SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Congress is debating a possible military strike against the regime in Syria. Supporters say we have no choice but to punish Syria for a chemical attack on its own people. Some oppose the action because they are afraid it will draw the U.S. into another costly war, like Iraq. Secretary of State John Kerry says it would only be a limited strike.

U.S. destroyers are positioned in the Mediterranean, loaded with Tomahawk missiles, the same type used in a limited strike on Libya in 2011. Mattea Kramer, director of research for the National Priorities Project, has crunched the numbers, and she said each one of those missiles costs American taxpayers $1.5 million, and the military used a lot of them.

"In the first hour of our strike on Libya, we launched 110 of those missiles," she declared.

The total bill for the action in Libya, Kramer said, turned out to be more than $1 billion, and there is no way of predicting how much military intervention in Syria would cost. But she pointed out that the George W. Bush administration had predicted that intervening in Iraq would cost no more than $60 billion. Ten years later the bill is up to $814 billion.

Faith communities around the state and the country prayed for peace over the weekend and some plan candlelight vigils for tonight.

According to Mary Zerkel with the American Friends Service Committee, her organization has had people in the region for a very long time and they understand that Syria's problems are complicated. She said it's not just about two choices, to bomb or not to bomb.

"There are more than two options," she declared. "We have to look at a cease-fire, the comprehensive arms embargo, the humanitarian assistance on the ground."

President Obama has told reporters that he is aware of American opposition to a military strike. But he says Congress needs to make a decision that is right for the country.

Professor Marjorie Cohn at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law said that even if Congress approves the strike, it would be illegal under international law, because the United States has not met the two conditions that the United Nations Charter requires for such action.

It would be legal "either if it's acting in self-defense or the Security Council approves it. The Security Council has not approved this military strike."

When President Obama makes his case to the American people, he may have a tough time convincing them. Nearly 60 percent of the Americans who were polled last week opposed military action.

More information is at: goo.gl/2cZf3J; NationalPriorities.org; and at goo.gl/lnbVDR.



get more stories like this via email

A new report showed turnover among California chief election officials reached 57% in 2022, a record high. It then declined this year to 40%.

Researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles partnered with the Bipartisan Policy Center to analyze the data from 18,000 jurisdictions nationwide.

Rachel Orey, senior associate director of the Elections Project for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the jobs of election workers have become significantly harder in recent years.

"Today, election officials must manage everything from cybersecurity risks posed by foreign adversaries to people who are doubting the outcome of elections, to information technology, legal disputes, political pressures," Orey outlined.

The turnover rate is defined as the percentage of jurisdictions in a state where the chief local election official changed within the prior four years. It has been an issue in California for decades. The turnover rate stood at 41% back in 2004. But things got much worse after 2020, when election officials became targets of threats and harassment, often spurred by former President Donald Trump's evidence-free claims about a rigged election.

Orey noted she expects this year's presidential election to go smoothly, because dozens of states, including California, have done a lot to "beef up" the elections workforce.

"Sixty-five percent of local election officials have experience running a presidential election," Orey pointed out. "Where there are new officials, we find that they have an average of eight years of experience in an election office. So all in all, we see that election officials are well-prepared to administer the 2024 presidential election."

The report recommended better funding for elections offices, higher salaries and more training in order to attract and retain a highly skilled election workforce.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's June 11 primary is inching closer and those running for legislative seats are trying to win over voters, including Native American candidates who are part of a movement energized by newly drawn political boundaries.

The organization North Dakota Native Vote said there are seven candidates with Indigenous roots seeking spots in the Legislature. Most are running in District 9, which was recently updated to reflect representation needs for two Native American tribes.

Natasha Gourd, a board member of North Dakota Native Vote, described them as a good mixture of candidates coming from both reservations in the area, with some running as Democrats and others as Republicans.

"We've seen an upturn in participation and just getting leadership development through Native candidates," Gourd observed.

The election wave comes after the state saw 10 Native candidates in legislative races two years ago. For her group, Gourd acknowledged the boost can be tricky because they cannot endorse everyone running. But she noted having greater assurances the areas will be represented by people from their community -- no matter if they have a different stance on certain issues -- is still a positive.

Gourd added trying to build on the momentum is also important for off-reservation districts.

"What they do at the state level, regardless of Native American people in North Dakota (being part of) federally recognized tribes, it does affect us," Gourd pointed out. "Most Natives in North Dakota do live off the reservation, so it does affect our populations."

Gourd stressed they need more Native voices at the state level speaking out about priorities within education, the housing crisis, energy issues and health care. She hopes the positive trends they're seeing inspire more civic participation among other racial and ethnic groups trying to get a seat at the policy table in North Dakota.

A new poll finds a near 20-year low in the number of voters who say they have a high interest in the 2024 election, with a majority saying they hold negative views of both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. A group of Arizona elections officials and experts recently gathered to discuss the growing discontent with the state's current electoral landscape.

Stephen Richer, Maricopa County Recorder, said that if politicians are what he calls "single-minded seekers of re-election," he contends the state should change the political incentive structure.

"And if those incentives will change, then maybe we will be talking about more things in the Arizona Voter's Agenda and less things that are currently right now incentivized by what I still believe to be a minority, but a very passionate, very loud, and a minority that is definitely committed to acting on those issues," he said.

Richer added it is important to remember that despite Independent and unaffiliated voters being able to participate in the July 30th statewide primary, they were excluded from the state's March Presidential Preference Election, and that has caught the eye of some in the state. The bipartisan group Make Elections Fair Arizona is pushing for open primaries, but proponents of closed primaries believe they're crucial to maintaining the integrity of party ideals.

Amanda Burke, executive vice president with the non-partisan, nonprofit organization Center for the Future of Arizona, said more than half of unaffiliated voters do not feel they have leaders or candidates running who speak to the issues and causes they care about. She contends that then translates to who decides to show up at the ballot box and vote, and encourages Arizonans to imagine a different primary system if they want different outcomes.

"Otherwise we are going to continue to have some more outcomes in terms of people who are incentivized to speak to a small percentage of their base on either side who are really not representative of the larger views," she explained.

The Grand Canyon State allows voter-initiated amendments to the state constitution, but the Arizona Require Partisan Primary Elections Amendment would add the state's current primary practice to the state constitution, prohibiting future changes without another constitutional amendment. Make Elections Fair Arizona is still collecting signatures to get its measure on the November ballot.


get more stories like this via email