Category Archives: Gov Docs

Perhaps not as easy as first thought: Court blocks part of Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked enforcement of part of President Donald Trump’s executive order to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities that refuse to help the government detain and deport immigrants. The court issued a nationwide injunction to block enforcement of Section 9(a) of E.O. 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 30, 2017), the provision that would allow the federal government to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. Text of Decision. For an analysis, see Steven D. Schwinn’s Constitutional Law Prof Blog post.

Prior to the court ruling, the administration’s latest effort to clamp down on sanctuary jurisdictions came on April 21st when the DOJ sent letters to nine jurisdictions demanding proof of compliance with 8 USC 1373. According to the DOJ press release:

The letters remind the recipient jurisdictions that, as a condition for receiving certain financial year 2016 funding from the Department of Justice, each of these jurisdictions agreed to provide documentation and an opinion from legal counsel validating that they are in compliance with Section 1373. The Department of Justice expects each of these jurisdictions to comply with this grant condition and to submit all documentation to the Office of Justice Programs by June 30, 2017, the deadline imposed by the grant agreement.

The piecemeal implementation of Trump’s executive order, should it ever be enforceable, is the topic of Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Select Federal Grant Funding Issues: In Brief (March 16, 2017, R44789). This report discusses questions that might be raised regarding the implementation of Trump’s EO 13768 by federal grant-making agencies on the impact of federal grant funding for designated sanctuary jurisdictions. The CRS report observes

Because of the complexity of implementing a centralized policy such as the EO through the decentralized structure of federal grants administration practices, there is uncertainty in determining the impact of the EO on federal grant funding for sanctuary jurisdictions. The impact could be affected by the discretion exercised by the Attorney General and the Secretary [of Homeland Security] in defining a “federal grant,” determining which programs are exempted because of providing necessary funding for law enforcement purposes, and determining what constitutes a “sanctuary jurisdiction.” The impact of the EO on federal grant funding could also be affected by how federal grant awarding agencies utilize discretion in administering the grant programs, including review of eligibility and conditioning federal grant awards.

End Note. See also this CRS report, Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation (April 16, 2014, RS20846) which discusses executive orders with a focus on the scope of presidential authority to execute such instruments, as well as judicial and congressional responses to their issuance, and  this LLB post for links to additional CRS reports on sanctuary jurisdictions. For additional background, see Darla Cameron’s How sanctuary cities work, and how Trump’s executive order might affect them (Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2017). — Joe

CRS reports of the shutdown of the federal government: Causes, processes, effects, and resources

Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects (Sept. 8, 2014, RL34680) discussess the causes of shutdowns, including the legal framework under which they may occur; processes related to how agencies may plan for the contingency of a shutdown; effects of shutdowns, focusing especially on federal personnel and government operations; and issues related to shutdowns that may be of interest to Congress. See also, Past Government Shutdowns: Key Resources (Sept. 29, 2015, R41759) which provides an annotated list of historical documents and other resources related to several past government shutdowns. Sources for these documents and resources include the Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office, House and Senate Committees, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and the Executive Office of the President. — Joe

GPO redesigns its website

According to the press release, some of the new features of the GPO’s new website, which is in beta at this time, include being mobile friendly, improved internal site search, improved user experience, easy access to GPO products and services, and easy access to GPO social media platforms. Once out of beta, this site will replace the GPO’s current website.

Give the new site a test drive at https://beta.gpo.gov/ . Visitors can submit general feedback to the GPO at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/betagpodotgov

— Joe

War Powers Resolution: CRS reports and research guide

The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice (CRS Report R42699, March 28, 2017) discusses and assesses the War Powers Resolution, P.L. 93-148, and its application since enactment in 1973. It provides detailed background on various cases in which it was used, as well as cases in which issues of its applicability were raised. See also War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance (RL33532, Sept. 25, 2012).

The Law Library of Congress has this guide which is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution.

— Joe

After yesterday’s news, it might be time to bone up on the impeachment process (again)

Key takeaways from the CRS report Impeachment and Removal (October 29, 2015, R44260) include:

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.

