living in households where there wasn’t enough to eat or they were behind on their rent or mortgage. We expect these numbers to grow as the $600/week boost in unemployment benefits expired at the end of July. The pending CDC order halting some evictions until the end of December is an important step, yet it does not cancel unpaid rent or provide any money toward rental relief. As a result, without further help from the state, the CDC order may not reduce the total number of evictions, instead just delaying them until January.

Virginia has available state and federal resources to help meet these needs, and not spending them risks leaving money on the table

The challenges facing Virginia right now are significant, but the good news is there is money available to help meet these needs. This includes the state’s own reserves that are intended to be used to offset the impact of economic and revenue downturns, increased federal aid to help state and local policymakers meet the health and economic challenges, and options to raise new revenue.

Federal aid includes flexible funds that must be spent by December 30

The most immediate and largest of these is the federal assistance that has been provided to help state and local governments meet the needs of their communities. While these funds are insufficient to fully meet the needs of Virginia communities and more federal aid is needed (as well as more direct assistance to impacted workers and families), Virginia policymakers should be sure to fully use those funds that have been provided.

.tg {border-collapse:collapse;border-color:#ccc;border-spacing:0;} .tg td{background-color:#fff;border-color:#ccc;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;color:#333; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;overflow:hidden;padding:10px 5px;word-break:normal;} .tg th{background-color:#f0f0f0;border-color:#ccc;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;color:#333; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:normal;overflow:hidden;padding:10px 5px;word-break:normal;} .tg .tg-hrtg{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:right;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-ieig{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:left;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-9ip1{border-color:inherit;font-size:14px;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-ackz{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:right;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-422g{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-l7q5{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-1zvd{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;vertical-align:middle} .tg .tg-cgsp{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:left;vertical-align:middle}

Major Federal COVID-19 Aid for Virginia Program/Agency Description Amount Coronavirus Relief Fund (state and local) Flexible support for state and local governments to address the health and economic crises. Fairfax County received an automatic allocation of $200 million of these funds; Gov. Northam has allocated funds to other localities based on population. $3,310,000,000 Provider relief funds Direct payments to hospitals and other providers to address COVID-related costs $1,806,863,962 Enhanced FMAP Higher federal match rate for Medicaid and related services, helping to offset general fund and special health care fund costs. The portion that offsets general fund spending helps offset the expected decrease in general fund revenue. This estimate assumes the federal health emergency continues through all of FY 2021. $1,360,966,817 Federal Transit Administration Support for transit providers to meet current challenges $456,399,000 Airports Support for airports in Virginia to meet current challenges $309,729,000 Elementary & Secondary Education Fund Assistance to K-12 schools in meeting increased costs $238,599,000 Higher Education Relief Fund Assistance to colleges & universities based on enrollment; 50% must be used for emergency financial aid grants to students $294,391,000 Child care development block grants Support for childcare providers to meet current challenges $70,799,000 Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund Flexible funding for to help K-12 schools, colleges, and universities meet the current challenges $66,775,000 Higher Education - HBCUs/MSIs Flexible funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions to address student and institutional needs $41,014,000 Other support from the Families First, CARES, and other recent Acts Additional federal grants for public health, human services, and other needs $338,381,000 (Note: Table excludes direct relief to individuals and businesses such as the improvements to unemployment insurance, Paycheck Protection Program, and economic impact payments.)

The largest of these, the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), is also the most flexible, yet Virginia policymakers have not yet committed or allocated all these funds, creating a risk that some may go unspent by the December 30 deadline despite the urgent need to help Virginia families stay afloat.

Unlike other federal funds that are tied to existing federal-state programs or are directed toward specific uses, state policymakers have greater discretion around the CRF. Expenditures must adhere to federal guidelines, including that spending be “necessary” and “incurred due to the public health emergency.” Under current law, these funds cannot replace general revenue shortfalls or cover costs that were already in the state budget when the CARES Act was enacted in March. In the April version of the state budget, legislators accepted language that provided the governor with the authority to allocate the CRF funds without further legislative action (legislators could choose during the current special session to restrict that authority or dedicate some funds to particular purposes).

