Youth political advocacy is necessary now

POLITICS

Alison Chiu of Heritage High School
31 March 2024

the MARCH newsletter

It is undeniable that the American political space has intensified in the past few years, and it can now only be characterized as intensely polarized. New data reveals that “ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past,” according to the Pew Research Center.

Such partisanship has often resulted in so-called “safe districts” where one political party is essentially guaranteed a political seat, a phenomenon that UVA Today reports can discourage voting.

Combined with rising global tensions and tense international relations amongst many countries, it becomes apparent that Americans, particularly youth who are just beginning to get involved with democracy, face an unfriendly political climate. Although the rise of social media and the Internet has allowed youth to engage with politics like never before, this polarization is only detrimental to both youth political participation and our democracy.

Such exigence reveals the necessity for youth to be politically active – as soon as they can. In particular to voting, political scientist Mark Franklin reveals that “18-year-olds [who] missed their first year as eligible voters, they were less likely to vote again—not even when they reached 21.” The same applies to political advocacy in general – the quicker youth become involved, the more lasting the “habit” (political advocacy) later down the line.

Of course, voting is just one of many civic duties an American citizen has. For democracy to function like a democracy, public participation – especially from groups that represent our country as a whole – is key to unlocking what is so unique about democracy: the government is always based on the “consent” of the people.

However, it is an unfortunately common misconception that a singular vote does not matter in the grand scheme of millions of other voters – even the president is technically elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote. 

However, a vote is not only just one vote, it is symbolic of an individual’s opinion, even in the sea of millions of others. Such efforts are such as ants in an ant colony – a small ant seemingly has little impact, until it does. It is a fundamental understanding that there is strength in numbers, and there is certainly strength in opinions in American democracy.

Even so, political advocacy for youth does not just have to end at voting – there are multiple ways for youth to advocate for their political opinions: lobbying, public commenting, volunteering, and even talking to people all count.

I have personally had the pleasure to deeply explore a variety of methods for youth civic engagement that have developed my love for political advocacy but also just advocacy in general.

For instance, I have been able to public comment at city council meetings many times to advocate for local issues and changes, which has allowed me to not only get much more hands-on experience with the issues but also discover how municipal government works.

Additionally, I have been able to work with legislative offices to advocate for bills. Surprisingly, it is remarkably easy to get in touch with both your local political representatives and even the representatives who are sponsoring legislation that will eventually affect you. 

Though granted, much of my political advocacy has been facilitated by youth organizations such as Sustainable Leaders in Action and Generation UP. Sometimes, all it takes is a little bit of research and a strong motivation and predisposition for civic engagement.

Ultimately, through my involvement with each of these activities, I have come to realize how impactful it can be to be a political advocate as a student and youth. As much as it might seem that our government is this unattainable, immutable force, Americans live in a free democratic society. By design and nature, our country has been structured to sway to the tides and waves of people’s opinions.

However, our country can only successfully follow this variability by listening to our youth – who are the future generations to inherit present-day society. The only way to listen to such voices is to encourage and understand how important it is for our youth to become politically active in our country first.

The potential local impact of SB 541

POLITICS

Alison Chiu of Heritage High School
February 2024

the FEBRUARY newsletter

In 2023, SB 541, also known as Free Condoms for High School Students, was introduced by Senator Menjivar and co-sponsored by Senators Rubio and Wiener. The main part of the bill would make condoms free for all students from grades 9 to 12 in California. Other smaller parts of the bill included: requiring condoms to be made available as a part of educational programs for grades 7 to 12 and making it illegal for condom retailers to refuse to sell to youth.

SB 541 made it through the entire legislative process and landed on California Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for approval, veto, or approval without signature. Although Governor Newson mentioned that increased access to condoms would be a positive program, he ended up vetoing the bill, killing it from his desk. 

The reason he vetoed it was because it would result in “$19 billion in costs to the state budget” according to KRCA13. Furthermore, he stated that the bill was an “unfunded mandate to public schools that should be considered in the annual budget process.”

Unfortunately, because Governor Newson vetoed the bill, it meant that for it to be reintroduced in this year’s legislative cycle, it needs to go through the entire process again.

SB 541 has been a highly contentious bill mainly due to its unabashed nature that would promote sexual education, awareness, and discussion amongst teenagers across the state. It would likely have a major impact on Brentwood schools, which would have to implement some major changes to comply with the bill if passed this year.

When talking about the impact of this possible bill, students who are quoted chose to remain anonymous. 

Interestingly, one student at Heritage mentioned they would support the bill on the local level because “Sexual health is oftentimes stigmatized amongst society, meaning resources are not widely available to prevent pregnancies and STDs.”

In light of the 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade has led this student to believe it is “increasingly important to provide any assistance to prevent the possibility of unwanted pregnancies,” which they feel SB 541 significantly helps with.

