Republic of Moldova: First Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility, and Requests for Modification of Performance Criteria and Inflation Consultation Clause-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of Moldova
Published September 30, 2022 Read more at imf.org
Five Things to Know About the Right to Seek Asylum
Although our laws provide a clear right for people fleeing persecution to seek asylum in the United States, anti-immigration lawmakers have purposefully sown confusion about the law, the process of applying for asylum, and what is really needed to ensure a fair and orderly system for considering the claims of people seeking protection at the border. Instead of seeking solutions, they have tried to undermine the right to seek asylum at every turn.
Here’s what you need to know:
Seeking asylum is a human right protected under our laws.
The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.
The United States passed its own federal law in the Refugee Act of 1980, for people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that individuals who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.
In today’s world, these protections remain critical, with more people forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, violence, and human rights violations than at any other point since World War II.
To be granted asylum, people must come to the U.S. or the border and must prove their case.
Elected officials and news outlets often mischaracterize those seeking asylum at the border as breaking the law or failing to seek protection “the right way.” However, under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.
In either case, people seeking asylum at the border are subjected to a criminal background and security check. They must then navigate a complex and lengthy process, involving multiple government agencies, in order to prove that they have a well founded fear of persecution. Those who lose their cases and any appeals are ordered removed and are deported. Since March of 2020, most people seeking asylum at the border have been denied the right to do so under normal rules, and have instead been expelled from the U.S. under Title 42, described below.
Many policies threaten the right to seek asylum, but none actually stop people from trying to seek protection at the border.
President Trump implemented multiple policies in an attempt to end asylum at the border. President Biden promised to restore a fair and humane asylum system, but has been slow to fully reverse Trump’s policies. For example, Title 42, which uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for expelling asylum seekers without offering them any opportunity to seek protection, remains in effect. The policy has led to thousands of documented cases of violent attacks against individuals who the U.S. has expelled, including rape, torture, and abduction.
Elected officials in both parties have sought to justify restrictive asylum policies for their “deterrence” value, claiming that they discourage migrants from coming to the border. But these policies do not stop people from seeking safety and ultimately create more disorder. Title 42, for example, has encouraged people seeking protection to try multiple times to cross. Even after imposing the strictest and most punitive rules against asylum seekers, President Trump faced sharp increases in the numbers of migrants seeking asylum at the border, the highest numbers in over a decade.
Despite obstacles, asylum-seekers become integral members of our communities.
People seeking asylum in the U.S. must overcome many challenges. They leave their homes behind and endure grueling journeys in pursuit of safety. When they arrive, they are often unnecessarily detained by ICE in abusive conditions, even though they have family members or friends they could stay with while their cases proceed.
Despite these obstacles, asylum-seekers are eager to provide for their families and contribute to their communities. They have gone on to open their own businesses, work in jobs that help feed our communities, care for sick people, and advocate for people’s rights, contributing billions in taxes and revenue. One recent study estimated that on average, an asylum seeker contributes over $19,000 per year to the U.S. economy, and that a 25 percent reduction in the number of all people seeking asylum in the country would cause an economic loss of $20.5 billion over a five-year period.
Excess money spent on policing the border would be better spent on creating a fair, orderly, and welcoming system.
We need a more efficient, humane, and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum. Much of the money Congress currently spends on a bloated Border Patrol police force should be spent instead on making sure our immigration agencies and federal courts have enough employees and judges to adjudicate asylum claims in a fair and orderly manner, and to ensure that people are supported in their efforts to join their family members and sponsors in their destination locations. The sooner people are able to integrate into their new homes and are issued work permits, the sooner they’ll be able to support themselves and their families and contribute in other ways to their new communities.
Five Things to Know About the Right to Seek Asylum
Although our laws provide a clear right for people fleeing persecution to seek asylum in the United States, anti-immigration lawmakers have purposefully sown confusion about the law, the process of applying for asylum, and what is really needed to ensure a fair and orderly system for considering the claims of people seeking protection at the border. Instead of seeking solutions, they have tried to undermine the right to seek asylum at every turn.
Here’s what you need to know:
Seeking asylum is a human right protected under our laws.
The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.
The United States passed its own federal law in the Refugee Act of 1980, for people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that individuals who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.
In today’s world, these protections remain critical, with more people forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, violence, and human rights violations than at any other point since World War II.
To be granted asylum, people must come to the U.S. or the border and must prove their case.
Elected officials and news outlets often mischaracterize those seeking asylum at the border as breaking the law or failing to seek protection “the right way.” However, under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.
In either case, people seeking asylum at the border are subjected to a criminal background and security check. They must then navigate a complex and lengthy process, involving multiple government agencies, in order to prove that they have a well founded fear of persecution. Those who lose their cases and any appeals are ordered removed and are deported. Since March of 2020, most people seeking asylum at the border have been denied the right to do so under normal rules, and have instead been expelled from the U.S. under Title 42, described below.
Many policies threaten the right to seek asylum, but none actually stop people from trying to seek protection at the border.
President Trump implemented multiple policies in an attempt to end asylum at the border. President Biden promised to restore a fair and humane asylum system, but has been slow to fully reverse Trump’s policies. For example, Title 42, which uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for expelling asylum seekers without offering them any opportunity to seek protection, remains in effect. The policy has led to thousands of documented cases of violent attacks against individuals who the U.S. has expelled, including rape, torture, and abduction.
Elected officials in both parties have sought to justify restrictive asylum policies for their “deterrence” value, claiming that they discourage migrants from coming to the border. But these policies do not stop people from seeking safety and ultimately create more disorder. Title 42, for example, has encouraged people seeking protection to try multiple times to cross. Even after imposing the strictest and most punitive rules against asylum seekers, President Trump faced sharp increases in the numbers of migrants seeking asylum at the border, the highest numbers in over a decade.
Despite obstacles, asylum-seekers become integral members of our communities.
People seeking asylum in the U.S. must overcome many challenges. They leave their homes behind and endure grueling journeys in pursuit of safety. When they arrive, they are often unnecessarily detained by ICE in abusive conditions, even though they have family members or friends they could stay with while their cases proceed.