Virginia’s total CRF allocation from the federal government is $3.3 billion, of which $200 million was provided directly to Fairfax County, given the locality’s large population. Of the remaining $3.1 billion, the governor’s administration has committed or allocated about $1.8 billion, primarily ($1.3 billion) in the form of support to other local governments. Other allocations include $173 million for the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for testing, personal protective equipment, and other emergency response; $70 million for Small Business Assistance Grants; $59 million for the Virginia Department of Health for contact tracing and UVA equipment; $56 million to support long-term care facilities; and $50 million for mortgage and rental assistance. Of these commitments, Virginia reported about $771 million in actual spending through the end of June, almost entirely in providing assistance to local governments.

It is unclear if Virginia will use CRF money to provide an additional state share of the temporary federal UI benefit boost. Doing so could cost about $135 million for the initial three weeks and an additional $45 million for each additional week that is approved.

However, even if Virginia does that, there is additional flexible Coronavirus Relief Fund money that is not yet committed or allocated by the administration. Under current federal law, any funds that are unspent by December 30 will need to be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

.tg {border-collapse:collapse;border-color:#ccc;border-spacing:0;} .tg td{background-color:#fff;border-color:#ccc;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;color:#333; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;overflow:hidden;padding:10px 5px;word-break:normal;} .tg th{background-color:#f0f0f0;border-color:#ccc;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;color:#333; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:normal;overflow:hidden;padding:10px 5px;word-break:normal;} .tg .tg-ey1n{border-color:inherit;font-size:14px;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-n398{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-vsw9{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:left;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-z2sd{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-77x5{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-2ar8{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:right;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-73a0{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:left;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-3s8j{border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;text-align:right;vertical-align:top} .tg .tg-4xrc{background-color:#f9f9f9;border-color:inherit;font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;vertical-align:top}

Virginia Has Not Yet Allocated All Flexible Coronavirus Relief Fund Money Support for local governments $1,289,146,766 Testing, PPE, and other Dept of Emergency Management $173,060,401 Contact tracing and other Dept of Health $62,448,914 Small Business Assistance Grants $70,000,000 Long-Term Care Facilities Support $55,640,872 Mortgage and Rental Assistance $50,000,000 Personal Protective Equipment for Personal Care Attendants $9,256,178 Emergency Housing for the Homeless $8,828,998 Food security $3,861,953 Other $86,533,371 Total from Treasury $3,109,502,836 Allocated to date $1,808,777,453 Remaining $1,300,725,383

Virginia’s revenue reserves and unspent balances should be used to smooth the impact of the pandemic on families and communities

Policymakers in Virginia have wisely put money away over the last three years to help meet Virginia’s needs during an economic downturn. And through a hiring freeze and other actions, the governor’s administration increased the amount of cash that Virginia has on hand in addition to the two reserve funds. While maximizing the use of federal resources should be the first step, policymakers should also make use of the state’s own tools to address the impact of the pandemic and meet the growing needs of a growing population.

Using some of these funds should not negatively impact Virginia’s credit rating. In general, rating agencies have indicated that drawing down rainy day funds is appropriate during a downturn as part of a comprehensive budget strategy. “Rating agencies typically favor states that design their rainy day funds to align with turns in the economic cycle by depositing revenue during good times and spending those reserves when things turn bad” (Jeff Chapman, Airlie Loiaconi & Sheanna Gomes, Pew Charitable Trusts).

Long-term structural balance -- having ongoing revenue that is sufficient to meet the state’s ongoing expenses under reasonable assumptions about economic growth -- is also, rightly, an important consideration for rating agencies. This is evaluated by rating agencies in the context of the economic cycle; withdrawing money from rainy day funds during economic expansions would generally be viewed negatively by rating agencies. However, Virginia and the U.S. as a whole are not in an economic expansion, and the short-term use of reserve funds to meet the needs of state residents during a downturn is not the same thing as a long-term structural imbalance. Additionally, many of the needed interventions to protect Virginia families from the pandemic, such as additional rent and mortgage relief, are not ongoing expenses.

