Saturday, November 18, 2017

SD Possible 2018 Ballot Initiatives

South Dakota Voter could have a these proposed Initiatives on 2018 Election Day.

Initiative groups hoping to go before Voters in 2018 faced a crucial Deadline, Nov. 6th, to turn in Signatures to the Secretary of State. Initiated measures need nearly 14,000 Valid Signatures, while Constitutional Amendments require almost 28,000 Valid Names.

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs’ Office conducts a Random Sampling of Signatures to determine Validity. Krebs said she hopes to review all submitted Measures and finish within Four months.

Here’s a look at some of the Initiatives Submitted to go before Voters:


House Speaker Mark Mickelson turned in slightly more than 18,000 Signatures for an Initiative that would Ban Out-of-State Political Contributions for Ballot questions. The move comes after Out-of-State Donors pumped over $10 Million into Campaigns for or against South Dakota questions during the 2016 Election Cycle. A similar Bill capping Out-of-State Contributions Failed in the Legislature this year, and Experts have said such Measures are unlikely to survive a Legal Challenge.


Supporters of a Constitutional Amendment that would take Control of Redistricting from South Dakota Legislators and give it to an Independent Commission turned in more than 34,000 Signatures. The Commission would consist of Nine People with no more than Three from any one Political Party. It mirrors a Constitutional Amendment that South Dakota Voters Rejected last year.


The Constitutional Amendment would move South Dakota to an Open Primary system for many Races. Supporters turned in more than 37,000 Signatures for the plan, which would have the Top-Two finishers in a Primary advance to the General Election regardless of Party. It would apply to Primaries for County Offices, Legislature, Governor, and U.S. House and Senate. The 2018 Push comes after a similar Amendment Failed at the Polls last year.


Supporters of a proposed Ballot Measure that would allow South Dakota Counties to switch to Elections conducted entirely by Mail Ballot handed over nearly 20,000 Signatures. Under the Proposal, Voting Yes, would Dispense with Polling Places, and require Primary, Special, and General Elections to be conducted via Mail Ballot.


Ahead of other Campaigns, Supporters of a proposed Government Ethics Constitutional Amendment last month turned in more than 50,000 Signatures for their Measure. The Amendment would tighten Campaign Finance and Lobbying Restrictions, create an Independent Ethics Commission, and require that Laws changing the Ballot Question process Pass a Public Vote, among other Provisions. The Proposal would Replace a Voter-imposed Ethics Overhaul that South Dakota Lawmakers Repealed this year.


A Proposed Measures approved for Circulation won’t appear on the Ballot: It would have made it Harder for the Legislature to Tamper with Voter Initiatives.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

NY Should Ban Candidates from Soliciting Campaign Money

Jerry H. Goldfeder is Special Counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, specializing in Election and Campaign Finance Law, Public Integrity Investigations, and Regulatory compliance. Prior to joining Stroock, he served as Special Counsel to former New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. He has practiced Law in Manhattan, and represented Elected Officials and Candidates for Public Office for over thirty years—from Local Office to President of the United States. He serves as Chair of the Election Law and Government Affairs Committee of the General Practice Committee of the New York State Bar Association; he recently completed a three-year tenure as Chair of the Election Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

He thinks we should Ban Candidates from Soliciting Campaign Money. The Public has a right to know if Campaign Contributions influence their Elected Officials’ Decisions.

It is a tricky issue. After all, how can anyone gauge what factors tug at a Public Official when they are Casting a Vote or supporting a Policy? All candidates for Public Office, from City Council to President of the United States, must raise Money to Run an effective Campaign, and every Elected Official has authority or Influence over decisions that impact their Constituents and Contributors included. Mayoral Candidates routinely accept Donations from those with Business before City Agencies. Governors and Legislators also take Contributions from so-called Special Interests. And District Attorneys are routinely Supported by the Legal Community. So there is always going to be a Skeptic, fairly or not, who tries to Connect the Dots between the Contribution and the Decision.

The usual Reform Proposals, Lower Contribution Limits or even Public Matching funds of Private Donations, do not address the Heart of the Problem. Short of Total Funding of Campaigns by Public Funds, there seems to be only one Solution, an outright Ban on Candidates directly asking for Contributions and learning Contributors’ Identities. Only if there is a complete Firewall between Candidates and Donors can the Public be certain that Campaign $ Signs are not dancing in the Elected Official’s Head.