Despite these obstacles, asylum-seekers are eager to provide for their families and contribute to their communities. They have gone on to open their own businesses, work in jobs that help feed our communities, care for sick people, and advocate for people’s rights, contributing billions in taxes and revenue. One recent study estimated that on average, an asylum seeker contributes over $19,000 per year to the U.S. economy, and that a 25 percent reduction in the number of all people seeking asylum in the country would cause an economic loss of $20.5 billion over a five-year period.
Excess money spent on policing the border would be better spent on creating a fair, orderly, and welcoming system.
We need a more efficient, humane, and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum. Much of the money Congress currently spends on a bloated Border Patrol police force should be spent instead on making sure our immigration agencies and federal courts have enough employees and judges to adjudicate asylum claims in a fair and orderly manner, and to ensure that people are supported in their efforts to join their family members and sponsors in their destination locations. The sooner people are able to integrate into their new homes and are issued work permits, the sooner they’ll be able to support themselves and their families and contribute in other ways to their new communities.
For Defense Attorneys: Tips for Effectively Challenging Pretrial Electronic Monitoring
In response to the increasing use of electronic monitoring since the COVID-19 pandemic, the ACLU has released Rethinking Electronic Monitoring: A Harm Reduction Guide, which calls on jurisdictions to replace electronic monitoring with less restrictive and more effective measures.
We also spoke with individuals who have had to endure pain, stigma, and loss of livelihood because of their ankle monitoring.
Finally, we’ve created a resource that aims to help defense attorneys build a record in order for them to challenge the use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the form of ankle bracelets, ankle shackles, and/or tethers. This particular form of EM is a dangerous and debilitating means of confinement. Studies show that digital incarceration (e-carceration) not only intensifies racial and class-based inequalities, but also plagues wearers with charging malfunctions, and false alarms, that can lead to further criminal punishment.
To inform and empower defense attorneys and their clients, the ACLU created a list of tips and resources to help challenge the imposition of electronic monitoring. Check out these tips below:
Identify What State Law/Court Rules Require
Do they require a presumption of release on recognizance (ROR) for pretrial people in some circumstances?
Do they require a finding that ROR will not suffice before an official can impose a pretrial condition?
What is the standard for imposing pretrial conditions such as electronic monitoring? Must the pretrial condition be reasonably related to ensuring appearance or protecting public safety? If there is a standard, electronic monitoring requirements that aren’t explained or obvious from the record are suspect.
Must the official consider statutory factors in deciding whether to impose a costly pretrial condition, or, alternatively, does the government automatically cover the cost of the condition? If the statute lays out steps for determining whether to impose a cost, and how much, then officials must abide by the law.
Pointers for Building a Record for an Appeal
If there is a presumption of ROR for pretrial individuals, don’t forget to argue first that ROR is the default. Second, you may want to argue that (free or low cost) pretrial conditions are superior to cash bond. Highly liberty-restrictive conditions like electronic monitoring are only appropriate upon specific findings of dangerousness or flight risk that are specifically addressed by the conditions.
You can use the following steps to challenge monitors:
1. Prove that there is no unmanageable flight risk, citing:
Employment records;
Child care responsibilities, school enrollment records, other evidence of local ties;
Letters of support from family or community members; and/or
Attendance at prior court proceedings.
Where the underlying charges are shaky, this should be highlighted.
If there is a previous failure to appear (FTA), make a record of sympathetic excuses for absence.
2. Prove that there is no danger to the public:
Make arguments based on the nature of the allegations. Even for violent crimes, facets of the crime may indicate likely non-recurrence (e.g., a bar fight).
Provide letters of support where family or community members address willingness to monitor defendants’ activities (although this can get tricky).
Document other life activities (helping elderly neighbors, etc.) that may prove trustworthiness.
Highlight if there is no other prior criminal history (or no violent history or no recent history).
3. Raise concerns about the imposed pretrial condition:
Argue that electronic monitoring is a highly restrictive condition and that its imposition is only appropriate to address a specifically identified flight risk or danger to the public.
If defendant cannot afford electronic monitoring, argue that its imposition amounts to a pretrial detention order in violation of Bearden v. Georgia1 and U.S. v. Salerno.2
If the court is considering electronic monitoring and your client will be required to pay, explicitly tell the judge if the costs of monitoring will be unaffordable and thus amount to a pretrial detention order. Some statutes and/or court rules prohibit pretrial detention on the basis of economic status.
Argue that electronic monitoring constitutes an unconstitutional search under both U.S. and state constitutions. (See, e.g., Carpenter v. U.S.; U.S. v. Scott3.)
Emphasize that electronic monitoring is ineffective, generates social stigma, and creates cycles of debt and incarceration.
4. Argue for pretrial release conditions other than electronic monitoring:
Offer to have the client check in with probation by phone on a daily basis.
Offer to have the client surrender their driver’s license in return for a temporary license (in misdemeanor cases, this may be preferred by statute).
Offer to have family members provide reports if requested (this can be tricky).
As a last-ditch effort, agree to electronic monitoring if client is willing, but emphasize that EM should not be at a cost to the defendant, and that they should be allowed to travel freely upon request/as much as possible.
5. Be creative and craft conditions specific to court-expressed concerns.
6. Insist on reviewing the pretrial services report and put on record if judge is departing from the report.
Contest any unfavorable factual findings in the report.
7. Motion for review as often as needed.
For example, if you first made a motion to have electronic monitoring removed six months ago, and your client is still on electronic monitoring six months later, you should request a review and/or file a new motion.
Other relevant cases
White v. State, 311 So. 3d 1278 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) Hiskett v. Lambert in & for Cnty. of Mohave, 247 Ariz. 432, 451 P.3d 408 (Ct. App. 2019)
Three People Share How Ankle Monitoring Devices Fail, Harm, and Stigmatize
In 2020, as the world grappled with the emergence of COVID-19, prisons and jails became hotspots for outbreaks. Looking to slow the spread of the disease, and under the threat of litigation, some jurisdictions began to look for alternatives to incarceration, turning to electronic monitoring as the answer.