Policymakers can invest in protecting Virginia families and communities during pandemic

There are a number of ways that legislators could use the available federal and state funds to help Virginia families during the current health and economic challenges. These include additional rent and mortgage relief, food assistance for families who are struggling without employment, unemployment insurance payments for immigrant families and others who have been left out of federal help, sick leave and hazard pay for public sector and healthcare workers, removing barriers to health insurance for certain legally present immigrants, and reallotting funding for K-12 schools to help them meet the increased challenges of education during a pandemic. In some cases, the governor’s proposed budget uses state resources to help meet the increase in needs (for example, the governor’s budget proposal uses the TANF trust fund to provide food assistance to families with children in Head Start), yet more help is needed, and policymakers should consider using available CRF funds before tapping the state’s funds.

Virginia policymakers do not need to reinvent the wheel in order to help families and communities get by. Other states are using federal funds and state reserves to meet the needs of their communities at this time. For example, Oregon is using $35 million of federal funds to provide $500 one-time payments to any worker who has been impacted by job-related income loss. Hawaii has provided $100 million in housing assistance, Pennsylvania has provided $175 million in rent and mortgage assistance, and Florida has provided at least $240 million to help keep people in their homes. Maine has used $176 million to purchase a three-month supply of personal protective equipment for K-12 schools. And Iowa provided $57 million for child care providers. These are just a few examples from the National Conference of State Legislature roundup of how states are using CRF money. States are also using reserves to, for example, limit cuts to K-12 education support.

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting recession are highly unusual events. Virginia policymakers have done a good job over the last three years of preparing the state for unexpected events by saving money in the state reserve funds. Now policymakers should use these funds, as well as available federal funds, to help families and communities stay afloat. It’s raining in Virginia, and it’s time to deploy our umbrellas.

-- Laura Goren, Research Director, and Chris Wodicka, Policy Analyst

Print-friendly Version (pdf)

Learn more about The Commonwealth Institute at www.thecommonwealthinstitute.org

0 notes

afroavocadowitch · 4 years ago

Text

News and important information on POS Hardware & Point of Sale.

Emerging from closed-door negotiations between the Texas House and Senate, a GOP priority bill to enact new restrictions on voting has swelled beyond what each chamber originally passed to limit local control of elections and curtail voting options, and now includes even more voting law changes.

Worked out by a conference committee after the two chambers passed substantially different pieces of legislation, the final version of Senate Bill 7 takes from both iterations to cut back early voting hours, ban drive-thru voting and further clamp down on voting-by-mail rules. It also now includes various additional rule changes that weren’t part of each chamber’s previous debate on the bill. Lawmakers are expected to formally sign off on the agreement in the next day and send it to Gov. Greg Abbott for his signature before it becomes law.

The final bill keeps in its crosshairs initiatives used by Harris County during last fall’s general election — such as a day of 24-hour early voting and voting sites that allowed voters to cast ballots from their cars — that proved particularly popular among voters of color. But the legislation will also block local efforts to expand voting options across the state.

SB 7 has been at the legislative forefront as the 2021 Texas Legislature eagerly joined in Republican efforts across the nation to enact sweeping changes to voting laws in the name of “election integrity,” although there is little to no evidence of widespread fraud. Earlier in the legislative session, Abbott conceded at a related press conference that he was unaware of instances of fraud that had upended an election in 2020. And one of the state’s top election officials told House lawmakers at an early committee hearing that “Texas had an election that was smooth and secure.”

Cajoling over the ways in which Texas voters’ access to the ballot box could narrow under proposed restrictions played out in lengthy public hearings, protracted floor debates, chaotic committee action and middle-of-the-night votes in both the Senate and House where Republican majorities advanced SB 7.

The bill has been negotiated over the last week out of the public eye after the House slimmed down the bill and swapped out all of the Senate’s proposals with language from a different House bill that was narrower in scope. But the final version of SB 7 ultimately brought back many proposals from the Senate’s more expansive version, including the ban on drive-thru voting.

The legislation requires more counties to offer at least 12 hours of early voting each weekday of the last week of early voting, but sets a new window of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. for voting. This would directly preempt Harris County’s 24-hour voting, which it planned to keep for future elections. It would also slightly shorten the extra hours other large counties offered in the last election by keeping their polling places open until 10 p.m. — three hours past the usual 7 p.m. closing time — for at least a few days.

