If approved and built, this pipeline, Keystone XL, would carry one of the most carbon-intensive sources of oil on the planet.

For the next 24 hours, The Climate Reality Project is joining with 350.org, MoveOn, League of Conservation Voters, Patagonia, Sierra Club, Energy Action Coalition and others to garner 500,000 signatures in a community-wide effort against the pipeline. Bill McKibben of 350.org will be on The Colbert Report tonight and will update the world on our progress — so sign now, and then pass it on. We’ve come together before to stop production of this dangerous pollutant — and with your help, we can do it again:

Join me in telling the U.S. Senate to say NO to one of the most carbon-intensive oils on the planet:

http://forms.climaterealityproject.org/keystone

If you care about the climate, you have to care about stopping this dangerous pollutant and the pipeline that carries it. After extensive research, the EPA estimates that annual carbon pollution from the Keystone XL pipeline could be at least 82% higher than average crude refined in America — if not more.

What does that number really mean? That’s the same amount of pollution as adding 4.8 million cars to our roads: an additional 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution.

Instead of pouring money into the production of more dirty oil, we need to work with Canada to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency. Clean energy is already the fastest growing industry in the U.S. and one of the fastest growing industries around the world.

It doesn’t matter where you live, or if the pipeline crosses into your home state. An increase of carbon pollution anywhere leads to climate change everywhere.

I just returned from an expedition to the Antarctic Peninsula, where the temperature has risen by over 8 degrees in the last 60 years. And more than that, the glacial retreat caused by this temperature increase means sea level is rising and dangerous changes are happening around the globe. To put it simply: it means we are all living on thin ice.

Take a minute and sign this important petition and tell the Senate to say NO to Keystone XL:

http://forms.climaterealityproject.org/keystone

Thanks,

Al Gore
Founder and Chairman
The Climate Reality Project

WC Borough Committee Members,

It is my pleasure to announce that our own Cassandra Jones will be seeking the endorsement of the Chester County Democratic Committee as a candidate for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 156.

We are fortunate to have her running in this important race against Dan Truitt. Please join me in wishing Cassandra well as she begins this new chapter.

And, Cassandra, on behalf of the West Chester Democratic Committee, may I offer you our full support and enthusiasm.  Please let us know how we can help!

Gas companies employing a form of drilling known as “hydrofracking” have contaminated PA’s water supply with benzene, toluene, formaldehyde and other dangerous contaminants in the process; dumped under-treated wastewater in rivers and streams from the Monongahela to Neshaminy Creek.

The drilling happening across Pennsylvania will continue to affect our environment as long as Pennsylvania allows gas companies to drill wherever they want. At this point, our Governor wants to take away a local municipality’s right to create zoning ordinances to curb fracking activity, and the legislature refuses to impose an impact fee on the gas industry to help pay for future environmental consequences. So once again, taxpayers will be left with the clean-up bill.

That’s why I signed a petition to The Pennsylvania State House, The Pennsylvania State Senate, and Governor Tom Corbett.

Will you sign this petition?

Please click and sign now:

http://signon.org/sign/demand-a-moratorium-on-1?source=s.em.mt&r_by=2033857

Thanks!
Barb
Barbara McIlvaine Smith

On December 5, 2011, the NAACP released a new report revealing direct connections between the trend of increasing, unprecedented African American and Latino voter turnout and an onslaught of restrictive measures across the country designed to stem electoral strength among communities of color.

The report, Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, details a plethora of voter suppression initiatives, most of them pushed in states with large African-American populations and where voting turnout has surged. The joint report by the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund examines scores of legislative proposals, ballot initiatives and voting laws enacted or proposed since the 2008 election.

Copies of the report will be sent to the federal and state agencies that monitor, administer and enforce voting rights, including the US Department of Justice, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Election Assistance Commission, as well as Secretaries of State and Attorneys General in all 50 states. In addition, the report will be delivered to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate, and entities within the United Nations.

“It’s been more than a century since we’ve seen such a tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote. Historically, when voting rights are attacked, it’s done to facilitate attacks on other rights. It is no mistake that the groups who are behind this are simultaneously attacking very basic women’s rights, environmental protections, labor rights, and educational access for working people and minorities,” said NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Voting rights attacks are the flip side of buying a democracy. First you buy all the leaders you can, and then you suppress as many votes as possible of the people who might object.”

Successful registration, education and get-out-the-vote campaigns in the last Presidential election cycle helped overturn electoral barriers and generated Black voter turnout at record high numbers across the country. Calling the response “historic in scope and intensity,” the report highlights voting barriers that range from new and enhanced voter identification requirements to provisions that will curtail voter access to registration. Other proposals challenge mass registration drives, limit voting periods and tighten the ability of newly registered voters to cast ballots.

The report maintains that the vote-blocking measures are not only a threat to individual voters, but are also an assault on Latino and African American communities that are enjoying demographic growth and the prospects of majority voting status in many districts.

“This assault — which is comprehensive in its reach and was launched in time to affect the 2012 elections — threatens to undermine the record levels of political participation witnessed during the historic 2008 Presidential Election, by blocking access to people of color, the poor, the elderly and the young,” the report warns.

“These block the vote efforts are a carefully targeted response to the remarkable growth of the minority electorate, and threaten to disproportionally diminish the voting strength of African-Americans and Latinos,” said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel….

keep reading and download the full report at NAACP

State Reapportionment Commission Hearing
Testimony by Mayor Carolyn Comitta
Borough of West Chester

November 23, 2011

Good afternoon, honorable members of the Reapportionment Commission. I am Mayor Carolyn Comitta and I bring you greetings from the citizens of the great Borough of West Chester!

I am honored and proud to be the first bi-partisan-elected Mayor of West Chester. As such, I truly represent ALL the voters of the Borough.

Along with me today, are two colleagues who will also testify: permit me to introduce Rich Miller, graduate student at West Chester University, and Bret Binder, resident of East Bradford Township.

In order for you to fully comprehend the significant negative impact of the proposed redistricting on the Borough of West Chester and its neighbors, we believe that it is important for you to hear the complexity of concerns raised from our three perspectives.

Each of us will testify that we believe the proposed split of the Borough of West Chester is in direct violation of the Pennsylvania State Constitution. Mr. Binder will discuss this matter in detail. On display are two boards, prepared by Mr. Binder, that show the existing and the proposed boundaries of the 156th and the 160th, along with the specific text from the State Constitution that we contend is being violated under the proposed redistricting.

West Chester is a 1.8 square mile, compact, historic urban municipality and is the County Seat of Chester County.

The Borough of West Chester has its own charms and challenges that are distinct from its neighboring municipalities. It is a complex community complete with a thriving retail and restaurant district, our county government center, industrial areas, diverse neighborhoods, and a university campus.

In addition, West Chester serves our region as the urban center for social, legal and financial services, culture, higher education and healthcare.

Currently, all of the Borough of West Chester, and all of West Chester University are included in the 156th. The proposal is to split the Borough into two separate House Districts. It would be an anomaly for half of the Borough, the seat of Chester County, to be moved to the 160th, which is essentially a Delaware County District!

If it is not a good idea to split a County, as Senator Costa has stated in his November 18th “Exceptions to the Preliminary Plan,” it is certainly not a good idea to split a county seat, especially one that is an urban center providing a myriad of essential services for the region. For example Judge McEwen, the proposed splitting of the Borough of West Chester would be akin to splitting half of Media and putting it in a predominantly Philadelphia District!

In the spirit of open-mindedness, it is fair to ask, “Hey, couldn’t it be a good thing to have TWO people standing up for you in Harrisburg!”

Good question! And as you can guess, I bring you some good answers!

The West Chester Borough Council frequently works closely with our state representative to address state-regulated issues such as: alcohol (the Borough has 39 liquor licenses!), community development, aging sewer and road repairs, environmental regulations and public safety, such as equipment and training for our highly acclaimed police and volunteer fire departments as well as our state university challenges and opportunities.

Moreover, West Chester Borough is under a Common Pleas Court Order regarding redistricting our Ward system, which has not yet been completed. Keeping the Borough in one House District will eliminate the possibility of conflicts with the State Plan.

Managing two districts within the Borough raises some important practical questions! If two House districts split our town, we can imagine West Chester Borough Council or West Chester University students asking:

“Do we need both Representatives to support this idea?! How do we get them together to discuss this issue?! Where do we meet? Do our two reps agree or are there conflicting Delaware County issues at play etc., etc…?”

There is also the significant confusion and hardship generated for the elderly and for students and minorities (not to mention the rest of us!).

For the past 35 years, our state representative has had their District office in the Borough within walking distance of over 19,000 of their constituents—including the elderly, low income and students, many of whom don’t drive. The proposed split would require half of West Chester’s citizens to drive 40 minutes to Chichester to their representative’s office!

In conclusion, instead of doubling our representation, we believe the proposed redistricting would significantly diminish our voice in Harrisburg and would compound the effort needed to address the Borough’s diverse health, safety and welfare issues.

We ask this final question: “Is it in the best interest of the people, is it constitutional, is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to split the great Borough of West Chester, risking diminishing the leadership and regional services of one of the urban jewels of our state??”

We believe it is absolutely necessary to keep the Borough together—and to keep its State University together—under one House District in order for us to have the best chance of not just surviving but flourishing into the 21st century. Mr. Binder will share an alternative plan that will do just that.

Our future is in your hands. The people of West Chester thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you.

[As submitted to the Legislative Reapportionment Committee]

I object to the planned redistricting of Pennsylvania Legislative District 156 because splitting three municipalities is neither desirable nor necessary, as outlined in our state constitution.

The district now has one split municipality, East Bradford. The current plan calls for splitting three, East Bradford (while switching all precincts in that township), Westtown and West Chester.

In fact, retaining the integrity of all municipalities serves the goal of proportionality by population, more easily and honestly — reunite East Bradford’s southern precincts with its northern half in the 156^th District, leave West Chester in the 156^th, and leave Westtown in the 160^th District.

That this simpler solution exists not only gives the lie to the idea the current plan is “necessary” but opens the plan to serious legal challenge.

Please reconsider your plan to split these three municipalities. Instead, leave them intact and reunite East Bradford, allowing all to have adequate, cohesive, and honest representation.

Jim Salvas
Secretary, West Chester Borough Democrats

Please give your opinion to the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Judge Stephen J. McEwen Jr., Chair.

West Chester, PA — Citizens are encouraged to voice their objection to the proposed redistricting of West Chester Borough into two districts instead of one, according to Mayor Carolyn Comitta and Borough Council President Holly Brown.

The Pennsylvania Legislative Redistricting Commission has proposed to split the Borough of West Chester into two separate House Districts. Currently, House District 156 serves the whole of the Borough of West Chester, an area of 1.8 square miles. But due to redistricting, a process that occurs every ten years to insure that all districts have about an equal number of persons residing within them, the Borough would be served by both the 156th and 160th districts. The new boundaries would set by the wards. Ward 1, 2, 6, and 7 would continue to be in the 156th District and wards 3, 4, and 5 in the 160th District.

“We are asking West Chester citizens to contact the Legislative Reapportionment Commission by November 30 and let them know that West Chester residents object to splitting the Borough into two legislative districts,” said Mayor Carolyn Comitta.

On November 16, the Borough Council passed a resolution to urge the 2011 Legislative Redistricting Commission to maintain the entirety of the Borough of West Chester in a single Chester County legislative district. The resolution indicates that West Chester is a compact, historic urban municipality and is the County Seat of the County of Chester. It also states that West Chester is “an urban community that is unique and does not share the same characteristics as the surrounding suburban communities.” Read the entire resolution: Redistricting Resolution.

Of equal concern, part of West Chester University would be separated from the 156th and put into the 160th, thus dividing the university between two districts. Further, there are no common borders between West Chester and any Delaware County community. Some also feel that the division of West Chester Borough is not absolutely necessary and is therefore in violation of the State Constitution.

Citizens may download a petition here Redistricting Petition and contact members of the Legislative Reapportionment commission with their concerns.

Click on the members below for e-mail contact:

Legislative Reapportionment Commission, Judge Stephen J. McEwen Jr., Chair

Sen. Dominic Pileggi

Sen. Jay Costa

Rep. Mike Turzai

Rep. Frank Dermody

Here also is the message to the same end, telephoned and emailed to the Borough’s distribution list:

Community Blackboard Message: November 26, 2011

Dear West Chester Borough Neighbors:

This is West Chester Mayor Carolyn Comitta. Borough Council and I need your help.  We are asking West Chester citizens to contact the State Reapportionment Commission by November 30, and let them know that West Chester voters object to splitting the Borough into two House districts.

The proposed redistricting would remove half of the Borough and half of West Chester University and place it in a district which is mainly in Delaware County. We firmly believe this split between two districts would significantly diminish and dilute West Chester’s voice at the state level, and that the plan is a direct violation of the State Constitution.

West Chester is a complex, regional urban center. We are the County Seat, of Chester County. West Chester needs a unified voice in Harrisburg to address its unique needs.  We urge you to speak out now. Visit www.downtownwestchester.com for details. Thank you!

Carolyn T. Comitta, Mayor
Holly Brown, Borough Council President
Borough of West Chester

October 25, 2011

Dear Friend-

Information was sent to you concerning Senate Bill 732, and my involvement, that was erroneous in fact and substance. You e-mailed or called me in response to this information. Please allow me to respond.

Senate Bill 732 was amended and sent to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in late June 2011. It is not currently in the Senate. If it comes back to the Senate, I will vote against it.

This legislation was originally introduced as a pro-choice bill by pro-choice Republican Senator Pat Vance. The goal of the legislation was to increase health standards for abortion clinics without forcing any clinic to shut down. In fact, the purpose of the legislation was a pro-active attempt to prevent a strong pro-life bill based on the horrible situation that occurred in Philadelphia.

I was asked to co-sponsor the legislation at the request of several pro-choice Republicans and some pro-choice Democrats. It was supported and voted for by several pro-choice, female Republican and Democratic senators including Sen. Lisa Baker, Sen. Jane Earll, Sen. Pat Vance and Sen. Lisa Boscola.

The pro-life community amended this legislation and I voted against that amendment. However, the vote passed despite my and other senators’ objections, and it went to the House of Representatives last June.