Electronic monitoring typically uses GPS tracking systems in devices referred to as ankle bracelets, ankle shackles, or tethers to record the location of their wearers. This includes people awaiting trial, serving probation and parole, and facing immigration proceedings. Jurisdictions use this tracking technology to limit how long a person can stay outside and where they can go. Although COVID-19 created an even larger market for electronic surveillance, the government’s use of electronic monitoring was already on the rise. From 2005 to 2015, the number of active electronic monitors in use rose by 140 percent.
Jurisdictions’ decisions to normalize this technology is troubling for several reasons. Studiesshow that monitors fail to demonstrably meet their stated goals of ensuring court appearance, protecting public safety, and advancing rehabilitation. Instead, electronic monitoring expands mass incarceration, operating as a form of digital incarceration known as e-carceration, and leading people to physical jails and prisons for minor technical violations, charging malfunctions, and false alarms.
Electronic monitoring also exacerbates systemic inequities along lines of race, class, and disability. For example, in Detroit, Black people are two times more likely than white people to be electronically monitored. Depending on the jurisdiction, fees to wear these monitors range from $3-$35 a day, often in addition to initial setup charges, which can range from $100 to $200. The expensive fees compound and can amount to hundreds of dollars per month, overburdening households already dealing with the return of loved ones from incarceration. Furthermore, research shows that the stigma, social isolation, and stress that results from being monitored exacerbates depression and anxiety for wearers.
On September 29, the ACLU released Rethinking Electronic Monitoring: A Harm Reduction Guide, which calls on jurisdictions to replace electronic monitoring with less restrictive and more effective measures, such as court reminders and transportation assistance. The report also outlines ways jurisdictions can mitigate the harms of monitoring in accordance with due process and fairness principles. We urge jurisdictions to:
Strictly limit the use of electronic monitoring
Provide adequate notice and explanation of monitoring requirements
Standardize appeals, review, and revocation proceedings
Ensure access to counsel
Eliminate discrimination based on wealth and housing status
Reasonably accommodate people with disabilities
Develop reasonable movement and expansion standards
Provide credit for time served on electronic monitoring
Ensure privacy and data protection
Ensure adequate data collection and transparency
You can read the full report here. Defense attorneys can check out our resource with guidance on challenging pretrial electronic monitoring here. Below, three people share their stories of enduring electronic monitoring.
Credit: Michael Tafolla
Michael Tafolla
Michael Tafolla is a 42-year-old man from Chicago, Illinois. After serving 20 years in prison, he was released with an electronic monitor as a condition of mandatory supervised release.
When I was first released on an ankle monitor in July of 2018, I was approved for three days of movement, four hours each day, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. After a while, I got an internship at my university and a full-time job at a temp agency. But it was incredibly difficult to get my approved movement hours adjusted. I called my parole officer and they told me that I had to pick between the internship or the job with the temp agency. They said I was doing too much. I was having panic attacks because of this. I am trying to go to school. I am trying to work. I don’t understand the problem. You’re telling me I’m doing too much? I’m doing too much of what I’m supposed to do? You get out and you think you’re free and you’re going to be able to enjoy life, but now doing the most basic, necessary things like working and school become the most complicated.
You get out and you think you’re free and you’re going to be able to enjoy life, but now doing the most basic, necessary things like working and school become the most complicated.
I eventually got my movement hours expanded, but between the internship, school, and the job at the temp agency, I didn’t have time to do anything else. I couldn’t buy soap, I couldn’t buy clothes. I just did 20 years in prison, but I couldn’t go visit my parents. They had physical limitations and lived far away, it was too hard for them to come and see me. Every time I asked for additional movement, the parole officer denied me. Their point was that I shouldn’t be out of the house that much, no matter what I was doing. I was like, “why am I still being punished?”
With this lack of movement, you are putting a person in a worse situation, unintentionally. In my experience, in this county, it is near impossible to get movement time expanded for anything, even going to the hospital. I never want to say that being locked up is better than being at home, but you’re not letting people work or do anything. That’s why a lot of people cut off their monitor — because they can’t take it anymore. It just becomes too hard.
Credit: Shannan Davis
Shannan Davis
Shannan Davis is a 43-year-old Native American woman who is a member of Chippewa Sioux Tribe in Michigan. She was temporarily released from jail to a treatment center with the condition that she wear an ankle monitor.
Being on the monitor has been very stressful. It’s a long cord that wraps around my leg and twists up in knots around me. The sheriff’s department had to come the other day and fix the bracelet because it was so loose. Now it’s on too tight. When I walk, my muscles contract and it almost feels like it’s going to break apart. I’m scared to ask them to loosen it again because every time I call, they give me an attitude. They have their comments about “You shouldn’t do drugs and you shouldn’t break the law.” I get it. But if you can’t understand somebody else’s way of life, then you shouldn’t be doing the job you’re doing. These people are supposed to protect and serve and they’re just hateful.
At the recovery house, I’m not allowed to leave because of a court order. I can’t go on group outings with the other girls staying here. I’m pretty much locked down in this house.
With electronic monitoring, they make it very hard for us to be where we need to be, to get to get the tools to live back in society.
I’m not allowed to go to the store with the rest of the house. I’m not allowed to take a walk down the road for exercise. There are always staff members with the girls so we’re not unsupervised but, because of the way my bond is worded, I am not allowed to participate.
I also can’t pay for the monitor. It’s $105 a week to be on this thing, and my mom is paying for it. With electronic monitoring, they make it very hard for us to be where we need to be, to get to get the tools to live back in society. Like the other day when I got back from the doctor, all three lights on the monitor were going off and it did that for two to three hours. I couldn’t get a hold of anybody. The thing just goes off all day. It’s stressful because I think they’re going to come and pick me up and arrest me.
Matthew Brown
Matthew Brown is 34 years old and lives in Maricopa County, Arizona. He was placed on an ankle monitor pending trial. Because of court delays, Matthew has been on an ankle monitor for 3 years with no opportunity to have the monitor removed.