The bill also sets a new window for early voting on Sundays, limiting it from 1 to 9 p.m.

SB 7 also makes it a state jail felony for local officials to proactively send mail-in ballot applications to voters who did not request them. This is another response to Harris County, where officials attempted to send applications to all 2.4 million registered voters last year. Other Texas counties sent applications to voters 65 and older without much scrutiny. Although those voters automatically qualify to vote by mail, mailing unrequested applications to them in the future would also be banned.

Counties would also be prohibited from using public funds “to facilitate” the unsolicited distribution of ballot applications by third parties, which would keep them from also providing applications to local groups helping to get out the vote. Political parties would still be free to send unsolicited applications on their own dime — a practice regularly employed by both Republicans and Democrats.

The final version of the bill further tightens voting-by-mail rules by establishing a new requirement for voters requesting a ballot to provide their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, if they have one. That language comes from separate Republican bills that failed to pass on their own.

Voters will also be required to include that information on the return envelopes containing their ballots for their votes to be counted.

Beyond its new restrictions on voting rules, SB 7 expands the freedoms of partisan poll watchers. Currently, poll watchers are entitled to sit or stand “conveniently near” election workers. SB 7 would entitle them to be “near enough to see and hear” the election activity. The bill also adds language to the Texas Election Code to allow them “free movement” within a polling place, except for being present at a voting station when a voter is filling out a ballot.

Provisions dropped by the conference committee include a controversial measure that would’ve allowed poll watchers to record voters receiving assistance filling out their ballots if the poll watcher “reasonably believes” the help is unlawful. That change had raised particular concerns about the possible intimidation of voters who speak languages other than English and voters with disabilities who would be more likely to receive help to vote.

SB 7 progressed without any support from Democrats and facing opposition from local officials, voter advocacy groups, some members of the business community and civil rights organizations with histories of fighting laws that could harm voters of color. Their criticism of the legislation has been rooted in its detrimental effect on access, particularly for marginalized voters, and the possibility it could violate federal safeguards for voters of color.

Aligning it with Abbott’s designated legislative priorities, Republicans have presented it as an “election integrity” measure. Although there were no major incidents during the 2020 election, they’ve also argued SB 7 is aimed at standardizing elections after counties — namely Harris County — adopted various initiatives to make voting easier during the pandemic election last fall.

Despite their arguments for standardization, the legislation originally included a proposal to regulate the distribution of polling places only in the state’s largest counties — diverse, urban counties largely under Democratic control — under a formula that would have led to a significant drop in voting sites in largely Democratic areas, with voting options curtailed most in areas with higher shares of voters of color.

The final version of the bill ultimately left out that provision.

The conference committee’s work was made public the morning after state Sen. Bryan Hughes and state Rep. Briscoe Cain announced in a joint statement Friday evening that they had come to an agreement on the final version of the legislation. That announcement — posted to both of the Republicans’ Twitter accounts and sent out in a press release — was met by confusion among Democrats on the committee who took to Twitter to indicate they had not been included in at least a part of the deliberations.

State Sen. Beverly Powell, D-Burleson, said she had not been provided “any details regarding this bill” despite being appointed to the conference committee. In the House, state Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburg, called it “egregious” that the Democrats on the committee hadn’t seen the formal draft of the final version of SB 7 despite Republicans’ announcement about an agreement on the bill between the chambers.

Soon after, Canales said he has been “advised” that the announcement “was prematurely released.” By then, Cain had deleted his post on Twitter about the agreement. Hughes’ post remained online.

Republicans didn’t need Democratic support to move forward with the conference committee report, which required a majority of conferees in each chamber to sign off. On the Senate side, four of the five conferees were Republicans. Three of the five House conferees were Republicans.

In the end, none of the Democrats on the conference committee signed off on the conference committee’s report.

This post was first provided on this site.

I trust that you found the above of help or interesting. You can find similar content on our main site here: www.northtxpointofsale.com Please let me have your feedback in the comments section below. Let us know which subjects we should write about for you in future.

youtube

#Point of Sale #clover Pos Reviews #harbortouch Pos #point of sale #shopkeep App #shopkeep Pricing #toast Point Of Sale #toast Pos Reviews #touchbistro Pos #touchbistro Pricing #touchbistro Support

0 notes

afrolesbikita · 4 years ago

Text

News and important information on POS Hardware & Point of Sale.