This Proposal is not as Out-of-the-Box as it might seem. In New York, we already Ban certain Candidates from asking for Campaign Donations.

- State Court Rules Prohibit Judicial Candidates from asking for Political Contributions. NY Ct. Rules §100.5(A)(5). This Ban is fairly common throughout the Country, and the U.S. Supreme Court has given its Approval. Judges, after all, are expected to be as objective as Humanly possible. A Violation can lead to a range of Sanctions, including Removal from the Bench.

- Police who run for Office are Barred from soliciting or Receiving Contributions, and a Violation is actually a Crime. NY Elec. Law §17-110. This Ban is over a hundred years old, from the days when the Local Police Commissioner and his Minions acted as Tammany Hall accomplices in getting Out the Vote and Stifling Opposition. Life has changed dramatically, but the Law is still on the Books.

In both examples, Campaign Committees of Friends and Colleagues step up to the plate. The Candidates, however, are kept in the Dark.

Judicial Candidates face this Issue in New York with little Practical Effect because, for good or bad, many of their Races are relatively Uncontested. And few Police actually Run for Office, so the Law’s impact is hard to gauge. One notable example just occurred, however. Suffolk County Police Commissioner Tim Sini, who Goldfeder represented during his Campaign, just Ran and Won for Suffolk County District Attorney. Sini was barred from asking anyone for Money. Yet, his Campaign Committee raised $1.5 Million. To be sure, without the Candidate’s Direct Involvement it was not easy. But the Firewall did not Prevent his Campaign from getting the job done without Him. As a result, there are no Suspicious dots to connect between Donors and the New District Attorney.

An Across-the-Board Ban on Candidate Solicitation would allow them to Focus on the Issues, liberating them from the arduous task of Dialing for Dollars. More importantly, it would Free Elected Officials from even considering a Donor’s Concerns. And Voters would have a much Higher Comfort Level in knowing their Public Officials were making Decisions wholly on the Merits.

State or Local Officials should Favor this Ban. It would make their Lives a lot easier and Protect their Reputations. Short of that, Candidates can simply decide to Voluntarily Opt-Out of the Fundraising grind. This Reform would Boost the Public’s Confidence in our Elected Officials, and that certainly would be welcome news.

What do you think of this type of Ban?

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Judge Considers Whether Trump's Tweets Should Open Government's Dossier Probe

A Federal Judge is considering whether President Trump’s own tweets could Force the Federal Government to Reveal more information about its efforts to verify the Claims in the controversial privately compiled Dossier about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.

Trump has taken to his favorite social media forum to denounce the so-called dossier as “Fake” and “Discredited,” while also calling repeatedly for investigators to make Public details about who funded creation of the document containing accurate, inaccurate and unverified assertions about the President.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta heard arguments Friday in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Lawsuit testing whether Trump’s Public statements foreclose the Government’s ability to Refuse to even confirm that Officials attempted to verify the Claims in the so-called Dossier. The Lawsuit was filed by Politico Reporter, Josh Gerstein, along with a Pro-Transparency group, the James Madison Project. “When the president says Mr. Comey — former director Comey — brought the dossier to me, isn’t that an acknowledgement that the FBI possesses the dossier?” the Judge asked, referring to comments Trump made in a New York Times interview.

Justice Department Lawyer David Glass said the statement was still too vague to force the Government to respond in greater detail to the FOIA requests and Lawsuit. Much of the 40-minute Hearing at the Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., turned on whether Trump’s statements could or should be read to mean that Government Agencies had investigated the Claims in the Dossier and found them wanting. “There’s no inference that is possible,” Glass insisted. “It could be based on other things.”

An Attorney for the Requesters told Mehta that, while Trump’s statements might have been based on his personal knowledge or media reports, without further clarification from the White House, the Court should assume the President was communicating in his Official Capacity based on Official knowledge. “He’s saying it is discredited. It has been discredited,” Lawyer Brad Moss said. “If the White House or whatever defendant wants to clarify it, that’s their prerogative, but until that, there’s a factual discrepancy.”

