Yesterday, I turned a little of my worry about tomorrow's election into action by making some calls to support the No on 8 Campaign. In case you've missed it, Proposition 8 is the California proposition that will take away the fundamental right to marry from lesbian and gay persons. The direct effect of Prop 8, if successful, is to stop marriages in California, but indirectly its success will do damage throughout our country, including in Illinois. The proponents of Prop 8 certainly see it that way. That's why groups from outside of California, such as Focus on the Family in Colorado, are among the largest donors to support the passage of Prop 8. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Between Dec. 2007 and July, Focus donated $448,406 to support Proposition 8, with most of the money going to ProtectMarriage.com, a California-based coalition. Its largest donation, $250,000, came in June, one month after the court ruling.

Focus is the seventh biggest donor among Proposition 8 supporters, according to the California Secretary of State's Office.

Other major donors are Elsa Prince, a Focus board member ($450,000); the American Family Association ($500,000); Fieldstead & Co. ($600,000); the John Templeton Foundation ($900,000); and the National Organization for Marriage ($941,134.80).

Holding on to marriage in California will help us win legal relationship protections in other states, because of the importance of California as an economic force and a cultural and legal trend-setter for other states.

Calling was easy. You can go to the No on Prop 8 website, www.noonprop8.com, click on Volunteer, and then follow the directions for calling from home, if you live out of state. I spoke to people who had already voted - some yes, unfortunately - but was able to talk to people who had not yet voted. Results in this campaign are likely to be very close, so even a small amount of your time might make the difference in assuring that Prop 8 is defeated. Your call may serve to clarify that voting No means that yes, gays and lesbians will continue to have the right to marry and encourage Californians to get out and vote the whole ballot (it is a long one in California). Finally, you may be the person to change someone's mind from being undecided to being against Prop 8.

If you still have questions about Prop 8, you can go to the website of the ACLU of Northern California, a major player in the fight against Prop 8 or to No on Prop 8 website. There has been a great deal of misinformation put out by Prop 8 supporters. The Los Angeles Times did a good job of setting the records straight:

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. ...

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

The campaign needs money to support its last-minute ads, so consider donating as well as making some calls.

The ACLU of Illinois adds our voice to all Americans mourning the stilling of a great voice, Chicago legend and national treasure Studs Terkel. Studs described himself as a "guerilla journalist with a tape recorder," but in truth he was a chronicler of America. The land that Studs chronicled was not the America of bankers and Wall Street, but the America of laborers and Main Street. A fixture in Chicago for eight decades, Studs was an inspiration to opinion leaders, to academics, to political leaders, to civil libertarians and to all Chicagoans.
Studs twice was honored by the ACLU of Illinois, first in 1981 with our award for journalism and then again in 1998 with our Freedom of Expression Award. But Studs' work with the ACLU of Illinois did not end with awards.

In 2006, Studs joined our lawsuit against AT&T, serving as the lead plaintiff in litigation challenging the telecoms collaboration with the Bush White House's surveillance of innocent Americans. Studs quickly joined the lawsuit - along with several other prominent Chicago residents - because he believed that the outrages of the Bush White House simply had to be challenged.

In October of 2007, the New York Times published a piece by Studs titled "The Wiretap this Time." In that opinion piece decrying the Bush Administration spying and placing it in historical context, Studs talked about his own experience with a blacklist during the 1950s:

I was among those blacklisted for my political beliefs. My crime? I had signed petitions. Lots of them.

For Studs sake, let us all remember to speak up and speak out wherever and whenever we see injustice and intolerance. And, never be afraid to express our political beliefs. Studs left all of us a large legacy to recall and replicate. Rest well, Studs.

The Supreme Court just overturned a lower court order which would have forced the Ohio Secretary of State to set up a last minute system to enable county elections offices to weed out voter registration errors based on discrepancies with state motor vehicle and federal Social Security databases - databases that have been shown to be riddled with errors.

In a 9-0 ruling, the Court ordered the Appeals Court's temporary restraining order vacated, because the state GOP "... are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 [of the Help America Vote Act] in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a [Temporary Restraining Order]." The Court did not rule on the merits of the case (the question of whether elections officials are obligated under the Help America Vote Act to throw out voter registrations based on mismatches with motor vehicle or social security databases), the ruling does mean that Ohio will not see more voter registrations thrown out between now and November 4th.

The ruling is especially important because verifying voter registrations via database (as opposed to requiring voters to present federally recognized ID) can lead to disenfranchisement of legally eligible voters. According to Kim Zetter of Wired:

The law requires each voter to have a unique identifier. Since 2004, new registration applicants have had to provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number to register (voters who don't have them are assigned a unique number by the state). States are required to try to authenticate the numbers with motor vehicle records and the Social Security Administration database.

But databases are prone to errors such as misspellings and transposed numbers, and applicants are prone to make mistakes or write illegibly on applications. The Social Security Administration has acknowledged that matches between its database and voter-registration records have yielded a 28.5 percent error rate.

The ACLU's Voting Rights Project has a number of resources to help you ensure your rights are protected in the upcoming election.

Hat Tip Ezra Klein