If the Senate, by vote of a two-thirds majority, convicts the official on any article of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office.

The Constitution does not articulate who qualifies as a “civil officer.” Most impeachments have applied to federal judges. With regard to the executive branch, lesser functionaries—such as federal employees who belong to the civil service, do not exercise “significant authority,” and are not appointed by the President or an agency head—do not appear to be subject to impeachment. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it would appear that any official who qualifies as a principal officer, including a head of an agency such as a Secretary, Administrator, or Commissioner, is likely subject to impeachment.

Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior. Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

The House has impeached 19 individuals: 15 federal judges, one Senator, one Cabinet member, and two Presidents. The Senate has conducted 16 full impeachment trials. Of these, eight individuals—all federal judges—were convicted by the Senate.

— Joe

GPO releases National Plan for Access to US Government Information

Recently the GPO released the National Plan for Access to U.S. Government Information: A Framework for a User-Centric Service Approach to Permanent Public Access, explaining “[t]his is the framework for moving forward in the digital age, meeting our challenges, and achieving our vision of providing Government information when and where it is needed.” Quoting from the FDLP’s National Plan project site:

The National Plan sets the groundwork and provides long-term strategies for the success and growth of:

•The Federal Depository Library Program (statutory program)
The FDLP will continue its evolution to be agile, scalable, flexible, user-centric, and outcomes-based. Extensive partnerships with Federal depository libraries and other Federal agencies and organizations will be key to long-term growth and success. Providing depositories with a rich education program, new services, and flexibilities that will allow for serving diverse communities in the most comprehensive way possible are top goals of the FDLP.

•The Cataloging and Indexing Program (statutory program)
The C&I Program will continue to enhance its cataloging and metadata creation through the National Bibliographic Records Inventory and its lifecycle management of Government information processes. Acquiring, harvesting, cataloging, discovery tools, and preserving will all play roles in the achievement of a comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, both historical and moving forward. Again, partnerships with Federal depository libraries and other Federal agencies and organizations will be key to long-term growth and success.

•The Federal Information Preservation Network (GPO strategic initiative)
The creation of FIPNet affords the public with guaranteed, long-term access to resources, materials, and expertise from libraries, Government entities, coalitions, and organizations. This program will ensure permanent public access to historic, at-risk publications and resources of significant value to the public. Depository libraries will benefit from the added resources and the sustainability of those resources for their patrons. Based on formal partnerships with GPO, FIPNet partners will provide an added guarantee that our rich history will be accessible for future generations to come. GPO is currently in the process of developing types of FIPNet partnerships, standards, guidelines, and best practices.

Hat tip to Gary Price’s LJ InfoDocket post. — Joe

LLSDC adds Congressional Record sources to its Legislative Source Book

From the announcement by Rick McKinney (Federal Reserve Board Law Library):

The Legislative Research Special Interest Section of the Law Librarians’ Society of Washington, D.C., Inc. (LLSDC) is pleased to announce a new addition to its Legislative Source Book entitled “Sources for the Congressional Record: Free and Commercial”. The new website contains a list with links to most all online sources for the Congressional Record, free and commercial, with dates of coverage, including the bound Record, the daily edition, the Congressional Record Index, and predecessors to the Congressional Record. Also included are brief notations about search, browse, print, and cite retrieval capabilities of the sources as well information on libraries with paper and microform issues. Finally there are a number of links to aid researchers in understanding the Congressional Record, its history, its volume numbers, and what is or is not included in the pages of the Record.

Visit LLSDC’s Legislative Source Book. — Joe

Nebraska Courts To Drop Printed Opinions

From the Press Release:

Free online access to the official published judicial opinions of the Nebraska Supreme Court and Nebraska Court of Appeals will be available to the public beginning January 1, 2016.

Text-searchable opinions dating back to 1871 will be available for the Nebraska Supreme Court. The full collection of opinions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals, beginning with its establishment in 1992, will also be offered.

Previously, appellate court opinions were printed or were available online through various for-profit subscription services. All published opinions will be provided via the Nebraska Appellate Courts Online Library at ne.gov/go/opinions. Once printing of judicial opinions in the Nebraska Advance Sheets and the Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals ceases in June 2016, opinions will be available exclusively online.