Mehta responded by venturing into a subject rarely raised publicly in Court: Trump’s calls for Hillary Clinton to be investigated and jailed. “He’s also said his opponent did break the law,” the Judge observed, asking whether that was Trump relaying an Official Justice Department conclusion or just offering his Personal opinion. When Moss suggested that the Court might need to Order some sort of fact-finding exercise to figure out whether the President’s statements about the Dossier were based on Official or Unofficial information, Mehta jumped in. “How do you propose doing that? Do you want to depose the president?” the judge asked. “As much as I would like that, that is not necessarily something I would think is necessary at this point,” Moss replied.

The so-called Dossier was compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, at the request of Washington-based private investigation firm Fusion GPS. One or more copies eventually ended up in the hands of the FBI last year. Intelligence Officials have acknowledged giving President Barack Obama and then-President-elect Trump a two-page Synopsis of the Dossier’s allegations, which include salacious claims Trump has denied about his conduct during a visit to Russia.

Glass acknowledged that Trump could speak on behalf of Federal Agencies, but said the Law requires Agencies changes their approach on Disclosure only when he discussed precisely what is sought in the FOIA request. “The standard as we perceive it is there has to be an exact match,” the Justice Department Lawyer said, noting that some of the requests refer to a Two-Page Synopsis of the Dossier and not the Dossier itself. Glass also said there was “a lot of lack of clarity” on what the Dossier consisted of.

Glass also argued that Trump’s calls for the Justice Department and FBI to reveal who paid for the Dossier did not mean those Agencies actually had such information. “He is not admitting the FBI or Justice Department necessarily know who’s paying for it,” the DOJ Lawyer said. The Judge seemed to Reject some of the finer distinctions the Government was trying to draw. Mehta repeatedly pointed out that in a 2013 Case involving Records about Drone strikes, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that statements President Obama and top Advisers made on the topic essentially foreclosed the CIA’s efforts to Refuse to Confirm or Deny whether it had any Records on Drones.

The Judge said the statements from Obama and the other Officials were not an “exact match” but led to a Logical Inference that Agencies like the CIA had to have Records on the Subject.

Asked about that Appeals Court Case, which is Binding Law for Mehta and other District Court Judges, Glass replied: “It’s seems to us that was a one-off.” Moss noted that the D.C. Circuit Case appeared to presume that Obama and the other Officials were speaking based on Official knowledge and not other kinds of information. “None of them said where they got their information from,” the Attorney said. However, Mehta referenced Justice Department Policies Limiting Contacts with the White House and said those might require him to presume that Trump’s statements did not come from Official DOJ information. But when the Judge asked whether any similar Policy would preclude Intelligence Agencies from Briefing the President on Allegations about him, Glass demurred. “I have no idea,” he said.
Mehta offered No Clear indication Friday of how he plans to Resolve the Issue. As he wrapped up the Hearing, he simply said: “Lot of food for thought,” before promising to Release a Ruling soon.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, November 17, 2017

NY School Board Lawsuit Could Upend Future Elections Statewide

An New York At-Large Voting system for Electing Members to the East Ramapo School Board, long dominated by Orthodox Jews whose Children attend Private Yeshivas, has prevented Public School Parents who are largely Black and Latino from Electing Candidates of their choice, according to a Lawsuit filed on Thursday by the New York Civil Liberties Union.

“What we have in East Ramapo is a common case of disenfranchisement of minority voters in the extreme,” said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York A.C.L.U. “The system allowed for the white community that does not send its children to public school to hijack the school board.”

The Complaint, filed along with Co-Counsel Latham & Watkins in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the School District and the State Department of Education, argues that the Election System Violates the Federal Voting Rights Act by denying “minority citizens an equal opportunity to have a voice in the future of their community’s public schools.” A “toxic combination of an at-large elections system and racially polarized voting,” the Lawyers say, has made it seemingly impossible for Candidates backed by Minority Voters to Win “even a single contested election in the past decade.”

Plaintiffs in the Case, the Spring Valley Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Parents of Public School Students, District Residents, and Candidates who have Run unsuccessfully for a Seat on the Board, are calling for the current system to be Replaced with a Ward Election system that would give Minorities “an equal opportunity” to elect their favored candidates.