Specifically, the student mentions that sexual education in Brentwood is “all about abstinence” and there needs to be “more implementation with contraceptives,” like how SB 541 would do.

Other local students have also mentioned that they know a few other teenagers in the community who have needed to get an abortion because they did not use a condom. The situations have “caused a huge rumor to go around” and, unfortunately, students report that “those few teens are [now] considered outcasts.”

Although the students state that some parts of Brentwood have better access to contraceptives than others do, “either way, it never hurts to have more on hand for emergencies.” Other reports have also corroborated the fact that condoms are about “medium” accessible in Brentwood.

Seemingly, some students in Brentwood are in support of SB 541 because of the way it would promote more open conversations about sexual health and birth control among youth; they even feel like they may benefit from having wider access to condoms as well.

One aspect of the bill is that youth advocacy and efforts have been numerous and at the forefront of the bill. Many students, youth groups, and other stakeholders have worked on promoting the bill. The bill itself last year had five co-sponsorships from various organizations such as Black Women for Wellness Action Project, Citizens for Choice, Essential Access Health, Generation Up, and Urge, along with many other support groups.

With the legislative cycle starting back up this month and the deadline to introduce new bills having passed, SB 541 will get another chance as it is reintroduced. This year, if the bill passes, it could lead to major changes from Sacramento to even here in Brentwood.

Contextualizing the 2024 presidential candidate disqualifications

POLITICS

Rachel Lei of Heritage High School
30 January 2024

the JANUARY newsletter

According to the U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

This is important to keep in mind as Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the election of government officials who have previously taken an oath to the Constitution and was originally enacted in the context of the Civil War. According to Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University, the section follows that “corps of the Confederacy were drawn from governing officials who predated secession and then emerged as drivers of the rebellion.” The section’s importance is drawn from historical contexts, so it remains rarely unused in modern times. As such, the last known case addressing the provision was in 1919 when Congress refused to seat Victor Berger, a socialist convicted under the Espionage Act. 

Yet, this section has been brought up for debate in the context of the 2024 Presidential Election. According to Amy Howe, a reporter for the SCOTUSblog, Colorado and Maine disqualified former President Donald Trump from the Republican primary ballot “because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol”. The group of registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters that filed the lawsuit to barr the former president in Colorado argued that Trump engaged in insurrection and thus should be tried under the Fourteenth Amendment. They emphasized Trump’s statements urging supporters to protest at the Capitol. Nonetheless, whether the former president’s statements apply to the amendment remains up to interpretation. 

However, as explained by lawyer Laura Temme, legal scholars remain divided on whether the clause could apply to the former president. The section has never been used on a president; some argue that “an officer of the United States” may not address the presidency, while others say that the issue is “better left to voters.” Since these decisions, the Supreme Court has planned to rule on the issue soon, with oral arguments scheduled for Feb. 8.

Assembly Bill 1291 becomes law in 2024

POLITICS

Briana Rose of Los Medanos College
30 January 2024

the JANUARY newsletter

A succession of bills were signed into law last year and went into effect starting the first of January. Among the 890 bills Governor Gavin Newsom signed, he approved Assembly Bill 1291 which aims to streamline the college transfer process to a University of California, UC, for community college students in the state.

Written by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, the bill requires the University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA, to create a pilot program by the 2026-27 school year. In addition, UCLA is required to declare at least 12 transferable majors to be part of their pilot program and select five additional UC campuses to participate in the program by the 2028-29 school year. 

A student who attains an Associate Degree for Transfer in one of the selected majors, and meets transfer requirements, receives priority admission. However, if a student receives an associate degree and meets transfer requirements, but is not granted admission to their university of choice, they will be offered admission to at least one other campus in the UC system. 

Los Medanos community college student and member of the Transfer Academy program offered to students on campus, Yajaira Gonzalez appreciates the state’s efforts to increase access to higher education through a UC for California community college students. 

“I think a lot of people who can’t afford going straight to a 4-year often get discouraged and don’t even want to try community college because they hear about how the transfer process is complicated… and opt to go straight to work,” said Gonzalez. 

Negin Khalifi, a Transfer Academy student, also shared her perspective as a California community college student and student ambassador working in the Transfer and Career Services at Los Medanos College. 

“I think it’ll be really helpful in the sense that it will bring students hope because this year the University of California had to extend their deadlines because not a lot of people were signing up for UCs,” said Khalafi. “I think a lot of it is just tuition in general, but also the intimidation of a UC since they’re talked up a lot. I think the bill will be able to help students feel more confident in UCs, and feel like they’ll have a chance to get in, and they’ll want to do the application,” said Khalafi. 