The bill also sets a new window for early voting on Sundays, limiting it from 1 to 9 p.m.

Voters will also be required to include that information on the return envelopes containing their ballots for their votes to be counted.

The final version of the bill ultimately left out that provision.

In the end, none of the Democrats on the conference committee signed off on the conference committee’s report.

This post was first provided on this site.

youtube

#Point of Sale #clover Pos Reviews #harbortouch Pos #point of sale #shopkeep App #shopkeep Pricing #toast Point Of Sale #toast Pos Reviews #touchbistro Pos #touchbistro Pricing #touchbistro Support

0 notes

marymosley · 5 years ago

Text

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times

Sarah Palin is about to get all mavericky in court. Indeed, the former Alaskan governor and vice presidential candidate just might be making new law in the area of defamation. Palin’s won a major victory in a decision by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who ruled that she could go to trial o a particularly outrageous editorial by The New York Times In June 2017. The editorial suggested that she inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. The case also involves a curious twist due to the involvement of James Bennet, who resigned in the recent controversy over an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton. I supported Bennet’s decision to publish that editorial and denounced the cringing apology of the Times after a backlash.

This ruling comes after Nick Sandmann was able to survive motions to dismiss in his own defamation lawsuits and settled with various news organizations like the Washington Post over false reports of his confrontation with a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

These actions are likely to increase as media plunges headlong into “echo journalism” where stories are framed to reaffirm the bias and expectations of their readers.

The ruling concerns an editorial by the New York Times where it sought to paint Palin and other Republicans as inciting the earlier shooting. The editorial was on the shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise and other members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and Sanders supporter. The attack did not fit with a common narrative in the media on right-wing violence and the Times awkwardly sought to shift the focus back on conservatives. It stated that SarahPAC had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot. It was false but it was enough for the intended spin: “Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The editorial was grossly unfair and falsely worded. Indeed, the opinion begins with a bang: “Gov. Palin brings this action to hold James Bennet and The Times accountable for defaming her by falsely asserting what they knew to be false: that Gov. Palin was clearly and directly responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”

The Times stated “the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin‘s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” In reality, the posting used crosshairs over various congressional districts, which included Giffords district.

The ruling represents a reversal of fortune for Palin after an earlier complaint was rejected. In Dec. 2019, Palin filed an amended complaint that just passed judicial muster. A three-judge panel reestablished Palin’s defamation claim in an August decision.

What makes this ruling significant is that it is focused on an editorial about a public figure. Both elements make it difficult to sue. Opinion is generally protected under tort law and public figures have a higher burden to bring any defamation case.

The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, a litigant must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not automatically shield you from defamation actions if you are asserting facts rather than opinion. However, courts have been highly protective over the expression of opinion in the interests of free speech. This issue was addressed in Ollman v. Evans 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In that case, Novak and Evans wrote a scathing piece, including what Ollman stated were clear misrepresentations. The court acknowledges that “the most troublesome statement in the column . . . [is] an anonymous political science professor is quoted as saying: ‘Ollman has no status within the profession but is a pure and simple activist.’” Ollman sued but Judge Kenneth Starr wrote for the D.C. Circuit in finding no basis for defamation. This passage would seem relevant for secondary posters and activists using the article to criticize the family:

The reasonable reader who peruses an Evans and Novak column on the editorial or Op-Ed page is fully aware that the statements found there are not “hard” news like those printed on the front page or elsewhere in the news sections of the newspaper. Readers expect that columnists will make strong statements, sometimes phrased in a polemical manner that would hardly be considered balanced or fair elsewhere in the newspaper. National Rifle Association v. Dayton Newspaper, Inc., supra, 555 F.Supp. at 1309. That proposition is inherent in the very notion of an “Op-Ed page.” Because of obvious space limitations, it is also manifest that columnists or commentators will express themselves in condensed fashion without providing what might be considered the full picture. Columnists are, after all, writing a column, not a full-length scholarly article or a book. This broad understanding of the traditional function of a column like Evans and Novak will therefore predispose the average reader to regard what is found there to be opinion.