Orthodox Jews have represented a Majority of the Nine-Member Board since 2005. Under the At-Large Election system a White Voting Bloc “effectively shut out advocates for the public school community,” the Lawsuit claims. The Lawsuit is the latest twist in a years long, ongoing battle between the Board, which has been accused of Diverting Funds from Local Public Schools to Orthodox Jewish Students in Private Schools, and Black and Latino Residents in the District. Of the nearly 35,500 Students in the District, 76% attend Private Schools, mostly Yeshivas. Black and Latino Students represent more than 90% of the District’s Public School Population.

The School District in East Ramapo, located roughly an hour North of Manhattan in Rockland County, was once well-regarded, but in recent years has become one of the Poorest Performing Districts in the County, according to the Lawsuit. A Fiscal Monitor was Appointed by the State Education Department to Investigate the District’s Finances in 2014 after years of Severe Cuts including the Elimination of 445 Positions and a Reduction of Full-Day Kindergarten. Athletic, Arts and Music programs, and Extracurricular activities were also Gutted while the Private Schools received a boost in Public Funding for Transportation and Special Education, and Taxes were Cut.

A State Investigator found that Cuts were made with no meaningful effort “to distribute the pain of deep budget cuts fairly among public and private schools.” The Board also lacked Transparency and Oversight, and often spent a Majority of its meetings in Executive Sessions. The State has continued to appoint Monitors, including a Team led by Dennis M. Walcott, a former New York City Schools Chancellor under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, to the District, leading to some Money being Restored. But Public School Advocates and City Officials say wider Representation on the Board is sorely needed.

“I do think a case could be made that the majority can’t just trample over the rights of the minority here,” said Assemblyman Kenneth P. Zebrowski, a Democrat from Rockland County. “At what point do we get to that and say that you are not fulfilling the core mission of the school district.” At-Large Voting in School Board Elections has been Challenged in Districts in other States in recent years. In New York, all School Districts excluding the Buffalo School District use At-Large Voting to Elect Board Members, according to Timothy Kremer, Executive Director of the New York State School Boards Association.

“It is an entirely predictable lawsuit given the circumstances that seem to exist,” said Richard H. Pildes, an Expert on the Law of Democracy and Professor of Law at New York University. “The majority still remains the majority, but it breaks up that at-large structure so it doesn’t control every seat on the school board.” Mr. Pildes said Challenges to At-Large Voting systems in School Board Elections were common in the South, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. He said the Plaintiffs would have to show that there has been a History of Discrimination, and that they were “effectively denied influence and power,” and that there are Polarized Voting Patterns.

Yehuda Weissmandl, President of the East Ramapo School Board, declined to Address the Allegations in the Lawsuit. He said he had not Reviewed the Complaint, but said it “will cost students at the district programs and opportunities” because Money from the Budget will be used to fight the Lawsuit. Mr. Weissmandl said the Board did not make the Election Rules.

Eric Goodwin, one of the Plaintiffs in the Case, moved to Nanuet, which is part of the East Ramapo District, in 2011 in search of a “better life” for himself and his family, including his 12-year-old Son who had been a Student in a Harlem Private School. Mr. Goodwin placed his Son in Public School because he believed that in the Suburbs it would be equivalent to Private Schools. But he quickly learned that he was wrong. His Child’s Music Class did not have enough instruments for each Student so Mr. Goodwin said he spent $35 a Month for a year to Rent a Clarinet for his Son. The Textbooks were dated. “I just want my child to get the same opportunities as everyone else,” he said.

Mr. Goodwin decided to Run for a Seat on the Board with the idea that maybe he could make a difference as a Member. He Lost to a Candidate supported by the Private school community. “A lot of people were disenfranchised and discouraged from running,” he said. “People would say, ‘It’s not going to change. They won’t give up that power.’”

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Democracy Vouchers’ May Come to New York City

As he Ran for New York City Mayor this year, former City Council Member Sal Albanese typically didn’t go more than five minutes without mentioning his call to bring Additional Campaign Finance Reform to City.