Newsom signed the bill into law despite opposition from the government relations director of the UC student association, David Ramirez and Chanelle Win, who leads legislative efforts for the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. They oppose the bill due to McCarty not involving them in the writing process. Therefore, the bill does not accomplish the goal of creating one guaranteed admissions pathway for UC and CSU systems and giving students a guaranteed spot at a campus of their choice. 

Though the bill received opposition, The University of California acknowledged Newsom’s decision to proceed with the signing of the bill, which took place on October 10, 2023, setting into motion the bill’s benchmarks and goals to have all nine undergraduate UCs take part in the program by 2031-32.

The first GOP Presidental debate

POLITICS

Alison Chiu of Heritage High School
30 September 2023

Who won? Who lost?

the SEPTEMBER newsletter

As the United States gears up for the 2024 Presidental race, the first of several processes was the first GOP primary presidential debate on Aug. 23. The debate featured eight GOP presidential contenders on stage — Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Doug Burgum and Asa Hutchinson —  who qualified through their polling numbers.

The two-hour debate had “no shortage of aggressive performances,” according to PBS News as tensions grew heated about various topics; there were even instances where various candidates insulted each other, attacking another’s opinions, viewpoints, and beliefs`.

One of the most contentious points centered on former President Donald Trump. 

Although Trump qualified as well, he opted instead to release “a pre-recorded interview with Tucker Carlson,” according to ABC News. PBS News also reveals that Trump scheduled “counter-programming” on the platform X, formerly Twitter.

Trump is also facing federal charges against him – one of the firsts for an ex-president.Yet, the charges have not hurt him in the polls. In fact, one of the questions posed by the debate moderators to the candidates was whether the GOP candidates would support Trump even if he was convicted of his crimes. Most of the candidates pledged their allegance to him. However, the topic of Trump did not end there when dissenters like Christie, a “frequent Trump antagonist” according to PBS News, spoke out against Trump, even “being drowned out at times by the audience’s boos.”

Another heated point during the debate focused on the topic of abortion.

After the overturn of Roe v. Wade last year, the issue of abortion has remained a hot topic as states battle over the regulations for abortion. While all the candidates seemingly agreed against abortion rights, there remained “a clear divide among the candidates over whether to push for a federal abortion ban” according to PBS; Haley advocated for an end to “demonizing” abortion and pushed for state-wide decisions, yet others like Pence and DeSantis pushed for a full federal ban.

The debate did not just end at political issues, but many candidates were personally attacked by others as well. For example, Ramaswamy was attacked multiple times, namely due to the fact that he is the candidate with arguably the least political experience. The remarks did not just end there, and many different allegations about candidates’ funding, political beliefs, and support of the previous president came into light.

The next GOP presidential debate will take place Sept. 27  at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. As NBC states that the new criteria for the six to debate on stage again will “raise the fundraising bar for each candidate from 40,000 unique donors to 50,000” and require candidates to “hit 3% in … polls.” The current projected candidates include:  Trump, DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Haley, and Scott – all of whom have consistently pulled 3% in the polls and hit the previous 40,000 donors requirements.

The leading candidates are seemingly Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy, but the future’s outcomes remain as public opinion remains unclear.

U.S. Supreme Court decides on controversial business case

POLITICS

Alison Chiu of Heritage High School
30 July 2023

Recap of the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis SCOTUS ruling

the July newsletter

The U.S. Supreme Court Case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476, was decided on June 30, 2023. In favor of allowing businesses the right not to serve clients that they wish not to serve, a significant decision that would impact businesses and consumers nationwide.

303 Creative LLC is a business currently owned by Lorie Smith, an Evangelical Christian graphic designer from Colorado who designs websites for couples’ weddings. In 2016, Smith sued the state of Colorado on the hypothetical grounds that she should be able to deny her services to same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs. 

Smith’s attorneys claimed that a man referred to as “Stewart” had requested a website in the case. However, when “Stewart” was contacted, he denied that he had ever submitted the request and explained that he had been married to a woman for decades. It remains unclear whether there was an instance where Smith denied her services to a client, but it is clear that Smith had never faced punishment for refusing her services to anybody.

Throughout the trial, Smith argued that she should be able to exercise her First Amendment rights to “free speech and expression” and, thus, reserve the right to not service couples that did not align with her beliefs.

According to NBC News, the decision was made 6-3 on “ideological lines” among the justices, with six conservative justices voting in favor of the plaintiff, 303 Creative LLC and three more liberal justices voting in favor of Elenis. 

The six justices that sided with Smith included Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The justices cited the right to turn down business because of the First Amendment and other hypotheticals where a business owner may need to service someone who, for instance, believes in racist or sexist ideology.

Smith’s arguments were not entirely novel as previous cases, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, involving Jack Phillips, a cake decorator that refused to make a cake to celebrate a client’s gender transition. 