A reader of this particular Evans and Novak column would also have been influenced by the column’s express purpose. The columnists laid squarely before the reader their interest in ending what they deemed a “frivolous” debate among politicians over whether Mr. Ollman’s political beliefs should bar him from becoming head of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. Instead, the authors plainly intimated in the column’s lead paragraph that they wanted to spark a more appropriate debate within academia over whether Mr. Ollman’s purpose in teaching was to indoctrinate his students. Later in the column, they openly questioned the measure or method of Professor Ollman’s scholarship. Evans and Novak made it clear that they were not purporting to set forth definitive conclusions, but instead meant to ventilate what in their view constituted the central questions raised by Mr. Ollman’s prospective appointment.

There is however a difference between stating fact and opinion and the Times blew away that distinction in the rush to shift attention on political violence to Republicans like Palin.

What is not striking about the opinion is how the court clearly lays out the case for malice by Bennet, the key element under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. The Court details how internal messages immediately raised the possibility of raising violence on the right.

The case addresses the more insular issue of whether a plaintiff must establish actual malice with respect to meaning as well as falsity. This addresses the use of words that may be misinterpreted as opposed to intentionally making false statements. The Court ruled that Palin will have to shoulder the burden on both meaning and falsity. That could generate further appellate fights.

I was also struck by how the court suggested that the later correction issued by the Times might be used by the jury to assume or discount malice. It is rare that such a correction would be raised as substantial evidence on intent:

The fact that Bennet and the Times were so quick to print a correction is, on the one hand, evidence that a jury might find corroborative of a lack of actual malice, as discussed later. But, on the other hand, a reasonable jury could conclude that Bennet’s reaction and the Times’ correction may also be probative of a prior intent to assert the existence of such a direct link, for why else the need to correct? Indeed, the correction itself concedes that Bennet’s initial draft incorrectly stated that there existed such a link. If, as Bennet now contends, it was all simply a misunderstanding, the result of a poor choice of words, it is reasonable to conclude that the ultimate correction would have reflected as much and simply clarified the Editorial’s intended meaning.

James Bennet gained national attention after he was forced to resign after pushing the Cotton editorial headlined, “Send In the Troops.” The op-ed discussed the basis for using troops to quell riots, which has been done repeatedly in history. The Times not only disgraced itself by abandoning its independence but promised to avoid such controversies in the future. (Later, some of the very figures who insisted that the op-ed was factually wrong — without having to explain that allegation — would push bizarre anti-police conspiracy theories). Bennet, who is being sued for bias in this case, was forced out for allowing dissenting conservative views into the paper this year. There is an irony that Bennet’s alleged bias against Republicans did not lead to a push for his removal but his merely publishing the view of a Republican led to his ouster.

The Palin case could create some major new precedent on issues like showing malice on the meaning of terms or words. It is also a standout as a defamation case going to trial on an editorial.

Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times

Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

spycamp · 7 years ago

Text

From: Alex Erickson Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 11:30 PM To: [email protected]; NASA Recruiting <[email protected]>; KNOX <[email protected]>; Bryan Winterstein <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Introduction to The Briefcase Project

Please see initialed black and white copy.

From: Alex Erickson Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 11:21 PM To: [email protected]; NASA Recruiting <[email protected]>; KNOX <[email protected]>; Bryan Winterstein <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Introduction to The Briefcase Project

May 15, 2018

TO: Ben Affleck

Distribution List: Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I..gov), National Security Agency (nsa.gov), United States Department of The Treasury (treasury.gov)

Regarding: Introduction of The Briefcase Project

Greetings, When Ben Affleck completed the film Argo I thought maybe I could use him as a National Security Asset in order to break my cover someday. I have many projects that loop through offices, agencies, and corporation of every variety, and I have developed a disciplined method of receiving follow through intelligence simply called military briefings; I go into detail about the military briefing folders, the briefcase, and checkbook herein.