Newly released opinions of both courts will continue to be available for 90 days on the Nebraska Judicial Branch Web site athttps://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/ and from the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals upon request, and from any electronic provider of legal information choosing to provide them.

Official opinions in the online library will be accessible 24/7 using smart phones, tablets or computers from anywhere with Internet access. Access via the online library allows the appellate courts to make their judicial opinions more easily available to the public.

Nebraska joins Arkansas and Illinois in dropping printed opinions in favor of online access.  Hat Tip to Rich Leiter for the news.

Mark

It’s Pearl Harbor Day – New Text And Audio Collections at the FDR Presidential Library

Here’s a bit of news that archivists and historians may find useful on this anniversary of Pearl Harbor and the entry of the United States into World War II.  The Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library has placed some 46,000 pages of speeches in draft, transcript, and final form online.  This collection is accompanied by another which comprises the complete audio recordings available of those speeches.  The site describes the collection:

The FDR Library, with support from AT&T, Marist College and the Roosevelt Institute launches online one of its most in-demand archival collections – FDR’s Master Speech File – over 46,000 pages of drafts, reading copies, and transcripts created throughout FDR’s political career. Presented alongside the Speech File is the Library’s complete digital collection of Recorded Speeches of FDR.

The earliest recording is dated 1920.  That’s pretty amazing given the state of recording technology in that era.  It’s more amazing that it can be downloaded in the ubiquitous MP3 format.  It’s that casual.

I’ve visited this site plenty of times in the past.  There is a wonderful collection of public domain photographs that document the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II.  There is some amazing stuff in these collections.  Speaking of Pearl Harbor, scroll halfway down this page for digitized research materials relating to Franklin Roosevelt and the Day of Infamy.

23-0132M

The original caption reads: “USS West Virginia and USS Tennessee after attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.”  Archivist note:  USS West Virginia, BB-48, sinking after being hit with seven torpedoes and two armor-piercing bombs.  Along side is USS Tennesse, BB-43, after being hit with two bombs and being damaged by the explosion of the USS Arizona.  In the foreground are yard patrol craft which appear to be assisting in damage control and rescue operations.

Mark

Librarian of Congress Announces Current DMCA Exemptions

The DMCA Exemptions for 2015 were announced by David S. Mao, the Acting Librarian of Congress, and effective as of October 28.  This is a series of exemptions allowed every three years upon review.  There is now a limited exemption for jailbreaking software in cars, 3D printers, phones, tablets, other portable devices, games, and allowance for the use of excerpted DVD clips for educational use.  Some of the items on the list, such as limited use of DVD excerpts had been approved in last reviews.  The process requires a renewal to prevent the exemption from expiring.

I often found the refusal to exempt making archival copies of DVDs a bit hypocritical as there are quite a few software packages that can accomplish this for sale on large commercial retail sites.  And then there are stories such as a review of the Five Best DVD Ripping Tools from Lifehacker.  Let me state up front that I am not encouraging anyone to violate copyright law.  I’m merely pointing to examples that show how little the prohibition against copying/ripping seems to be enforced.  Maybe this software is bought mostly by academics for classroom use.

Some of the commentary on this year’s announcements are in Wired, boingboing, the EFF, and the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Mark

White House Office of Science and Technology Orders Agencies to Develop Policies on Open Access to Science Collections

The federal government wants to make its physical scientific collections accessible through consistent policies that are used to manage those collections.  A memorandum to that effect was issued yesterday by the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John P. Holden.  I’m quoting part of the directive:

a) Develop and clearly describe procedures for making scientific collections more accessible to educators and researchers, including non-Federal scientists, to maximize public benefit.

b) Work with the Smithsonian Institution to ensure that information on the contents of and how to access the agency’s scientific collections is available on the Internet in a central Federal clearinghouse and to maintain participation in the Federal clearinghouse once it is established.

c) Use machine-readable and open formats, data standards, and common-core and extensible metadata for all new information creation and collection to facilitate search and discoverability and provide clear public guidance for accessing collections materials, consistent with the Executive Order on Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information.

d) When available and where not limited by law, make freely and easily accessible to the public all digital files in the highest available fidelity and resolution, including, but not limited to, photographs, videos, and digital 3D models, and associated records and documentation, describing or characterizing objects in government-managed scientific collections.

e) Associate digital files describing or characterizing scientific collections with the agency’s collections catalog and the central Federal clearinghouse referenced in Section 3(b) of this memorandum. By default, this information should be in machine-readable and open formats.