Since being on electronic monitoring, I have lost touch with my family. My dad and my grandparents live in Mexico. Most of our family events are in Mexico, but I can’t go. I’ve missed my sister’s wedding, my nephews’ birthdays. I don’t see my dad or grandparents unless they come up to Arizona. I try to FaceTime, but they aren’t good with technology. It has really disconnected me.
The more disconnected I get from people, the harder it is on me mentally; the worse I feel about myself. When you’re on electronic monitoring they say you are free, but you’re really jailed. It’s around 100 degrees six months out of the year in Arizona.
The more disconnected I get from people, the harder it is on me mentally; the worse I feel about myself.
I can’t wear pants, so everyone sees the bracelet. Taking my nephew to a bounce house or going to the gym I am automatically judged. Moms pull kids away. You just feel bad.
I am worried about the money too. Until my case is resolved I don’t have to pay for the monitor, but I am afraid of the eventual price. Each monitor unit costs $1,740. I’ve probably water damaged a dozen or more because of my job as a boat captain. It wasn’t me having fun, it was me doing my work. There is a daily charge too, but I do not know how much it is. The case officer said, “You’re coming up on 3 years, that’s going to be really expensive.” Even if it’s $10 a day I would be paying $10k after 3 years. I don’t know when they will remove the monitor. Every day is more I have to pay. They can force a guilty plea out of someone because you owe so much money.
If I did not have the financial means and support, I would have already pleaded guilty. I can only imagine how many people do that. People lose their jobs because of electronic monitoring and they can’t pay for their house, or family, or kids. It’s a domino effect.
For Defense Attorneys: Tips for Effectively Challenging Pretrial Electronic Monitoring
In response to the increasing use of electronic monitoring since the COVID-19 pandemic, the ACLU has released Rethinking Electronic Monitoring: A Harm Reduction Guide, which calls on jurisdictions to replace electronic monitoring with less restrictive and more effective measures.
We also spoke with individuals who have had to endure pain, stigma, and loss of livelihood because of their ankle monitoring.
Finally, we’ve created a guide that aims to help defense attorneys build a record in order for them to challenge the use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the form of ankle bracelets, ankle shackles, and/or tethers. This particular form of EM is a dangerous and debilitating means of confinement. Studies show that digital incarceration (e-carceration) not only intensifies racial and class-based inequalities, but also plagues wearers with charging malfunctions, and false alarms, that can lead to further criminal punishment.
To inform and empower defense attorneys and their clients, the ACLU created a list of tips and resources to help challenge the imposition of electronic monitoring. Check out these tips below:
Identify What State Law/Court Rules Require
Do they require a presumption of release on recognizance (ROR) for pretrial people in some circumstances?
Do they require a finding that ROR will not suffice before an official can impose a pretrial condition?
What is the standard for imposing pretrial conditions such as electronic monitoring? Must the pretrial condition be reasonably related to ensuring appearance or protecting public safety? If there is a standard, electronic monitoring requirements that aren’t explained or obvious from the record are suspect.
Must the official consider statutory factors in deciding whether to impose a costly pretrial condition, or, alternatively, does the government automatically cover the cost of the condition? If the statute lays out steps for determining whether to impose a cost, and how much, then officials must abide by the law.
Pointers for Building a Record for an Appeal
If there is a presumption of ROR for pretrial individuals, don’t forget to argue first that ROR is the default. Second, you may want to argue that (free or low cost) pretrial conditions are superior to cash bond. Highly liberty-restrictive conditions like electronic monitoring are only appropriate upon specific findings of dangerousness or flight risk that are specifically addressed by the conditions.
You can use the following steps to challenge monitors:
1. Prove that there is no unmanageable flight risk, citing:
Employment records;
Child care responsibilities, school enrollment records, other evidence of local ties;
Letters of support from family or community members; and/or
Attendance at prior court proceedings.
Where the underlying charges are shaky, this should be highlighted.
If there is a previous failure to appear (FTA), make a record of sympathetic excuses for absence.
2. Prove that there is no danger to the public:
Make arguments based on the nature of the allegations. Even for violent crimes, facets of the crime may indicate likely non-recurrence (e.g., a bar fight).
Provide letters of support where family or community members address willingness to monitor defendants’ activities (although this can get tricky).
Document other life activities (helping elderly neighbors, etc.) that may prove trustworthiness.
Highlight if there is no other prior criminal history (or no violent history or no recent history).
3. Raise concerns about the imposed pretrial condition:
Argue that electronic monitoring is a highly restrictive condition and that its imposition is only appropriate to address a specifically identified flight risk or danger to the public.
If defendant cannot afford electronic monitoring, argue that its imposition amounts to a pretrial detention order in violation of Bearden v. Georgia1 and U.S. v. Salerno.2
If the court is considering electronic monitoring and your client will be required to pay, explicitly tell the judge if the costs of monitoring will be unaffordable and thus amount to a pretrial detention order. Some statutes and/or court rules prohibit pretrial detention on the basis of economic status.
Argue that electronic monitoring constitutes an unconstitutional search under both U.S. and state constitutions. (See, e.g., Carpenter v. U.S.; U.S. v. Scott3.)
Emphasize that electronic monitoring is ineffective, generates social stigma, and creates cycles of debt and incarceration.
4. Argue for pretrial release conditions other than electronic monitoring:
Offer to have the client check in with probation by phone on a daily basis.
Offer to have the client surrender their driver’s license in return for a temporary license (in misdemeanor cases, this may be preferred by statute).
Offer to have family members provide reports if requested (this can be tricky).
As a last-ditch effort, agree to electronic monitoring if client is willing, but emphasize that EM should not be at a cost to the defendant, and that they should be allowed to travel freely upon request/as much as possible.
5. Be creative and craft conditions specific to court-expressed concerns.
6. Insist on reviewing the pretrial services report and put on record if judge is departing from the report.
Contest any unfavorable factual findings in the report.
7. Motion for review as often as needed.
For example, if you first made a motion to have electronic monitoring removed six months ago, and your client is still on electronic monitoring six months later, you should request a review and/or file a new motion.
