Ray Suarez

This week, Need to Know reports on Chicago’s crumbling infrastructure and Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s controversial plan to fix it by partnering with private businesses in lieu of raising taxes.

Ray Suarez interviews Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania, about whether or not Chicago’s infrastructure plan may be scaled for use in other cities.

On our American Voices segment, Garrett Ebling, a survivor of the 1-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis in 2007, talks about the need to raise awareness about the nation’s infrastructure woes.

What’s on this week:

	Chicago Infrastructure A report on Chicago’s crumbling infrastructure and Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s controversial plan to fix it by partnering with private businesses.
	Interview: Ed Rendell Former Governor of Pennsylvania and Mayor of Philadelphia, speaks on the scalability of Chicago’s infrastructure plan.
	American Voices: Garrett Ebling A survivor of the 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis talks about raising the awareness of the nation’s infrastructure problems.

Watch more full episodes of Need to Know.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

July 24: This post has been updated and corrected.

Voter ID laws have become a political flashpoint in what’s gearing up to be another close election year. Supporters say the laws — which 30 states have now enacted in some form — are needed to combat voter fraud, while critics see them as a tactic to disenfranchise voters.

We’ve taken a step back to look at the facts behind the laws and break down the issues at the heart of the debate.

Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann holds a postcard to help identify voters in need of a free state government issued card that will be issued through his office at no charge. Photo: AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis

So what are these laws?

They are measures intended to ensure that a registered voter is who he says he is and not an impersonator trying to cast a ballot in someone else’s name. The laws, most of which have been passed in the last several years, require that registered voters show ID before they’re allowed to vote. Exactly what they need to show varies. Some states require a government-issued photo, while in others a current utility bill or bank statement is sufficient.

As a registered voter, I thought I always had to supply some form of ID during an election.

Not quite. Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement. Some states generally advise voters bring some form of photo ID. But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting. Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why are these voter ID laws so strongly opposed?

Voting law advocates contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places. According to a study from NYU’s Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices. During closing arguments in a recent case over Texas’s voter ID law, a lawyer for the state brushed aside these obstacles as the “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

Attorney General Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which Southern states during the Jim Crow era imposed voting fees, which discouraged the working class and poor, many of whom were minorities, from voting.

Given the sometimes costly steps required to obtain needed documents today, legal scholars argue that photo ID laws create a new “financial barrier to the ballot box.”

Just how well-founded are fears of voter fraud?

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction. A New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases filed by the Justice Department over five years. These cases, many of which stemmed from mistakenly filled registration forms or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86 convictions.

There are “very few documented cases,” said UC-Irvine professor and election law specialist Rick Hasen. “When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can’t prevent,” he said.

One of the most vocal supporters of strict voter ID laws, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told the Houston Chronicle earlier this month that his office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent years. “I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system,” he told the paper. Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

It’s not clear.

According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don’t have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn’t represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.

State figures also can be hard to nail down. In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voter base, don’t own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.

In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.

As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn’t sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.

“We don’t know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans,” said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. “But there’s no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome.”

When did voter ID laws get passed 2014 and which states have the strictest ones?

The first such law was passed as early as 2003, but momentum has picked up in recent years. In 2011 alone, legislators in 34 states introduced bills requiring voters show photo ID 2014 14 of those states already had existing voter ID laws but lawmakers sought to toughen statutes, mainly to require proof of photo identification.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has a helpful breakdown of states’ voter ID laws and how they vary.

Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas and Pennsylvania have the toughest versions. These states won’t allow voters to cast a regular ballot without first showing valid photo ID. Other states with photo ID laws offer some more flexibility by providing voters with several alternatives.

What happens if a voter can’t show valid photo ID in these states?

These voters are entitled to a provisional ballot. To ensure their votes count, however, they must produce the mandatory ID within a certain time frame and affirm in person or writing they are the same individual who filled out a temporary ballot on Election Day. The time limits vary: They range anywhere from up to three days after the election (Georgia) to noon the Monday after the election (Indiana).

Are there any exceptions to the photo ID requirement?

Yes. Indigency or religious objections to being photographed. But these exceptions don’t automatically grant a voter the ability to cast a regular ballot: In Pennsylvania and Indiana, voters will be given a provisional ballot and must sign an affidavit for their exemption within the given time frame. For a more specific breakdown of all exceptions, see this state-by-state summary.

Why is the Justice Department getting involved in some cases?