Despite the fact that the City already has a heralded Public-Matching system that encourages Small Donation Fundraising, Albanese pointed to the “Democracy Voucher” program instituted in Seattle, which is even more Radical in its efforts to lower Individual Donation Limits, encourage more Voters to engage in Politics, and push Candidates to Pay more attention to Residents of all Financial means.

The Seattle program, passed by Voters in 2015 as part of a Larger “Honest Elections” Initiative, not only Mandates exceedingly Low Ceilings for Individual Donations to Candidates and for Candidate Expenditures, it provides Eligible Residents with Four $25 Vouchers that they can Donate to Participating Candidates of their Choosing. Using Public Money garnered from a Property Tax, it encourages more People to Participate by giving them the means to Donate to Candidates and pushes Candidates to reach out more broadly to the Electorate. Research has shown that people who Donate to Campaigns Vote in very High Numbers.

While Albanese fell short in his Bid to unseat Mayor Bill de Blasio, the City Council’s Resident Campaign Finance Reformer is planning to explore a Democracy Voucher program in New York City. City Council Member Ben Kallos said that he has Submitted a Request to the Council’s Bill-Drafting Unit for Democracy Voucher Legislation, likely to be introduced Next Year, after a New class of Council Members is Seated and a New Speaker Selected in January. "I'm exploring anything and everything a jurisdiction in the country or on the planet is using to increase participation," Kallos said. "The recent court decision upholding democracy vouchers shows a promising option for the city as we investigate ways for candidates to come from a community with community support without having to rely on big dollars from special interests," Kallos added, referring to a Challenge to the Seattle system that was Dismissed earlier this month.

Putting in a Request for Legislation is the first step of many whereby a Bill can become Law, and many Bills never get through the City Council to the Mayor’s Desk. But, Kallos intends to start a serious Discussion about whether the City should take a more Drastic step toward Campaign Finance Reform. Next year will also see a Report from the City’s Campaign Finance Board (CFB) about its Program, as is mandated by Law in the year following each City Election. The Board will make Recommendations for ways in which the City can tweak the program, but Democracy Vouchers are unlikely to be part of its Recommendations.

As for drawbacks to a Democracy Voucher Program, one is that there is very limited Data on its effectiveness since the Seattle program just got going. Others include the Potential Cost in Public Dollars, which could Exceed the Money the City currently puts toward its program, the CFB paid out “$17,694,046 to 103 qualifying candidates for the 2017 election cycle,” according to a recent Press Release, and whether an accompanying Reduction in Maximum Individual Contributions would push more Money into Independent Expenditures.

Before introducing Democracy Voucher Legislation or the CFB Post-Election Report, however, Kallos is looking to see one of his currently-pending Campaign Finance Reform Bills passed in the waning days of this Legislative session. Co-sponsored by 29 Members in the 51-Seat Council, the Kallos Bill would increase the Public Matching Threshold for how much Candidates can Receive relative to the Spending Limit in their Races, there are Lower Thresholds for City Council Races than Borough-wide and City-wide Races.

The Bill had a Hearing in April and Kallos said he is pushing to see it passed this Term. The Manhattan Democrat saw his Online Voter Registration Bill passed on Tuesday by the Governmental Operations Committee he Chairs. The Full Council Passed it on Thursday and Mayor de Blasio has indicated he will Sign it into Law.

The de Blasio Administration has indicated Support for Kallos’ Bill to Increase the Public Matching Threshold, which would allow Candidates to Run their Campaigns based more on Smaller, Matchable Donations, Eligible Donations up to $175 are Matched Six-to-One, to a certain Percentage of the Spending Threshold, which Kallos’ Bill would Increase.

A de Blasio Spokesperson also expressed some vague Support for exploring the ideas of Democracy Vouchers and Lowering Contribution Limits. “The Mayor supports moving towards full public financing of elections and reversing Citizens United,” said Spokesperson Seth Stein, in a Statement. “We are reviewing other proposals and City Council legislation that will help us end the influence of money in our elections.”