Other relevant cases
White v. State, 311 So. 3d 1278 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) Hiskett v. Lambert in & for Cnty. of Mohave, 247 Ariz. 432, 451 P.3d 408 (Ct. App. 2019)
Three People Share How Ankle Monitoring Devices Fail, Harm, and Stigmatize
In 2020, as the world grappled with the emergence of COVID-19, prisons and jails became hotspots for outbreaks. Looking to slow the spread of the disease, and under the threat of litigation, some jurisdictions began to look for alternatives to incarceration, turning to electronic monitoring as the answer.
Electronic monitoring typically uses GPS tracking systems in devices referred to as ankle bracelets, ankle shackles, or tethers to record the location of their wearers. This includes people awaiting trial, serving probation and parole, and facing immigration proceedings. Jurisdictions use this tracking technology to limit how long a person can stay outside and where they can go. Although COVID-19 created an even larger market for electronic surveillance, the government’s use of electronic monitoring was already on the rise. From 2005 to 2015, the number of active electronic monitors in use rose by 140 percent.
Jurisdictions’ decisions to normalize this technology is troubling for several reasons. Studiesshow that monitors fail to demonstrably meet their stated goals of ensuring court appearance, protecting public safety, and advancing rehabilitation. Instead, electronic monitoring expands mass incarceration, operating as a form of digital incarceration known as e-carceration, and leading people to physical jails and prisons for minor technical violations, charging malfunctions, and false alarms.
Electronic monitoring also exacerbates systemic inequities along lines of race, class, and disability. For example, in Detroit, Black people are two times more likely than white people to be electronically monitored. Depending on the jurisdiction, fees to wear these monitors range from $3-$35 a day, often in addition to initial setup charges, which can range from $100 to $200. The expensive fees compound and can amount to hundreds of dollars per month, overburdening households already dealing with the return of loved ones from incarceration. Furthermore, research shows that the stigma, social isolation, and stress that results from being monitored exacerbates depression and anxiety for wearers.
On September 29, the ACLU released Rethinking Electronic Monitoring: A Harm Reduction Guide, which calls on jurisdictions to replace electronic monitoring with less restrictive and more effective measures, such as court reminders and transportation assistance. The report also outlines ways jurisdictions can mitigate the harms of monitoring in accordance with due process and fairness principles. We urge jurisdictions to:
Strictly limit the use of electronic monitoring
Provide adequate notice and explanation of monitoring requirements
Standardize appeals, review, and revocation proceedings
Ensure access to counsel
Eliminate discrimination based on wealth and housing status
Reasonably accommodate people with disabilities
Develop reasonable movement and expansion standards
Provide credit for time served on electronic monitoring
Ensure privacy and data protection
Ensure adequate data collection and transparency
You can read the full report here. Defense attorneys can check out our resource with guidance on challenging pretrial electronic monitoring here. Below, three people share their stories of enduring electronic monitoring.
Credit: Michael Tafolla
Michael Tafolla
Michael Tafolla is a 42-year-old man from Chicago, Illinois. After serving 20 years in prison, he was released with an electronic monitor as a condition of mandatory supervised release.
When I was first released on an ankle monitor in July of 2018, I was approved for three days of movement, four hours each day, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. After a while, I got an internship at my university and a full-time job at a temp agency. But it was incredibly difficult to get my approved movement hours adjusted. I called my parole officer and they told me that I had to pick between the internship or the job with the temp agency. They said I was doing too much. I was having panic attacks because of this. I am trying to go to school. I am trying to work. I don’t understand the problem. You’re telling me I’m doing too much? I’m doing too much of what I’m supposed to do? You get out and you think you’re free and you’re going to be able to enjoy life, but now doing the most basic, necessary things like working and school become the most complicated.
You get out and you think you’re free and you’re going to be able to enjoy life, but now doing the most basic, necessary things like working and school become the most complicated.
I eventually got my movement hours expanded, but between the internship, school, and the job at the temp agency, I didn’t have time to do anything else. I couldn’t buy soap, I couldn’t buy clothes. I just did 20 years in prison, but I couldn’t go visit my parents. They had physical limitations and lived far away, it was too hard for them to come and see me. Every time I asked for additional movement, the parole officer denied me. Their point was that I shouldn’t be out of the house that much, no matter what I was doing. I was like, “why am I still being punished?”
With this lack of movement, you are putting a person in a worse situation, unintentionally. In my experience, in this county, it is near impossible to get movement time expanded for anything, even going to the hospital. I never want to say that being locked up is better than being at home, but you’re not letting people work or do anything. That’s why a lot of people cut off their monitor — because they can’t take it anymore. It just becomes too hard.
Credit: Shannan Davis
Shannan Davis
Shannan Davis is a 43-year-old Native American woman who is a member of Chippewa Sioux Tribe in Michigan. She was temporarily released from jail to a treatment center with the condition that she wear an ankle monitor.
Being on the monitor has been very stressful. It’s a long cord that wraps around my leg and twists up in knots around me. The sheriff’s department had to come the other day and fix the bracelet because it was so loose. Now it’s on too tight. When I walk, my muscles contract and it almost feels like it’s going to break apart. I’m scared to ask them to loosen it again because every time I call, they give me an attitude. They have their comments about “You shouldn’t do drugs and you shouldn’t break the law.” I get it. But if you can’t understand somebody else’s way of life, then you shouldn’t be doing the job you’re doing. These people are supposed to protect and serve and they’re just hateful.
At the recovery house, I’m not allowed to leave because of a court order. I can’t go on group outings with the other girls staying here. I’m pretty much locked down in this house.
With electronic monitoring, they make it very hard for us to be where we need to be, to get to get the tools to live back in society.
I’m not allowed to go to the store with the rest of the house. I’m not allowed to take a walk down the road for exercise. There are always staff members with the girls so we’re not unsupervised but, because of the way my bond is worded, I am not allowed to participate.
I also can’t pay for the monitor. It’s $105 a week to be on this thing, and my mom is paying for it. With electronic monitoring, they make it very hard for us to be where we need to be, to get to get the tools to live back in society. Like the other day when I got back from the doctor, all three lights on the monitor were going off and it did that for two to three hours. I couldn’t get a hold of anybody. The thing just goes off all day. It’s stressful because I think they’re going to come and pick me up and arrest me.