Because of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that states with a history of discrimination receive preclearance before making changes to voting laws. Texas and South Carolina passed strict photo ID laws in 2011 but were refused preclearance by the DOJ, which argued that these laws could suppress turnout among minority voters.

Texas went to court recently seeking judicial preclearance from a federal district court; a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to issue a decision by the end of the summer. South Carolina heads to oral arguments in the same court in September.

Are there any other legal challenges to such laws currently in the works?

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to prevent the Pennsylvania voter ID law, signed into law by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in March, from taking effect. The lawsuit claims that elderly, disabled, low-income people and the homeless, plus married women who have changed their names, transgender individuals, and students who have photo IDs that don’t list an expiration date, will find it difficult to obtain proper ID before the November election.

In the latest development, the DOJ has now launched an investigation into Pennsylvania’s photo ID law. As first reported by Talking Points Memo, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sent the state’s chief election official a letter Monday afternoon requesting 16 separate items, including the state’s complete voter registration list, any documents supporting the governor’s prior assurance that “99 percent” of the state’s eligible voters already have acceptable photo ID, any papers to prove the state is prepared to provide registered voters with ID cards free of charge upon oath or affirmation, and any studies that inform state officials of the “demographic characteristics” of residents who lack valid voter ID.

The DOJ letter states it needs these documents within 30 days to evaluate the state’s compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

Have any states attempted to enact strict voter ID laws but so far been unsuccessful?

Yes. In Wisconsin, two judges have blocked enforcement of the state’s photo ID law. An appeal in one case won’t be heard until after the November election. Meantime, Democratic governors in Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina have vetoed strict photo ID bills passed by their Republican-led legislatures last year.

Are there other voter ID laws in effect that ask for but don’t necessarily require photo ID?

Yes. In these so-called “non-strict photo ID states” 2014 Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Idaho, South Dakota and Hawaii 2014 individuals are requested to show photo ID but can still vote if they don’t have one. Instead, they may be asked to sign affidavits affirming their identity or provide a signature that will be compared with those in registration records.

Why has there been such a recent surge in voter ID legislation around the country?

This report by NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice cites primarily big Republican gains in the 2010 midterms which turned voter ID laws into a “major legislative priority.” Aside from Rhode Island, all voter ID legislation has been introduced by Republican-majority legislatures.

Republican figures have championed such laws. For instance, Mike Turzai, majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, recently praised the state’s legislative accomplishments at a Republican State Committee meeting last month. “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” he said.

A spokesman for Turzai, Steve Miskin, told ProPublica that Turzai was “mischaracterized” by the press. “For the first time in many years, you’re going to have a relatively level playing field in the presidential elections” as the result of these new laws,” Miskin said. “With all things equal, a Republican presidential nominee in Pennsylvania has a chance.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story said Texas went to federal court to challenge the DOJ’s denial of preclearance. In fact, Texas filed a lawsuit seeking preclearance from the federal district court two months before the DOJ announced its decision. Also, some states require a government-issued photo that does not have to come from the federal government as first detailed.

July 26, 2012

Washington, DC – In response to a PBS investigation that documented allegations of widespread abuse by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel, Members of Congress expressed grave concerns about the agency’s commitment to preventing the mistreatment of detained immigrants.  The documentary, which mirrors the findings of multiple independent inquiries by non-governmental organizations, found evidence of physical abuse, deprivation of food and water, sexual assault and even torture by members of the nation’s largest law enforcement agency.

“The PBS report paints an appalling picture of cruelty and corruption,” said Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA).  “While the evidence mounts that CBP personnel are responsible for a deeply troubling pattern of abuses, the agency’s leadership has yet to take any meaningful action to improve the oversight of its officers and agents in the field.  The time has come for CBP to finally take these egregious allegations seriously.”

“The latest PBS reporting shows that the problems with violence at the CBP are widespread and systemic,” said Congressman José E. Serrano (D-NY). “The need for a top-to-bottom review of CBP practices and for increased training of their officers couldn’t be more clear. We must ensure the safety and well-being of immigrants and citizens near the border and in custody. Most of those who are detained have done little more than cross a border—they shouldn’t be treated like violent criminals or worse.”

“In light of the findings in PBS’s report, it is imperative that there is a proper investigation to get at the root of these allegations,” said Congressman Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX), Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  Detainees under our government’s custody require an environment free of abuse, corruption and violence. Anything less than that, is a violation of our fundamental values as a nation.”