The complete memorandum is here.  A press release from the OSTP describing the memorandum is here. – Mark

ALA Launches Free e-Government Webinar Series

(Note:  Links are updated to get through to the sites in question.  Apologies to all –  Mark)

As anyone can imagine, I get a lot of press releases.  Sometimes I use them as inspiration for posts, and sometimes not.  Here’s a press release I’m publishing intact as the information may be useful to readers:

The American Library Association (ALA) and the Information Policy & Access Center (iPAC) at the University of Maryland at College Park are pleased to announce the re-launch of Lib2Gov, an online e-government resource for librarians. Over the past few months, both organizations have worked to transition LibEGov—a project supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services through a National Leadership Grant—into Lib2Gov.

The redesigned website Lib2Gov allows libraries and government agencies to come together and collaborate, share resources and build a community of practice. Lib2Gov now provides a dedicated space where librarians can share materials, lesson plans, tutorials, stories, and other e-government content. The website offers a variety of resources from government agencies and organizations, including information on immigration, taxation, social security and healthcare.

In a few weeks, both organizations will host a new monthly webinar series, “E-government @ Your Library.” The webinars will explore a variety of e-government topics that will be of interest to librarians, including mobile government and emergency preparedness, response and recovery. All webinars are free and will be archived on the Lib2Gov site. The webinar schedule for Winter/Spring 2014:

  • Webinar 1: E-government @ Your Library (Wednesday, February 26, 2014, at 2 p.m. EST)

This webinar offers general insights into how libraries can help meet the e-government needs of their communities in general and through the Lib2Gov web resource. Register now.

Speakers:

    • John Bertot, Ph.D., co-director, Information Policy & Access Center (iPAC), and professor, in University of Maryland College Park’s iSchool
    • Ursula Gorham, graduate research associate, iPAC and doctoral candidate, University of Maryland College Park iSchool
    • Jessica McGilvray, assistant director, Office of Government Relations at the American Library Association’s Washington, D.C. office
  • Webinar 2: Government Information Expertise Online: Beyond the First Century of Federal Depository Library Program Practice (Thursday, March 27, 2014, at 3 p.m. EST) Register now.

This webinar will offer insights and techniques in how practicing government information professionals can use the strengths and opportunities of the depository library experience in several promising areas of digital reference, government information discovery tools and deliberative outreach to your community.

Speakers:

    • Cynthia Etkin, senior program planning specialist, Office of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO)
    • John A. Shuler, associate professor, University of Illinois, Chicago University Library
  • Webinar 3: An Introduction to Mobile Government Apps for Librarians (Wednesday, April 30, 2014, at 2 p.m. EST)

The webinar will cover how librarians can teach patrons to use mobile devices, provide links on our webpages to government apps, and create apps for their own e-government websites. Register now.

Speakers:

    • Isabelle Fetherston, teen librarian, Pasco County Library System
    • Nancy Fredericks, member, Pasco County Library System Library Leadership Team
  • Webinar 4: Roles for Libraries and Librarians in Disasters (Thursday, May 15, 2014, at 2 p.m. EST)

This webinar presents information on libraries’ and librarians’ roles supporting their communities and the disaster workforce before, during, and after hazardous events and disasters. Register now.

Speakers:

    • Siobhan Champ-Blackwell, librarian, U.S. National Library of Medicine Disaster Information Management Research Center
    • Cindy Love, librarian, U.S. National Library of Medicine Disaster Information Management Research Center
    • Elizabeth Norton, librarian, U.S. National Library of Medicine Disaster Information Management Research Center
  • Webinar 5: Beta.Congress.Gov (Thursday, June 12, 2014, at 2 p.m. EST)

Sign-up information, as well as more information about webinar topics and speakers, is available. Please contact Jessica McGilvray (jmcgilvray@alawash.org) or John Bertot (jbertot@umd.edu) with questions about Lib2Gov or the webinar series.