Matthew Brown
Matthew Brown is 34 years old and lives in Maricopa County, Arizona. He was placed on an ankle monitor pending trial. Because of court delays, Matthew has been on an ankle monitor for 3 years with no opportunity to have the monitor removed.
Since being on electronic monitoring, I have lost touch with my family. My dad and my grandparents live in Mexico. Most of our family events are in Mexico, but I can’t go. I’ve missed my sister’s wedding, my nephews’ birthdays. I don’t see my dad or grandparents unless they come up to Arizona. I try to FaceTime, but they aren’t good with technology. It has really disconnected me.
The more disconnected I get from people, the harder it is on me mentally; the worse I feel about myself. When you’re on electronic monitoring they say you are free, but you’re really jailed. It’s around 100 degrees six months out of the year in Arizona.
The more disconnected I get from people, the harder it is on me mentally; the worse I feel about myself.
I can’t wear pants, so everyone sees the bracelet. Taking my nephew to a bounce house or going to the gym I am automatically judged. Moms pull kids away. You just feel bad.
I am worried about the money too. Until my case is resolved I don’t have to pay for the monitor, but I am afraid of the eventual price. Each monitor unit costs $1,740. I’ve probably water damaged a dozen or more because of my job as a boat captain. It wasn’t me having fun, it was me doing my work. There is a daily charge too, but I do not know how much it is. The case officer said, “You’re coming up on 3 years, that’s going to be really expensive.” Even if it’s $10 a day I would be paying $10k after 3 years. I don’t know when they will remove the monitor. Every day is more I have to pay. They can force a guilty plea out of someone because you owe so much money.
If I did not have the financial means and support, I would have already pleaded guilty. I can only imagine how many people do that. People lose their jobs because of electronic monitoring and they can’t pay for their house, or family, or kids. It’s a domino effect.
The midterm elections are coming, but voting can be confusing and overwhelming. People want to be good voters. They want to make informed choices about who to vote for and how to vote on issues. The rise of election disinformation, coupled with the billions of dollars spent on campaign advertisements, make it hard to sort through the facts. Voters are looking for trusted sources for information about what issues and candidates are on their ballots. That’s where you come in.
Successful campaigns are created by a blend of political art and science. Magic happens when a candidate connects with voters through passionate ideas about how to make the world a more equitable and just place, or a ballot measure gives people the power to vote directly for policy changes that will make their lives better. But campaign practitioners also use data analytics and experiments to run smarter, more effective campaigns. The science of campaigns allows us to hone our tactics so we can spend time, money, and energy on activities that will be most impactful on the election. Recent studies show that communication between people with pre-existing relationships and among social networks can have a positive effect on voter turnout because of the credibility inherent in personal relationships. In other words, a friend-to-friend conversation about the upcoming election can increase the likelihood that a person will vote, because they know and trust their friend.
This year our midterm strategy asks ACLU supporters like you to vote for your values, and then connect with your friends and family to urge them to fight for their rights by voting, too. A family member, friend, colleague, or acquaintance is a much better and more trusted messenger than a stranger, campaign ad, or social media post. Tests show that a friend-to-friend contact can increase voter turnout by up to 8 percent and have up to two times more impact than a cold call, text, or door knock. So if just 500 of our millions of ACLU supporters remind three friends to vote who otherwise wouldn’t have, that’s 1,500 additional voters this cycle. If 5,000 do so, we’ll be turning out 15,000 more voters. Remember, both Arizona and Georgia were won by less than 15,000 votes in 2020. So this can have a real impact.
And the best part? You can have an impact by doing something you already do every day — talking to the people you know. First, make a list of your people: friends, family, and community groups you are a part of; people you see regularly; and people you work with. Next, identify who on that list aligns with our ACLU values, but may not always vote. Then, let them know there’s an important election coming up and help them make a plan to vote (when, where, and how). Call them if you usually call them, text them if you typically text them, or talk to them when you see them next. We’ll also provide you with a conversation guide in the coming weeks that you can share with them.
Many competitive elections are decided by only a handful of votes or by fractions of a percent. Our rights are on the ballot this year, so we can’t leave any votes on the table by not reminding friends and family to vote. By talking with our existing networks about the upcoming election, ACLU supporters can make the difference in elections across the country to vote for our values and fight for our rights.
The midterm elections are coming, but voting can be confusing and overwhelming. People want to be good voters. They want to make informed choices about who to vote for and how to vote on issues. The rise of election disinformation, coupled with the billions of dollars spent on campaign advertisements, make it hard to sort through the facts. Voters are looking for trusted sources for information about what issues and candidates are on their ballots. That’s where you come in.
Successful campaigns are created by a blend of political art and science. Magic happens when a candidate connects with voters through passionate ideas about how to make the world a more equitable and just place, or a ballot measure gives people the power to vote directly for policy changes that will make their lives better. But campaign practitioners also use data analytics and experiments to run smarter, more effective campaigns. The science of campaigns allows us to hone our tactics so we can spend time, money, and energy on activities that will be most impactful on the election. Recent studies show that communication between people with pre-existing relationships and among social networks can have a positive effect on voter turnout because of the credibility inherent in personal relationships. In other words, a friend-to-friend conversation about the upcoming election can increase the likelihood that a person will vote, because they know and trust their friend.
This year our midterm strategy asks ACLU supporters like you to vote for your values, and then connect with your friends and family to urge them to fight for their rights by voting, too. A family member, friend, colleague, or acquaintance is a much better and more trusted messenger than a stranger, campaign ad, or social media post. Tests show that a friend-to-friend contact can increase voter turnout by up to 8 percent and have up to two times more impact than a cold call, text, or door knock. So if just 500 of our millions of ACLU supporters remind three friends to vote who otherwise wouldn’t have, that’s 1,500 additional voters this cycle. If 5,000 do so, we’ll be turning out 15,000 more voters. Remember, both Arizona and Georgia were won by less than 15,000 votes in 2020. So this can have a real impact.