Furthermore, other justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and critics of the decision called into question when “discrimination,” or the right to refuse a client due to a belief, is acceptable. For instance, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent to the case’s decision, highlighted other hypothetical cases in which one might use the 303 Creative LLC case to discriminate and refuse service based on a client’s race, disability status, or other factors.

The U.S. Supreme Court made this decision in the same week as other controversial cases, such as affirmative action and President Joe Biden’s student debt relief; all cases resulted in a 6-3 decision.

From its beginning, the case has been controversial by nature, alluding to the previous Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Ultimately, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis was a significant ruling that re-outlines the boundaries of who businesses can service for whatever reason.

Court orders arrest for former President Trump

POLITICS

Alison Chiu of Heritage High School
30 Apr. 2023

the april newsletter

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg officially levied 34 felony charges against Donald Trump on April 4, 2023, and his arrest was scheduled after the grand jury voted to charge the former president. The charges varied across multiple crimes, including hush-money payments and falsifying business records regarding the 2016 presidential election. 

Trump’s arrest marks the first time that a former president has been arrested in American history. While former presidents such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson have been previously impeached and accused of crimes, Trump remains the first and only president to have been arrested.

One of the former president’s accusations includes a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a former adult actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, which became public in 2016 before the presidential election. Daniels alleged that Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 in return for a binding non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep silent about a sexual encounter she had with Trump.

When Daniels came out to the media with the story later in 2018, Cohen threatened her with a $20 million lawsuit for violating the NDA she had signed. Although it is not illegal to exchange payment for an NDA, Trump’s accusations stem from how the payment was classified: as legal fees; thus, Trump was accused of falsifying business records.

Trump is also facing charges related to similar pay-offs to Playboy models to keep them silent about other sexual encounters he had and pay-offs to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have information about a child Trump out of marriage.

The exact charges that Trump is facing are not quite clear yet and may remain unclear even if he is indicted. There is a possibility that the charges he faces are more than just hush-money payments and may include other events that were covered up with falsified business records.

In response to the various charges he faced, Trump was brought to court in New York for his arraignment before Judge Juan Merchan. After pleading not guilty to each charge, Trump flew out to his residence at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, and delivered a speech on his arrest the same evening.

He vehemently denied the charges and called his arrest a “fake case” that was meant to interrupt the upcoming 2024 presidential election, which he plans to run in.

While the judge did not allow new outlets to broadcast the proceedings of the case, five still photographers were allowed to take pictures before the hearing began. Trump’s next hearing for the case is tentatively set for Dec. 4, 2023. Each of the different charges he will be facing directly correlates to a specific false entry in his business records.

Recap of the 2022 Midterm Elections

POLITICS

Alison Chiu of Heritage High School
30 Nov. 2022

the NOVEMBER newsletter

The midterm elections take place in November; two years after the last presidential election. While about one-third of senators get elected, all 435 seats of the House are up for running during midterms. Depending on specific locations, state and local elections may also take place.

This year, the Democratic party won the Senate with 50 seats secured, while the Republican party won the House with 219 seats secured.

According to BBC News, the split between two parties of two chambers is termed a “divided government,” and is likely to result in “two years of partisan deadlock that may remain unresolved until the next election cycle in 2024.”

In California, Alex Padilla won the Senate seat, and the seats of the House resulted in 40 Democratic representatives, 10 Republican representatives, and 2 uncalled seats as of late November.

Notably, California lost a House seat after the 2020 census, marking another change in this year’s elections. Gavin Newsom was re-elected as governor with a 59.5% result.

California voters also had to decide on seven propositions: Prop 1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. Prop 1 covered abortion, Prop 26 focused on sports betting on tribal lands, Prop 27 featured online sports betting, Prop 28 decided on art and music PK-12 funding, Prop 29 debated kidney dialysis reform, Prop 30 decided on wealth tax for clean air programs and Prop 31 proposed a flavored tobacco ban.

Props 1, 28, & 31 passed; the rest failed.

Additionally, Brentwood and Contra Costa County voters decided on items and seats more specific to them.

According to the City of Brentwood, “lands designated as Voter-Protected Open Space could be redesignated to allow uses that are not consistent with the Overlay only by a vote of the people.” With a win of 64%, the measure passed.

Two seats of Brentwood’s City Council, previously held by member Karen Rarey and Vice Mayor Johnny Rodriguez, were also up for election. Patanisha Davis Pierson won Trustee Area 2 with 1,519 votes, & Tony Oerlemans with 2,179 votes.

The 2022 midterm elections resulted in a Republican win of the House, two years after Democratic Joe Biden became president, but the win was not the “red wave” that was projected. The new “divided government” hints at the potentially rocky future Congress might have in store.