Civics 2/25

Tuesday, February 25, 2025

Share

New to URL Media? Subscribe below to get our weekly newsletters.

News and information about politics, government, civic participation and engagement from URL Media's network of Black and Brown publishers.

Good evening. Today we are covering what the SAVE Act would really accomplish (spoiler, it’s not better elections), as well as a thrown out case against a prosecutor involved in Ahmaud Arbery’s murder investigation, how to use a power of attorney if you’re detained or deported, and more.Looking for your next movie? We’ve been putting together a series of must-watch films for Black History Month. So far, we’ve covered Rustin, Six Triple Eight, and Blood Brothers. Our final film in the series will drop this Friday on Instagram and YouTube — join us there and tell us what you think of the selections, or drop any other recommendations!Plus, we’re bringing you the latest updates at url-media.com as events unfold. Have a question? Write to us at [email protected]. 

Credit: outline205 / iStock

The SAVE Act: The biggest voter suppression bill in U.S. history?: One of the bills the new Republican-majority in Congress is fast-tracking to a vote is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also known as the SAVE Act. It would purportedly strengthen election integrity; in reality, it does everything but that, as Eliza Sweren-Becker from the Brennan Center for Justice and host Jen Taylor-Skinner explain on a recent episode of The Electorette Podcast. The main provision of the bill would require that a passport, birth certificate, or other niche forms of identification be provided in order to cast a ballot, as well as register or re-register to vote. The reason? To curb noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections.But there’s a problem: That really does not happen. There are already strict laws in place with severe penalties for noncitizen voting, and there is no evidence to support that voter fraud is the massive issue this bill would address. Estimates of how many noncitizens vote in the U.S. are “infinitesimally small,” with chances being higher for getting struck by lightning, Taylor-Skinner and Sweren-Becker explain in the episode. The real purpose of the bill is to consolidate political power by disenfranchising and suppressing tens of millions of active voters of their rights. Only one in two Americans have a passport, and birth certificates are not an easy fix for people who have changed their name for marriage or gender confirmation. Elderly folks may not even have one to begin with, The Electorette episode explains.Any way you slice it, adding these extra steps will become roadblocks significant enough to turn many people away from the ballot box altogether. Even simply re-registering after a move could get bogged down if the bill passes. Not to mention, election officials could face severe criminal and civil liability if they were to make a mistake and mess up the new process. The kicker? This burden on officials of extra administrative legwork would not be funded by the federal government — the cost would fall onto states and taxpayers. The good thing is, similar measures in various states have been proposed and struck down. There’s a chance this federal version will also be stalled in the House of Representatives as early as this week. Yet for now, it poses an imminent danger.“We do have real problems with our elections and our democracy…but this bill is not the solution,” Sweren-Becker says. “This is a fight that’s worth having,” she adds, urging people to call their representatives in Congress and speak out against the SAVE Act.  “We can win this if enough people weigh in.” Watch this episode in full on YouTube → Plus: Transforming Postpartum Care: Addressing America's Maternal Health Crisis (The Electorette)

Why holding prosecutors accountable is as hard as prosecuting police: In the aftermath of three white Georgia men chasing down and murdering 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery while he was jogging, the judicial system was rife with gaps in accountability. Aside from the convicted killers trying to cover up the whole thing — which Arbery’s mother is pursuing in a $1 million federal civil lawsuit — prosecutor Jacquelyn Lee Johnson was also indicted of abusing her authority and obstructing the murder investigation. Johnson had left the case due to a conflict of interest — one of the killers had worked at the District Attorney’s office — but the indictment alleged that she still discussed the investigation with those involved and made recommendations, Capital B explains.She could have potentially been held accountable for prosecutorial misconduct — but on February 5, before the jury was set to hear their first instructions, the judge presiding over the case threw the whole thing out for lack of evidence, robbing Arbery’s family of that final closure.This arc is nothing new when it comes to holding prosecutors to account, much the same as pressing charges against a police officer, elected official, other lawyers or a judge. The reason stems from the fact that these individuals are granted extremely high levels of immunity in the legal system, and the bar to prove their misconduct is intentionally set sky high. Misconduct does happen, though, and quite often. Since 1989, more than a third of the 3,659 wrongful convictions on record involved prosecutorial misconduct. Over half of those exonerated are Black — and only 4% of exonerations came with any kind of discipline for the prosecutor, according to the Registry of Exonerations database. What does that misconduct look like? It ranges from evidence tampering and omitting evidence that would clear a defendant’s name, to unlawfully expressing personal opinions to a jury. More generally, anything out of line with the pursuit of justice can be characterized as misconduct, Capital B reports. While it is rare to win that accountability, there are methods that have worked in the past, including filing a civil lawsuit, pressing criminal charges, and reporting a prosecutor to the state’s bar association. Get the full story → 

How to hire an attorney, pay rent while you are detained: Knowing how to respond to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at your door is one thing. What can you do if you and/or a loved one are actually detained or deported is another.Depending on your situation, a power of attorney can open up the possibilities. It’s essentially a legal document that grants a person the ability to take certain actions for another individual. It’s a common step when someone cannot make a decision due to age or health, and it can be canceled anytime, according to Documented. A POA can be a big help for detained immigrants to manage their affairs, such as transferring or withdrawing funds from a bank account. Accessing finances can be a crucial step while in detention, as paying legal fees, rent bills, supporting family, and even selling a property from afar may all become relevant. Setting up a POA ensures you’ll be able to do all that uninterrupted — but it’s not always necessary. If you already have a co-signer on your bank accounts, or if you’re able to manage accounts from outside the U.S., then you might be okay without a POA. The document does not grant the power to attend court as a legal representative or file forms on someone’s behalf, but it can be used to secure such representation from a DOJ-accredited immigration lawyer. You’ll need a notary to create the official legal document and witness you and your chosen person signing it. Notaries can be hired for travel to meet with already-incarcerated people, though each state and facility has its own rules. More tips in Documented → 

Judge blocks Trump's attempt to end equity grants: In the Trump administration’s first month, defunding and destroying programs, grants, and contracts relating to all forms of equity has been a central focus. In a victory against these attacks, federal judges ruled that the government could not make grant recipients or federal contractors certify that they did not engage in equity work, AsAmNews reports. Freezing or terminating “equity-related” funds was also deemed too vague and as inviting “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement over billions of dollars,” U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson told NBC News. Abelson made clear that the executive orders that initiated the bans likely violated the First Amendment for their punitive measures based on private organization’s views, per Politico. For now, the judicial decision has paused President Donald Trump’s anti-equity agenda. Yet new reports are emerging that detail how he has still managed to get around the rulings at the National Institute of Health, where biomedical research funding is still locked up. More from AsAmNews →

Check out our Currency of Impact dashboard, a new tool designed to revolutionize media buying conversations and put community impact on the foreground. Dive into our impact tracker and case studies highlighting demonstrated impact across the URL Media network. This project was co-produced with the Reynolds Journalism Institute. Visit it here.