And the best part? You can have an impact by doing something you already do every day — talking to the people you know. First, make a list of your people: friends, family, and community groups you are a part of; people you see regularly; and people you work with. Next, identify who on that list aligns with our ACLU values, but may not always vote. Then, let them know there’s an important election coming up and help them make a plan to vote (when, where, and how). Call them if you usually call them, text them if you typically text them, or talk to them when you see them next. We’ll also provide you with a conversation guide in the coming weeks that you can share with them.
Many competitive elections are decided by only a handful of votes or by fractions of a percent. Our rights are on the ballot this year, so we can’t leave any votes on the table by not reminding friends and family to vote. By talking with our existing networks about the upcoming election, ACLU supporters can make the difference in elections across the country to vote for our values and fight for our rights.
Guyana: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Guyana
Published September 28, 2022 Read more at imf.org
50 Years of Fighting for the Rights of Incarcerated People
Fifty-one years ago this month, prisoners at Attica Correctional Facility in upstate New York rebelled over extreme crowding, racism, and brutal living conditions. They took control of the prison and sought to negotiate with state officials over their demands. Four days later, the uprising was crushed in a massive assault by the state police, National Guard, and corrections officers. Forty-three people lost their lives, most of them killed by law enforcement during the retaking of the prison.
The Attica rebellion shone a much-needed light on the appalling conditions in U.S. prisons. The uprising, and its bloody suppression, sparked the beginning of the modern prisoners’ rights movement. Just a few months later, in 1972, the ACLU established the National Prison Project with the help of attorneys from the Attica legal support team.
Prisoners, forced to lay face down in mud, littered the Attica prison yard along with broken make-shift tents, pieces of cardboard, and debris in September 1971.
AP Photo
Fifty years later, the National Prison Project fights every day to ensure that conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention comply with U.S. and international law, and meet minimal standards of health, safety, and human decency. We also work to end the laws and policies that have given the United States the highest incarceration rate in the world and led to the grotesque overrepresentation of people of color among the incarcerated population.
Over the years we’ve won lasting and significant victories for the rights of incarcerated people. In 1992, we represented Keith Hudson, a man incarcerated in Louisiana’s infamous Angola prison. While handcuffed and shackled, Mr. Hudson was beaten by two corrections officers, while their supervisor looked on and told them “not to have too much fun.” The beating left his face bruised and swollen, loosened his teeth, and cracked his dental plate.
The Attica rebellion shone a much-needed light on the appalling conditions in U.S. prisons. The uprising, and its bloody suppression, sparked the beginning of the modern prisoners’ rights movement.
The State of Louisiana didn’t dispute these facts, but argued that the beating didn’t violate the Constitution because Mr. Hudson didn’t suffer “significant injury.” The U.S. Supreme Court forcefully rejected that argument, ruling that “when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated.”
Shawanna Nelson was six months pregnant when she was incarcerated in Arkansas in 2003. Three months later, after going into labor, she was taken to a local hospital where corrections officers shackled her legs to opposite sides of the bed. The shackles caused Ms. Nelson cramps and intense pain, as she could not adjust her position during contractions. She was unshackled during delivery, but was immediately re-shackled after the birth of her son. After childbirth, the use of shackles caused her to soil herself because she could not be unshackled quickly enough to get to a toilet.
Fifty years later, the National Prison Project fights every day to ensure that conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention comply with U.S. and international law.
A federal appeals court dismissed Ms. Nelson’s lawsuit, ruling that the painful and degrading treatment she had suffered didn’t violate the Constitution. But we represented her in a re-hearing of the case before the full court, which reinstated the lawsuit, ruling that constitutional protections against shackling pregnant women during labor are “clearly established.”
Just this summer, in our statewide lawsuit challenging prison conditions in Arizona, a federal judge found that medical and mental health care in the state’s prisons is “plainly grossly inadequate” and “a cascade of failures,” adding that “no prisoner, at any location, is safe.” The judge will soon order improvements in the health care system relied upon by the 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona.
Our fights for justice go beyond the courtroom. Over the last dozen years, our Stop Solitary campaign has changed the public conversation about solitary confinement, educating legislators, corrections professionals, and the public about the severe harm caused by this cruel and counterproductive practice. As a result of our advocacy and that of our partners, many states and localities have enacted strict limits on the use of solitary confinement, preventing untold suffering and almost certainly saving lives.
While the National Prison Project has accomplished much in our 50-year history, much remains to be done. At the time of the Attica rebellion in 1971, U.S. prisons and jails held about 400,000 people; today that figure is close to 2 million — the largest incarcerated population in the world. Black, Latinx, and Native people remain far more likely than white people to be incarcerated. And dangerous, degrading, and even lethal prison conditions remain all too common.
The 51 years since Attica’s rebellion have shown us that reforming the broken and dysfunctional U.S. incarceration system won’t be quick or easy. But as long as there are prisons, the ACLU will be there, fighting to ensure that the Constitution’s protections reach into every cell.
50 Years of Fighting for the Rights of Incarcerated People
Fifty-one years ago this month, prisoners at Attica Correctional Facility in upstate New York rebelled over extreme crowding, racism, and brutal living conditions. They took control of the prison and sought to negotiate with state officials over their demands. Four days later, the uprising was crushed in a massive assault by the state police, National Guard, and corrections officers. Forty-three people lost their lives, most of them killed by law enforcement during the retaking of the prison.
The Attica rebellion shone a much-needed light on the appalling conditions in U.S. prisons. The uprising, and its bloody suppression, sparked the beginning of the modern prisoners’ rights movement. Just a few months later, in 1972, the ACLU established the National Prison Project with the help of attorneys from the Attica legal support team.
Prisoners, forced to lay face down in mud, littered the Attica prison yard along with broken make-shift tents, pieces of cardboard, and debris in September 1971.
AP Photo
Fifty years later, the National Prison Project fights every day to ensure that conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention comply with U.S. and international law, and meet minimal standards of health, safety, and human decency. We also work to end the laws and policies that have given the United States the highest incarceration rate in the world and led to the grotesque overrepresentation of people of color among the incarcerated population.