Acquiring this Briefcase will be the first progression in my career as a Federal Agent. When I visited Virginia in October 2013 I went through a brain scan analysis and began my recruitment into the Central Intelligence Agency. Immediately, I began self-identifying repeatedly in my writing “I am the Head of The International Central Intelligence Agency.” After the clandestine recruiting events I began often stating to people directly “I am going back to California to either get my PhD at Stanford in Communications or fix the mental health system in Santa Clara County.” These moments in time were as earth shattering as Noah building the ark. When I was unable to get good quality letters of reference for my Stanford application, I decided to take full stock of me as a Human Being and begin a plan to develop as an elite world leader.

My vision is a twenty-year life span with this briefcase to be used inside of Washington DC regarding The Federal Farming Opioid Epidemic Review and around the globe on business of The Federal Government. The Federal Farming Review is going to be examining the farming and farm subsidy structures of The Federal Government and how they interact with the pharmaceutical industry. The Review will also include itemization of all Federal Farm equipment, and contract review for maintenance and equipment. I am privately performing this audit to figure out the supply chain one hundred years from now when I want to introduce fifteen heavy flight farm vehicles into the Federal Farming supply chain for Planet Earth. In brief this Federal Farm Review will secretly be planning Star Trek. Contained within the briefcase will be folders prepared as military briefings for business that the F.B.I. specifically is securing with me personally. Initially, I am requesting the military briefings to be 110KEYSTROKES, DHSHDS, and PrinterPsych.

Inside of the briefcase I want account information and checks for a personal or business or government checking account. The purpose is that this briefcase has financial support and is equipped with a financial instrument. My agenda is very aggressive spending much of the first year travelling to meet with spies and slaves around the globe with The United Nations. During this trip I plan on travelling with the briefcase and using it for business related back to Washington DC. When I return from my trip I will have completed, with a lot of help from others, a pocket-sized accountants dictionary for The United States House of Congress and The United Nations to use for economic reference during trade negotiations and budget planning that involve spies and slaves.

The weeks approaching the departure for this trip will be hectic. Before we depart, I will speak at The United Nations in New York after spending a week shopping. Before that is Boston City Planning Week with public relations and science experiments and custody meetings and planning for the trip. This time period will be spent figuring out roles and responsibilities within my entire leadership corps of people and The Briefcase will be completely prepared and functional. The week prior to Boston City Planning is a road trip to collect people and to tour facilities and locations with printing, publishing, and human resources research, all which will be accessing the PrinterPsych military briefing folder.

I am requesting three military briefs included with the briefcase upon delivery. I have been writing and working as a spy author since 2014 and have developed a habit of talking about keyboards and designing exotic printers. My closest connection to working for the Federal Government was when I applied to work for The Department of Homeland Security to work for the Port Authority in San Francisco. I was recruited by my brother in law while I was visiting him near Savannah, GA. I am designing three military briefings that I need assembled and inserted into the briefcase.

A military briefing is a file folder that provides contacts and leads that are related to the folder names purpose. The purpose is to create a duality with the information that relieves calendar pressure on top secret business. As a spy I am able to be briefed with this method providing increases information security and economic timing. The system works by having me work on a civilian oriented series of tasks. During these tasks I will be briefed as a spy on top secret business. Those civilian tasks are designed to eventually integrate with the military briefing topics and personnel. Providing me the security to keep working through the folder of tasks. The folder can contain the military intelligence needed to begin clearing me as a spy.

110KEYSTROKES a Military Briefing Folder. I desire to enter the keyboard market. I am designing a keyboard that programs satellites with International Standard harmonics. This programming keyboard will be a mechanical keyboard, music box, and recorder. There are trickle down consumer products planned to include something I call a Device of the Court. A keyboard and keyboard reporting tool that can replay document creation keystrokes. I am also building a chess set that is investigating manufacturing, communications, and mirrored board match play chess. As a designer I am trying to build a boutique ten-year pre-pay cell phone. All of this will be available for sale at boutique airport retail stores. I have been working as a spy regarding The Federal Prison System. I am awaiting intelligence progress reports on Russia. I am concerned about keyboards and soft keyboards use in brain scan programming. And I am interested in protecting all employees of the Federal Government from chemical and biological warfare at shopping centers.