“Decades of partisanship, gridlock and acrimony have prevented the United States from addressing border, immigration, and security issues in a sensible way,” said Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), the Chair of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  “The result of our tough ‘law and order’ approach to border security is clearly less law and less order, with an unmanageable agency, renegade agents, unconscionable abuse, and more acrimony.  We must do better in a 21st century world where contraband and threats are on the move at the same time that goods, families, tourists, and workers are also on the move and are driving our economy and prosperity.”

“Congress should put politics aside and work together now to reform our broken immigration system,” said Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO).  “One of the first steps is ensuring that federal agencies responsibly enforce the law. The allegations of abuse and corruption cast serious doubt on CBP’s ability to do so. Congress should investigate these allegations and the agencies involved should undertake a wholesale rethinking of how they conduct their business.”

“The credible, ongoing allegations of abuse and corruption by certain Customs and Border Patrol agents raised by PBS and others demand immediate attention,” said Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ). “Agency leaders should start an immediate zero-tolerance policy and address credible reports of wrongdoing as quickly as possible. Many men and women who protect our nation’s borders truly define courage and honor. Those who violate the trust given to them by the American people should be held accountable for their actions not only to give their victims justice and closure, but to preserve the respect their agencies and their more honorable colleagues have earned.”

Statistics obtained by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard from the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) show that at least 26 CBP employees have been arrested and 14 convicted of crimes in the past year alone.

In May, 16 members of Congress called for justice in the tragic beating death of an undocumented immigrant named Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas in CBP custody and reiterated the need for tougher oversight of Border Patrol personnel.  A grand jury has subsequently been convened to investigate the Hernandez-Rojas case.

 ###

Schneider is the Vice President of Innovation, Research and Policy for the Center for Financial Services Innovation, a nonprofit that works on financial services for these kind of underbanked consumers. Schneider is also a lead researcher on the US Financial Diaries, a new research project underway, which is following 300 families for over a year, tracking every penny they earn and spend.

The project’s goal is to improve policy and financial products for this underserved population. The US Financial Diaries is a partnership between CFSI, The Financial Access Initiative at New York University and Bankable Frontier Associates.

This week’s American Voices is from Mae Watson Grote, founder and executive director of the New York-based non-profit “The Financial Clinic,” who is trying to inspire change on a local level by helping some of our nation’s most economically disadvantaged build financial security.

The Financial Clinic’s mission is to improve the financial security of working poor people. The genesis was, really, around the major demographic shifts that were happening in the country at the time.

Where you had hundreds of thousands of people who were in welfare reform shifting to a booming economy, but one that was, really, expanding in the service sector so that the jobs that were available were, basically, lower paying jobs.

So hundreds of thousands of people moving from welfare poverty to, basically, working poverty. Two thirds of our customers come to us with debt or credit problems…They don’t know where to start… and they don’t know– how to be able to…make ends meet. And so our financial coaches will sit down and, basically, will map out…what their situation looks like, how much income they have coming in…how much more income can be brought into the household.

Then, we will map out, basically, a trajectory– that helps navigate those initial pitfalls.  Helps them make the decisions that they need to be making, so that they can reach– a one year goal or maybe, even, a two year goal.

Generally speaking, people really do have a sense of– what’s a luxury item or– and what’s a necessity…a customer that– that  I served, …I remember very clearly that she … spent, maybe– $35-$40 every week on getting her nails done. And that, of course, wasn’t something that our financial coaches would advise someone not to do– because she knew that already… but …needed someone to facilitate seeing those day to day decisions in context of her longer term financial goal.

So, with that, she was able to immediately cut that out. And, then, came back … to name five other things that she had cut out of her budget… what we’re doing is leveraging what we’re learning on the ground for systemic change. We believe that…the research– and the anecdotes, and the customers that The Financial Clinic has access to– can help contribute to– a larger– national discourse on what it means to be working poor.

To gain insight into how families like these get by and learn what might be done to help them, Need to Know’s Stacey Tisdale traveled to Newark, New Jersey, where she met one family whose plight illustrates the situation millions of Americans face.

We asked this family to keep a detailed diary of their monthly income and expenses to show the difficult spending decisions they face each month. With little money nor financial savvy, the family incurs additional expenses simply because of their economic disadvantages. Our inspiration came from an innovative new research project called the US Financial Diaries, which is following 300 families for more than a year and tracking their cash flow with the goal of improving policy and financial products for this under-served population.

Near the end of our report, Juanita and Andre met with Greenpath, a nonprofit debt counseling organization. A counselor there discovered some unnecessary credit protection fees being charged to one of Juanita’s accounts, which was undermining her efforts to pay off some of her debt. The counselor also convinced Andre to open a bank account to avoid the check cashing fees he was paying each month.