Under the Seattle System, the Maximum Contribution allowed by each Individual to a Candidate participating in the Democracy Voucher program is $250 plus $100 in Vouchers. For Candidates not Participating in the Program, the Maximum Individual Contribution is $500. These Numbers are far Lower than those currently allowed in New York City, where, for example, the Maximum Individual Donation to a Mayoral Candidate is $4,950.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Feds to Accept DACA Forms from Those Hit by Mail Delays

The Trump Administration on Wednesday Reversed its stance that it would do nothing for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program Applicants who met a Filing Deadline before the U.S. Postal Service apparently Mishandled their Applications, as Challengers to Plans to nix the Program told a New York Federal Court the Error affected at least 4,000 People.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will accept Renewal Requests from those who can prove they timely Mailed their Renewal Applications before the Oct. 5th Deadline.

United We Dream, one of the largest Immigrant-Rights groups in the U.S., called the Decision a Victory. The group said it didn't know how many Mail-Delayed Applications USCIS would Re-Evaluate. The group cautioned there might be Applications that were Denied because of Human, not Postal, Errors.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Keystone Pipeline Leaks Over 210,000 Gallons of Oil

A total of 210,000 gallons of Oil Leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the Pipeline's Operator, TransCanada, said. Crews shut down the Pipeline Thursday Morning and Officials are Investigating the cause of the Leak, which occurred about 3 miles Southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a Spokesman for the State's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This is the Largest Keystone Oil Spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. The Leak comes just days before Nebraska Officials announce a Decision on whether the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, a Sister Project, can move Forward.

"It is a below-ground pipeline but some oil has surfaced above ground to the grass," Walsh said. "It will be a few days until they can excavate and get in borings to see if there is groundwater contamination." There were no initial Reports of the Oil Spill affecting Waterways, Water Systems, or Wildlife, he said.

TransCanada said it was working with State and Federal Agencies. "The safety of the public and environment are our top priorities and we will continue to provide updates as they become available," the Company said.

The Keystone Pipeline system stretches more than 2,600 miles from Hardisty East into Manitoba and then down to Texas, according to TransCanada. The Pipeline transports Crude Oil from Canada. The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would stretch from Hardisty down to Steele City, Nebraska, would complete the Entire proposed system by cutting through Montana and South Dakota. The Sections of Pipeline affected stretch from Hardisty, Alberta, to Cushing, Oklahoma, and to Wood River, Illinois, the Company said.

The Spill occurred in the same County as part of the Lake Traverse Reservation. "We are concerned that the oil spill is close to our treaty land, but we are trying to stay positive that they are getting the spill contained and that they will share any environmental assessments with the tribal agency," said Dave Flute, Tribal Chairman of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate.

Environmental Activist group Greenpeace said the Spill shows the New Pipeline in Nebraska should not be Approved. "The Nebraska Public Service Commission needs to take a close look at this spill," said Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace. "A permit approval allowing Canadian oil company TransCanada to build Keystone XL is a thumbs-up to likely spills in the future."

In March, President Trump's Administration officially issued a Permit that Approved Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Approval followed years of intense debate over the Pipeline amid hefty opposition from Environmental groups, who argued the Pipeline supports the Extraction of Crude Oil from Oil Sands, which pumps about 17% more Greenhouse Gases than Standard Crude Oil Extraction. Environmentalists also opposed the Pipeline because it would cut across the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the World's Largest Underground Deposits of Fresh Water.

Tar Sands Oil is much Thicker and Stickier than traditional Oil, significantly complicating Cleanup efforts. The fact it's thicker also means it needs to be combined with other Hazardous Materials to allow it to be Transported in Pipelines. Native American groups have argued the Pipeline would cut across their Sovereign Lands. Trump said the new Pipeline will be a big win for American Workers, but critics say it won't be, because most of the Jobs would be Temporary.

TransCanada said Thursday that the Section of Keystone Pipe that was Leaking was isolated within 15 Minutes after a Drop in Pressure was detected. According to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources' website, this is the Third Pipeline Spill in the State this year. Another came in April when about 84 Gallons of Crude Oil leaked from the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline in Spink County. That Pipeline, which runs through both Dakotas and two other States, drew fierce Resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota, the Tribe's Allies, and Environmentalists. Opposition to the Pipeline sparked Months long Protests, with as many as 10,000 People participating during the Peak of the Demonstrations. Clashes with Police at the Protests turned Violent at times, with one Woman nearly losing her Arm after an Explosion last November.

NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon