Navajo, San Juan County leaders extend accord bolstering voting access
San Juan County and Navajo Nation leaders have agreed to extend an agreement meant to help assure voting access for Navajo residents.
The agreement, stemming from a 2016 lawsuit filed by the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission against the county, extends a prior accord that expired after the November 2024 general elections. Notably, the accord calls for creation of three language-assistance locations and polling places within Navajo Nation land in San Juan County, pre-election advertising in the Navajo language, Diné Bizaad, and employment of Navajo interpreters to aid in the election outreach.
'This settlement affirms a fundamental truth — the voices of Navajo voters in San Juan County matter. We are dedicated to making sure the ballot box remains open and accessible to Navajo language speakers today, tomorrow and every day after that,' said Abby Cook, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, which helped represent the Navajo Nation.
The Navajo Nation is spread across southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico, but the settlement agreement applies to the Utah portion of the reservation. According to 2024 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 46.5% of the county's 14,601 residents are American Indians or Alaska Natives.
The original 2016 lawsuit stemmed from the move in Utah in 2014 to mail-in balloting and concerns the change disenfranchised Navajo voters, in part due to unreliable postal service in Navajo Nation territory. The first settlement agreement resolving the dispute was executed in 2018, the second was finalized in 2021, and the new one, extending the varied provisions through the 2028 general election cycle, was inked last week. The San Juan County Clerk's Office is the main county party in the matter.
The new accord, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah, says the goal of those involved is 'to continue to achieve, if possible, a larger turnout by Navajo voters in future elections.' The language assistance, it reads, has 'produced some noteworthy results,' including turnout by voters on the Navajo reservation of 89.07%, which compared to overall Utah voter turnout that year of 90.09%.
Per the agreement, voting information centers will be created in the run up to elections in Montezuma Creek, Navajo Mountain and Monument Valley. 'Each center will be staffed with a trained Navajo language interpreter, offering services including voter registration, ballot replacement, and language assistance,' reads an ACLU press release.
Additionally, election information will be provided in Diné Bizaad, on local radio stations and newspapers.
'All eligible voters have a right to full and equal voting access without barriers, including the right to read and understand their ballot and voting resources,' said Aaron Welcher, spokesman for the ACLU of Utah.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Los Angeles gears up for fourth day of protests against immigration raids
Los Angeles was waking Monday up to another day of high tensions with Donald Trump's administration, the fourth since protests began over efforts by federal immigration authorities' attempts to arrest illegal migrants in the city and a day after the president ordered in the national guard. New rallies against US immigration and customs enforcement (Ice) detentions are planned, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announcing an event 'to demand justice for detained immigrants and an end to the ongoing human rights abuses by Ice'. 'We will not be intimidated. We will not be silenced,' the civil rights organisation said in a statement on its website. Related: Los Angeles responds with roaring backlash to Trump's dramatic escalation The rally is set to demand the immediate release of David Huerta, a union leader who it said 'was unjustly arrested and is still being held by the government, and all unjustly detained individuals'. But the political rhetoric over the protests has not cooled. Trump's 'border czar' Tom Homan told Fox News early Monday that Ice 'took a lot of bad people off the street'. 'We arrested a sexual predator, we arrested gang members, we arrested somebody that had an armed robbery conviction,' Homan said, without providing specifics. 'We made LA safer … but you're not hearing any of this. All you're hearing is rhetoric about Ice being racist, Ice being Nazis and terrorists – and Governor [Gavin] Newsom feeds that, just like [Democratic US House minority leader] Hakeem Jeffries says he's going to unmask Ice agents. 'We're not going to stop.' Homan also told NBC News that more raids are coming. 'I'm telling you what – we're going to keep enforcing law every day in LA,' he said. 'Every day in LA, we're going to enforce immigration law. I don't care if they like it or not.' The tensions between elected state and local officials and the federal government showed signs of escalating further after Newsom said he planned to sue the federal government and dared Trump to arrest him. In an interview on MSNBC, Newsom said the lawsuit would challenge Trump's federalizing of the California national guard without the state's consent. 'Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight,' Newsom told the outlet. 'He's exacerbated the conditions. He's, you know, lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the national guard – an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' Federal law, he said, 'specifically notes they had to coordinate with the governor of the state. 'They never coordinated with the governor of the state.' On Fox News, Newsom said Trump is 'reckless and immoral, and he's taken the illegal and unconstitutional act of federalizing the national guard and putting lives at risk'. Newsom added that he is confident that California's legal challenge would succeed.
Time Business News
5 hours ago
- Time Business News
The Smart Wall: When Borders Become Digital Prisons
VANCOUVER, B.C. — As governments shift their focus from physical barriers to digital surveillance systems, a new kind of border is emerging—one that tracks, anticipates, and intercepts movement without the need for walls or fences. This phenomenon, often referred to as the 'Smart Wall,' represents a seismic shift in how countries secure their borders and control migration. However, while policymakers claim it enhances national security, critics argue that it creates digital prisons that strip individuals of their privacy, mobility, and the right to seek refuge. Amicus International Consulting, a global leader in legal identity change and international migration advisory, has seen firsthand how emerging border technologies are transforming both enforcement and evasion. This press release explores the technologies behind the Smart Wall, their global impact, and the legal dilemmas now facing asylum seekers, stateless persons, and fugitives. What Is a Smart Wall? A Smart Wall is a border enforcement strategy that uses technology, rather than concrete or steel, to detect, monitor, and deter unauthorized crossings. It typically includes: High-resolution drones Ground sensors AI-enhanced surveillance cameras Satellite tracking systems Facial recognition and biometric verification Advanced data analytics Unlike traditional walls, Smart Walls are invisible but ever-present. They do not block geography; they monitor behaviour. By blending artificial intelligence with real-time sensor data, Smart Walls allow authorities to predict migration patterns, identify individuals of interest, and share intelligence across international networks. Case Study: The U.S.-Mexico Border In recent years, the United States has invested over $1.2 billion in Smart Wall technologies along the southern border. The system, powered by AI and supported by private defence contractors, includes drone surveillance, automated license plate readers, and biometric sensors capable of identifying individuals in motion. This network works not only at the line of contact but also deep into U.S. territory and across Mexican states. In effect, it creates a surveillance buffer zone extending miles beyond the border, blurring the lines between border enforcement and internal tracking. Human rights organizations, including the ACLU, have challenged these developments, citing privacy violations and the lack of transparency or judicial oversight. The Rise of Pre-Border Enforcement What makes Smart Walls more controversial is their ability to act before a traveller arrives. Governments now routinely access Passenger Name Records (PNR), share biometric data, and use algorithmic profiling to identify 'high-risk' travellers before they board planes or even apply for visas. In 2024, the European Union expanded its Entry/Exit System (EES), logging every border crossing made by non-EU citizens, including fingerprints and facial scans. Coupled with the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS), these tools enable predictive vetting based on personal, behavioural, and even political data. This predictive approach has turned many international travellers into unwitting targets of preemptive surveillance, often without recourse or explanation. When the Wall Is a Database For many, a border is no longer a place—it's a profile in a database. Governments worldwide maintain watchlists, blocklists, and visa denials based on opaque criteria. If your name, appearance, or travel history raises red flags, you may never be allowed to board a flight, regardless of your intent or legal rights. In 2023 alone, more than 2.4 million passengers were prevented from travelling due to pre-boarding algorithmic flagging, according to data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and INTERPOL. This phenomenon disproportionately affects: Asylum seekers Political dissidents Fugitives from oppressive regimes Transnational activists Stateless persons without a conventional ID Case Study: Jamal Khashoggi's Digital Trail The 2018 assassination of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was partially enabled by digital tracking. Turkish intelligence later confirmed that Saudi operatives used mobile phone metadata, airline travel logs, and digital surveillance to orchestrate his capture and murder. The case became a landmark moment, demonstrating how digital tracking tools can be weaponized to monitor and neutralize dissent, even in foreign jurisdictions. The Legal Grey Zone: Predictive Policing and Due Process Predictive surveillance raises major legal questions. Is it lawful to deny someone entry based on a probability score generated by AI? What rights does a flagged traveller have when they're denied boarding in a third country? Can you challenge a decision made by an algorithm? Most current legal frameworks do not adequately address these questions. The right to mobility, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now clashing with national security algorithms programmed by private firms. As Amicus International notes, 'Borders have become invisible battlegrounds where algorithms, not judges, decide the fate of travellers.' The Human Cost of Smart Walls The impact of digital border control on vulnerable populations is profound. In 2024: Over 40,000 asylum claims were denied based on prior travel history. Stateless Rohingya refugees were rejected from Malaysian entry despite UNHCR documentation. LGBTQ+ activists flagged as 'cultural disruptors' were denied boarding to European safe havens. Dozens of political dissidents were detained at pre-clearance zones before flights ever left the ground. In each of these cases, the Smart Wall wasn't a line in the sand—it was an algorithmic no-fly zone programmed thousands of miles away. Amicus International's Response: Legal Pathways Through the Digital Maze Amicus International Consulting is at the forefront of helping clients navigate this digital transformation of borders. Their services include: Legal second citizenship acquisition through legitimate means, such as ancestry or investment through legitimate means, such as ancestry or investment