Over the years we’ve won lasting and significant victories for the rights of incarcerated people. In 1992, we represented Keith Hudson, a man incarcerated in Louisiana’s infamous Angola prison. While handcuffed and shackled, Mr. Hudson was beaten by two corrections officers, while their supervisor looked on and told them “not to have too much fun.” The beating left his face bruised and swollen, loosened his teeth, and cracked his dental plate.
The Attica rebellion shone a much-needed light on the appalling conditions in U.S. prisons. The uprising, and its bloody suppression, sparked the beginning of the modern prisoners’ rights movement.
The State of Louisiana didn’t dispute these facts, but argued that the beating didn’t violate the Constitution because Mr. Hudson didn’t suffer “significant injury.” The U.S. Supreme Court forcefully rejected that argument, ruling that “when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated.”
Shawanna Nelson was six months pregnant when she was incarcerated in Arkansas in 2003. Three months later, after going into labor, she was taken to a local hospital where corrections officers shackled her legs to opposite sides of the bed. The shackles caused Ms. Nelson cramps and intense pain, as she could not adjust her position during contractions. She was unshackled during delivery, but was immediately re-shackled after the birth of her son. After childbirth, the use of shackles caused her to soil herself because she could not be unshackled quickly enough to get to a toilet.
Fifty years later, the National Prison Project fights every day to ensure that conditions in prisons, jails, and other places of detention comply with U.S. and international law.
A federal appeals court dismissed Ms. Nelson’s lawsuit, ruling that the painful and degrading treatment she had suffered didn’t violate the Constitution. But we represented her in a re-hearing of the case before the full court, which reinstated the lawsuit, ruling that constitutional protections against shackling pregnant women during labor are “clearly established.”
Just this summer, in our statewide lawsuit challenging prison conditions in Arizona, a federal judge found that medical and mental health care in the state’s prisons is “plainly grossly inadequate” and “a cascade of failures,” adding that “no prisoner, at any location, is safe.” The judge will soon order improvements in the health care system relied upon by the 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona.
Our fights for justice go beyond the courtroom. Over the last dozen years, our Stop Solitary campaign has changed the public conversation about solitary confinement, educating legislators, corrections professionals, and the public about the severe harm caused by this cruel and counterproductive practice. As a result of our advocacy and that of our partners, many states and localities have enacted strict limits on the use of solitary confinement, preventing untold suffering and almost certainly saving lives.
While the National Prison Project has accomplished much in our 50-year history, much remains to be done. At the time of the Attica rebellion in 1971, U.S. prisons and jails held about 400,000 people; today that figure is close to 2 million — the largest incarcerated population in the world. Black, Latinx, and Native people remain far more likely than white people to be incarcerated. And dangerous, degrading, and even lethal prison conditions remain all too common.
The 51 years since Attica’s rebellion have shown us that reforming the broken and dysfunctional U.S. incarceration system won’t be quick or easy. But as long as there are prisons, the ACLU will be there, fighting to ensure that the Constitution’s protections reach into every cell.
Romania: 2022 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Romania
Published September 26, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
West African Economic and Monetary Union: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note on Systemic Risks and Macroprudential Policy Framework
Published September 23, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Republic of Madagascar: Second Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement and Request for Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of Madagascar
Published September 23, 2022 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Learn About Where Secretary Of State Candidates Land On Voting Issues
Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, and the fundamental right upon which all other civil liberties rest. The Minnesota Secretary of State is a crucial part of making sure this system runs fairly and accurately so every vote counts. The SOS oversees statewide elections and operates the statewide voter registration system.
The ACLU of Minnesota does not support or oppose candidates, but urges you to cast an informed vote.
Left: Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon. Right: Candidate for Minnesota Secretary of State Kim Crockett.
Issues
Steve Simon
Kim Crockett
Do you believe the 2020 election results were recorded fairly and in accordance with the law?
Absolutely. The 2020 elections were under tremendous scrutiny, more than any election I can remember in my lifetime, and the results were clear: the election was fundamentally fair, accurate, honest, and secure. Period.
No*
If elected, do you commit to certifying the results of elections after every vote is counted?
If elected, do you commit to mailing absentee ballot applications to all registered voters every two years during each federal election cycle?
My office proudly did so in 2020. But resource constraints preclude the same mailings this year. If resources become available in the future, my inclination will be to proceed with these mailings.
No*
Over 2 million early ballots were requested in the 2020 election. If elected, do you commit to protecting Minnesota's early-vote-by-mail opportunities?
Absolutely! I actually wrote the law to make Minnesota a "no-excuses absentee ballot" state, making sure that Minnesotans could vote from home if they preferred or needed to without swearing under penalty of perjury that they would be out of town. We have a great menu of options in Minnesota, and voting by mail is a critical part of that.
No*
If elected, do you commit to protecting the right of voters with disabilities or language access concerns to have assistance while casting their ballots?
Absolutely! In fact, I have expanded our protections for voters with disabilities and for those with language access concerns during my time as Secretary of State. For example, we've more than doubled the number of languages we translate our election materials in from 5 to 12. As someone who is the son of an immigrant, I know my mom would want technical documents like this in her native language, regardless of her proficiency in English. That's how things work in the real world, and it's why I'm not going to stop at 12! We're going to keep adding new languages as needed to make sure our elections are as accessible to every eligible Minnesotan as possible, regardless of whether they have a disability or are non-native English speakers.
No*
If elected, do you commit to advocating for automatic restoration of voting rights for Minnesotans returning to their communities upon release from prison?
Yes, absolutely. This is long overdue, and we need to do it ASAP.
No*
If elected, do you commit to requiring an adequate number of secure state-funded dropboxes be available in every community?
I have always supported the use of drop boxes as an important convenience for voters. In fact, our office successfully negotiated the appropriation of millions of dollars in 2021 to incentivize drop box use in counties and cities all over Minnesota. The best approach, in my judgment, is such incentivization - but I am open to statutory changes that would provide a reasonable ratio of voters-to-drop boxes - particularly in areas of most urgent need.
No*
Questionnaires were sent to both candidates via email on August 31 with a deadline of September 9. Follow-up attempts were made via public-facing social media accounts. Candidates were informed that their responses, or lack of response, may be made public, and that, unanswered questions would be treated as a “no.”