I recently met with the southeast delegation of Planned Parenthood along with Chester County pro-choice supporters to discuss strategies for returning the bill back to its original version to meet its original intent when the bill returns to the Senate for concurrence. My biggest fear and that of Planned Parenthood’s is that the House’s version will be even worse, shutting down all facilities except possibly one.

The distribution of this erroneous announcement was most troubling and unfortunate. I repeat that there is no bill in the Senate, and I am working with Planned Parenthood to defeat the bill if it comes back to the Senate for concurrence. I have been pro-choice all my life, and I can assure you I am not about to change.

If you have any questions on my stance and my vote, please call me in West Chester or Harrisburg or call my legislative director, Martin Indars, or my communications director, Adam Cirucci at 610-692-2112.

Respectfully,

Andy Dinniman
State Senator – 19th District

Please Write Your State Legislators Asking Them to Support the National Popular Vote Bill

One of the most important things you can do to support the National Popular Vote bill is to write your state legislators and state officials asking them to support the bill. You can quickly and easily send an e-mail to your state legislators by going to www.NationalPopularVote.com/write. Our system will provide a suggested letter, which you can edit.

California Legislature Sends National Popular Vote Bill to Governor

The California State Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill on July 14, thereby sending the bill to Governor Jerry Brown.

If the Governor signs the bill, states possessing 49% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate the National Popular Vote plan will have enacted it (132 of 270).

The National Popular Vote bill has now been enacted into law by jurisdictions possessing 77 electoral votes—29% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it, including Vermont (3 electoral votes), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), Washington state (12), and the District of Columbia (3).

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes from voters in the entire United States.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed 31 legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions, including chamber(s) in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. A map on the National Popular Vote web site shows the progress of the bill in each state.

At the present time, the National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by 2,110 of the nation’s state legislators (27% of 7,424 state legislators).

Background

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

The shortcomings of the current system are caused by the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state).

Under the current system of electing the President, two thirds of the states are ignored by the presidential campaign; a second-place candidate can win the Presidency; turnout is depressed in the spectator states; and every vote is not equal.

Because of the winner-take-all rule, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to voter concerns in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a small handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2008, 98% of the post-convention campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Two thirds of the states were ignored by the presidential campaigns.

The same was true in 2004 when candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

Another shortcoming of the current system caused by the winner-take-all rule is that a candidate can win the Presidency without receiving the most popular votes nationwide. There have been four such elections out of the nation’s 56 presidential elections. This is a failure rate of 1 in 14. But because half of American presidential elections are landslides (i.e., a margin of greater than 10% between the first- and second-place candidates), the failure rate is actually 1 in 7 among the non-landslide elections. Given that we are currently in an era of non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008), it is not surprising that we have already had one “wrong winner” election in this recent string of six close elections. Moreover, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry, even though President Bush was ahead by over 3,000,000 votes nationwide.

Voter turnout in the “battleground” states was 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”

The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founder’s choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election). Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College so that the President is the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, The Columbian, Wichita Falls Times, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Daily Astorian, Connecticut Post, MetroWest Daily News, Sarasota Florida Herald Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, and Kent County Times.

As the Sarasota Florida Herald Tribune said:

“The most compelling and practical alternative is promoted by a bipartisan group called National Popular Vote. The NPV proposal calls for legislatures to pass bills committing their state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide; the bill would take effect only when enacted by states that together have enough electoral votes to elect a president.”

State-level polls (most taken after the November 2008 election) show strong support for a national popular vote for President in battleground states, small states, Southern states, border states, and numerous other states. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed. State polls have been conducted in numerous states, including AK–70%, AR–80%, AZ–67%, CA–70%, CO–68%, CT–74%, DC–76%, DE–75%, FL–78%, ID–77%, IA–75%, KY–80%, ME–77%, MA–73%, MI–73%, MS–77%, MO–70%, MT–72%, NH–69%, NE–74%, NV–72%, NM–76%, NY–79%, NC–74%, OH–70%, OK–81%, OR–76%, PA–78%, RI–74%, SC–71%, SD–75%, UT–70%, VT–75%, VA–74%, WA–77%, WI–71%, WV–81%, and WY–69%.

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

The National Popular Vote bill has now been enacted into law by jurisdictions possessing 77 electoral votes—29% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it, including Vermont (3 electoral votes), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), Washington state (12), and the District of Columbia (3).

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed 31 legislative chambers in 21 jurisdictions, including chamber(s) in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. A map on the National Popular Vote web site shows the progress of the bill in each state.

At the present time, the National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by 2,110 of the nation’s state legislators (27% of 7,424 state legislators).

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (available for free reading or downloading at our web site).

Take a look at the plan, and then say you’re in for 2012:

http://my.barackobama.com/strategy-slideshow-EMS