— Mark
 

Can library associations do more than just thank the GPO for keeping folks informed during the latest shutdown?

You bet. They can advocate vigorously for the official recognition of federal web communication programs (and not just FDsys) as essential government services to avoid future suspensions the next time the federal government shuts down (and there will be a next time). It’s not just about the provision of digital information. Web-based citizen services are essential. Perhaps the fiasco of healthcare.gov will raise the public profile of this issue. — Joe

Read-only, user-monitored portal to ANSI’s IBR standards launched

Last week, ANSI launched its Incorporation by Reference (IBR) Portal. The website “provides a one-stop mechanism for access to standards that have been incorporated by reference in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These standards incorporated by the U.S. government in rulemakings are offered at no cost in ‘read only’ format and are presented for online reading. There are no print or download options.”

OK, it’s a “one-stop mechanism” to do one thing, namely read online. Apparently the sky will fall if ANSI offered free print and download options. Quoting from the Oct. 28, 2013 press release:

“In all of our discussions about the IBR issue, the question we are trying to answer is simple. Why aren’t standards free? In the context of IBR, it’s a valid point to raise,” said S. Joe Bhatia, ANSI president and CEO. “A standard that has been incorporated by reference does have the force of law, and it should be available. But the blanket statement that all IBR standards should be free misses a few important considerations.”

As coordinator of the U.S. standardization system, ANSI has taken a lead role in informing the public about the reality of free standards, the economics of standards setting, and how altering this infrastructure will undermine U.S. competitiveness. Specifically, the loss of revenue from the sale of standards could negatively impact the business model supporting many SDOs – potentially disrupting the larger U.S. and international standardization system, a major driver of innovation and economic growth worldwide. In response to concerns raised by ANSI members and partner organizations, government officials, and other stakeholders, ANSI began to develop its IBR Portal, with the goal of providing a single solution to this significant issue that also provides SDOs with the flexibility they require to safeguard their ability to develop standards.

IBR standards hosted on the portal are available exclusively as read-only files. In order to protect the intellectual property rights of the groups holding these standards’ copyrights, the portal has built in security features that prevent users from printing, downloading, or transferring any of the posted standards; in addition, screenshots will be disabled and the standards will contain an identifying watermark.

Do note the following registration requirements:

You must register to view READ-ONLY documents posted on this site.

Please note that registration is for a single browsing session. Users who return to the site in another session or on another day will need to fill out the registration form again.

Smells like tracking usage of online IBR standards that have the force of law by specific users to me. Perhaps the SDO business model should be changed. — Joe

On the copyright termination provision for technical standards

From the article abstract for Contreras and Hernacki’s Copyright Termination and Technical Standards [SSRN], (University of Baltimore Law Review, Vol. 43, 2014, Forthcoming):

Section 203 of the Copyright Act permits authors to terminate any grant of rights in a copyright between 35 and 40 years after the initial grant was made. In this article we analyze the application of Section 203 termination to technical standards documents, focusing in particular on the exclusion of works-made-for-hire, the treatment of joint works and derivative works. We conclude that, although Section 203 is theoretically applicable to technical standards, several statutory obstacles would impede the wholesale termination of standards-related license grants. Nevertheless, in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, we recommend that Congress or the courts explicitly acknowledge the inapplicability of Section 203 to technical standards.

Hat tip to Christine Corcos’ Media Law Prof Blog post. — Joe

District of Columbia launches Cranch Project for UELMA-compliant, open-source DC Code

The Cranch Project is “the [District of Columbia] Council’s effort to create the nation’s first UELMA-compliant, open-source, state-level Code of Laws.” View a prototype here. For more, see Legal Informatics Blog’s Tauberer and DC Council: Implementing UELMA for DC, and prototype of XML for the DC Code. — Joe

Open Knowledge Foundation’s 2013 Open Data Index provides first major assessment of state of open government data

From the press release:

The Open Data Index is a community-based effort initiated and coordinated by the Open Knowledge Foundation. The Index is compiled using contributions from civil society members and open data practitioners around the world, which are then peer-reviewed and checked by expert open data editors. The Index provides an independent assessment of openness in the following areas: transport timetables; government budget; government spending; election results; company registers; national map; national statistics; legislation; postcodes / ZIP codes; emissions of pollutants.