This report is part of our ongoing series “Your Money and Your Life.”

Ashley Perkins, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., stands in line with military veterans on June 26, 2012, in Detroit. The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits fell last week, but the level of applications remains too high to signal a pickup in hiring. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Across the nation, unemployed Americans suited up and headed to hundreds of job fairs in June, promoted by the U.S. Labor Department as “American Job Fair Month.”

Imagine that you, an unemployed worker, have waited in a long line for hours to get into a job fair, but when you finally reach the door, you’re turned away. Your rejection has nothing to do with your qualifications or even your attire. The attendant takes one look at your resume and points to a sign on the door that reads “Unemployed need not apply.”

Sounds crazy, right? But a version of this scenario is playing out for a nation of job hunters, online and elsewhere, every day. Numerous job ads posted on some of the nation’s premiere job search websites state that only people who are currently employed will be considered.

“No unemployed candidates will be considered at all,” said a marketing job posting from a global phone manufacturer in Georgia. We will “not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason,” read an ad by a Texas electronics firm seeking an engineer. And a California job ad for an experienced travel agent posted this March on Craigslist, explicitly states “only those currently employed need apply.”

Out of work job seekers began speaking up about this problem last year, describing these kinds of restricted job postings. One study that sampled online job posts for a few weeks unearthed more than 150 “unemployed-need-not-apply” job ads across a wide range of industries, in what may be only the tip of the iceberg. With 12.7 million Americans currently unemployed, this practice has far-reaching consequences for our nation’s unemployed and their families.

Unemployed workers already face an incredibly tough job market without these barriers. Despite recent job gains, there are still more than three times as many unemployed workers as there are job vacancies. Given these odds, it’s no surprise that long-term unemployment—defined as out of work for more than six months—is at a crisis level, affecting more than 4 in 10 unemployed Americans. Worse still, nearly one in three unemployed workers has been out of work for a year or more.

Disturbingly, advanced levels of education are not insulating workers from long-term unemployment. A worker with a doctorate is as likely to be long-term unemployed as a worker with a high-school diploma.

Some employers justify the exclusion of the unemployed by labeling these workers as damaged goods. Employers may feel that their skills have deteriorated, or speculate that they were let go because of poor job performance. But this reading misses the mark. The simple fact is that the recession and its aftermath swept away the jobs of millions of hardworking Americans who are hungry for a fair chance of getting back to work.

Fortunately, a few states are leading the way in enacting prohibitions against unemployment discrimination. New Jersey and Oregon have outlawed discriminatory ads. In March, the District of Columbia was the first jurisdiction to outlaw the practice of discrimination against the unemployed in hiring outright rather than just outlawing the ads. Similar bills were under consideration in 19 other states this year.

The practice of refusing to accept job applications from the unemployed does not currently violate any federal laws, but there is movement within both houses of Congress to change that. The Fair Employment Opportunity Act would make it unlawful for employers and job recruiters to exclude the unemployed from consideration simply because of their unemployment status. Congress should act immediately to pass the bill and remove this unnecessary barrier for unemployed workers.

The Labor Department recently reported that the economy added 80,000 jobs in June. As the economy improves, unemployed workers will hopefully have a better chance of finding work, but not if employers shut them out of the application process indiscriminately. Excluding currently-unemployed workers from new job openings is unfair and should not be tolerated.

This week's host Ray Suarez

In our ongoing series “Your Money, Your Life,” Need to Know takes an in-depth look at the difficult spending decisions facing the nation’s working poor.

This week’s episode profiles one Newark, N.J. family, who keeps a monthly financial diary detailing its expenditures, including the additional costs incurred by living in a poor neighborhood and by not using available banking services.

Anchor Ray Suarez interviews Rachel Schneider, Vice President at the Center for Financial Services Innovation and a lead investigator for the U.S. Financial Diaries Project.

The “American Voices” essay is by Mae Watson Grote, founder and executive director of the Financial Clinic, which services the working poor.

What’s on this week:

	Hard choices One family in Newark, N.J. keeps a monthly financial diary of expenditures, which demonstrates the difficult choices made each day by Americans living on the outskirts of the mainstream financial system.
	Interview: Rachel Schneider Rachel Schneider, Vice President at the Center for Financial Services Innovation and a lead investigator for the U.S. Financial Diaries Project.
	American Voices: Mae Watson Grote This week’s essay is by Mae Watson Grote, founder and executive director of the Financial Clinic, which services the working poor.

Watch more full episodes of Need to Know.