DHSHDS a Military Briefing Folder. I am working on an artificial intelligence recipe I call Atlanta Hustle. The company is called AIME: Artificial Intelligence Military Excellence, Advanced Industry Mechanical Engineering, Automatic Integrating Mapped Endeavors. This project requires actual secrecy and will be moving along behind the agenda until it is leading the agenda. I claim to have been recruited as a spy by The Port Authority in the Spring of 2012 in the State of Georgia. Near Atlanta Georgia I am planning a Port of Entry for the United Nations codenamed GLYNCO2. This port of entry will have an advanced era manufacturing storage and maintenance facility for advanced weaponry and communications. Beyond its mystical ai products AIME is going to provide large basin density supplies for elements, vitamins, and oils for global supply chains.

PrinterPsych is a folder of access and information regarding printers and human resources. As a spy I became fond of innovating in the printer industry. I am planning an entire culture around a FIRM in New Jersey called My_NASA_IBM_RocketPlane_3D_Printer_Spy_Family. In addition, I am planning a printer with the F.B.I. that will print out my top secret doctoral dissertation for IBM called #AUTOCADCAPACITY. I have planned a publishing company. I have also planned a newspaper called The Kansas City Staple. Additionally, I have been researching biological mapping and printing as it relates to human anatomy and psychology. Finally, I have extended myself professionally and socially; I am going to need a way to review and access human resources information.

Three briefings and a checkbook in a briefcase. Previous iterations have included plans and permitting information for Federal Buildings. Such as, everything I would need to travel to Kansas City and open an F.B.I. Office or a branch of The Federal Reserve. A briefcase, three folders of contacts and information resources, and a checkbook.

The Department of Defense will likely be building the folders and will require a drop off and exchange method with The F.B.I.. If I had something to drop off I would likely go to the Pentagon, since I have something to pick up I am expecting that I am going to start everything inside The Department of Defense in Washington DC. I expect I could work inside The Department of Defense on organizing and planning while the military briefs are getting pieced together.

I am recruiting The National Security Agency to process Ben Affleck through to the dramatical assembly and delivery of the briefcase to me at Arlington Cemetery. I believe in the star power of momentum and having Ben Affleck arrive in Washington DC to plan and then assemble and deliver the briefcase builds belief. This is not a transfer of power; The Briefcase is a trail guide for me to develop as New Leadership. My gathering is that www.nsa.gov would be the appropriate agency to confirm worldwide agreement and future compliance with the AWE629 plans.

On my calendar things commence as follows: The United States Army provides me an escort to The Department of Defense in Washington DC. At that location I will finalize the Nickels, Dimes, Quarters Plan that will formally begin my career. I need plans and agreements to receive transportation and transit security by The United States Marines Corps or Quarters, narcotics allowances from The Drug Enforcement Agency or Dimes, and maps to get through career maneuvers by The United States Army or Nickels. When those are in place; I am planning thirty days of commuting into The Department of Defense in Washington DC where we will be finalizing travel plans, itineraries, and rosters. I will then spend two weeks at home working through Requests for Information; and then road trip to Boston City Planning Week will begin.

Outside of the Briefcase my operations value is contingent upon my business plan for INTERTECHT LLC a New Jersey Small Business, my plans surrounding the Original Content CIA Office Café, TabletOne partnership with The World Intellectual Property Organization, and Music Match a F.B.I. Undercover Operations Headquarters and advertising business. The plans for all of these will be developed through indirect written communication like this and word puzzles I build on the internet. Follow the hashtag #AlexanderWilliamErickson for more reference documents.

This briefcase is the beginning to The Flying Car and Star Trek Farming Vehicles for Planet Earth.

With All My Best,

Alexander William Erickson

#AWE629 #SCOTUS #WIPO #BankofJapan

0 notes

spycamp · 7 years ago

Text

May 15, 2018

TO: Ben Affleck

Distribution List: Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I..gov), National Security Agency (nsa.gov), United States Department of The Treasury (treasury.gov)

Regarding: Introduction of The Briefcase Project

This briefcase is the beginning to The Flying Car and Star Trek Farming Vehicles for Planet Earth.

With All My Best,

Alexander William Erickson

#AWE629 #SCOTUS #WIPO #BankofJapan

0 notes