Name and identity change assistance in compliant jurisdictions in compliant jurisdictions Pre-clearance legal preparation to ensure smooth airport transitions to ensure smooth airport transitions Digital footprint audits to help clients understand what data is being collected to help clients understand what data is being collected Emergency relocation planning for high-risk individuals and dissidents The firm emphasizes legal solutions only, warning that attempting to bypass digital security systems without a lawful grounding can lead to arrest, detention, or permanent blocklisting. Case Study: Escape from Biometric Detection In 2022, Amicus assisted a Belarusian human rights activist facing surveillance by state intelligence. After being flagged on biometric watchlists, he could no longer enter most EU countries. Amicus developed a legal strategy for changing the client's identity, enabling them to obtain Caribbean citizenship under Saint Kitts and Nevis' investment program. With a new identity and citizenship, the client relocated to South Africa, where he now works remotely for an international non-governmental organization (NGO). The biometric systems never matched him again, because he no longer existed under the same parameters. Ethical Concerns: Who Programs the Border? One of the most alarming aspects of the Smart Wall is the lack of public transparency. Companies like Palantir, Elbit Systems, and Anduril develop the predictive software used in Smart Wall projects. Their algorithms are often classified as proprietary, preventing scrutiny or external review. This leads to: Bias reinforcement against ethnic and political groups against ethnic and political groups False positives that block innocent travellers that block innocent travellers No straightforward appeals process for algorithmic decisions for algorithmic decisions Private influence over public policy In effect, corporations are building the walls and setting the rules. Policy Recommendations Amicus International calls for a renewed global conversation on digital borders and legal rights. Recommendations include: Public transparency mandates for Smart Wall algorithms International treaty updates to account for digital border controls Appeal mechanisms for algorithm-based travel denials Digital mobility rights enshrined in international law Protection for data sovereignty in global PNR and biometric databases Conclusion: The Wall You Cannot See The Smart Wall is not just a new border—it's a new paradigm. One where unseen forces govern identity, intent, and mobility, and where crossing a border has less to do with visas and more to do with machine learning predictions. Amicus International Consulting encourages travellers, asylum seekers, and global citizens to take proactive steps. Understanding the legal landscape of digital surveillance is not just advisable—it's essential for survival in the post-biometric age. Contact Information Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402Email: info@ Website:
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Bill limiting protests at public universities awaits Gov. Abbott's approval
The Brief A new bill, SB 2972, limiting protests on Texas public university campuses has passed both the Senate and House. The bill prohibits activities like using amplified sound during class, protesting in the last two weeks of the semester, and wearing masks to conceal identity. Critics, including the ACLU of Texas, argue the bill violates First Amendment rights. AUSTIN - A bill that passed through the Texas legislature last weekend would prohibit certain times and locations of protests on public university campuses. Critics worry the bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, as well as the Texas Constitution. Senate Bill 2972 defines "expressive activities" in the same manner as the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution, directly citing those documents to include assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written materials, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions. Under the new bill, the following would be prohibited at Texas universities: Using devices to amplify sound during class hours while engaging in expressive activities. Engaging in expressive activities during the last two weeks of the semester. Camping or setting up tents on campus. Wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in expressive activities. Lowering the U.S. flag with the intent to raise another flag. Engaging in expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Note that these are limited and expanded upon individually within the bill's text. The Senate passed the bill 21-10 on May 14. The House passed it 97-39 on May 28. What they're saying The bill's text says it may not be construed to limit freedom of speech or expression as protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution. Critics wonder how this is possible, saying the bill in its entirety is an imposition of prohibitions on rights defined in those texts. Caro Achar, the engagement coordinator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas, released the following statement to that point. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." Dig deeper The new bill comes on the heels of recent major protests on Texas university campuses, largely related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as developments with mass deportations. At one UT Austin protest in April 2024, 79 pro-Palestine protesters were taken into custody. The university was later found to have violated several institutional rules when handling the incident. Feds to screen social media of migrants, foreign students for antisemitic activity Columbia must notify students before handing records to Congress amid antisemitism probe ICE detains U of M student at Twin Cities campus, officials say What's next SB 2972 now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. According to the ACLU, he is expected to sign it into law. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it will become law without his action. The Source Information in this article comes from Texas Legislature Online, the ACLU of Texas and previous coverage by FOX 7.