Countries assessed (in rank order): United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Moldova, Bulgaria, Malta, Italy, France, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Israel, Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Isle Of Man, Japan, Serbia, Russian Federation, Ecuador, South Korea, Poland, Taiwan R.O.C., China, Indonesia, Hungary, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Jersey, Guernsey, Slovak Republic, Bermuda, Romania, Costa Rica, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Singapore, Lithuania, South Africa, Cayman Islands, Egypt, Nepal, Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Gibraltar, Belgium, Hong Kong, Barbados, Bahamas, India, Bahrain, Yemen, Burkina Faso, Kenya, British Virgin Is., Saint Kitts & Nevis, Cyprus.

Full results of Open Knowledge Foundation’s assessment and graphs of the data. — Joe

Will the Obama Administration commit to making publicly available authoritative legal interpretations that are currently secret

— in order to begin to address domestic concerns that laws are being implemented in ways beyond what was thought allowable and to rebuild faith with our international partners?

I guess we will have to wait ‘n see. Quoting from OpenGovernment.org’s Oct. 29, 2013 newsletter article, “US to Outline New Commitment​s at the Open Government Partnershi​p Summit”:

Later this week the Obama Administration is scheduled to announce the US’ new round of commitments to make the government more open and accountable during the meeting of the Open Government Partnership in London. Due in part to complications created by the government shutdown, the US will not be unveiling its full action plan (the full plan will be released in early December), but US officials will be presenting an outline of what they consider to be ambitious commitments. The commitments that will be discussed during the meeting are expected to be related to modernizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), spending transparency, and open data.

A recent letter coordinated by OpenTheGovernment.org and signed by 45 organizations that work on a variety of issues urged the President to take advantage of the Summit’s international stage to commit to curbing secret law. As regular readers know, secret interpretations of the law have been at the heart of recent controversies ranging from opinions by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel memo authorizing interrogation techniques that many say equate to torture to opinions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that allowed for massive expansion of the National Security Administration’s surveillance programs. The most recent revelations regarding surveillance have raised serious concerns about what the government is doing in our name and the extent of violations of American’s privacy and civil liberties, and critical questions about whether the US’s programs breach international law. We intend to continue to raise these issues with the Obama Administration, and push for concrete commitments.

The embedded link in the above quote sends one to the press release for the Oct. 21, 2013 open letter. Here’s the list of signatories:

  1. American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
  2. American Civil Liberties Union
  3. American Library Association
  4. American Society of News Editors
  5. Arab American Institute
  6. ARTICLE 19
  7. Bill of Rights Defense Committee
  8. Brechner Center for Freedom of Information
  9. Californians Aware
  10. Center for Democracy and Technology
  11. Center for Effective Government
  12. Center for Media and Democracy
  13. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – CREW
  14. The Constitution Project
  15. Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR
  16. Electronic Frontier Foundation
  17. Electronic Privacy Information Center – EPIC
  18. Essential Information
  19. Federation of American Scientists
  20. First Amendment Foundation
  21. Government Accountability Project – GAP
  22. Human Right Watch
  23. iSolon.org
  24. James Madison Project
  25. Just Foreign Policy
  26. Liberty Coalition
  27. National Coalition Against Censorship
  28. National Freedom of Information Coalition
  29. National Security Archive
  30. No More Guantanamos
  31. OpenTheGovernment.org
  32. PolitiHacks
  33. Project On Government Oversight – POGO
  34. Public Citizen
  35. Public Knowledge
  36. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
  37. Reporters Without Borders
  38. Society of Professional Journalists
  39. Sunlight Foundation
  40. Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University
  41. Understanding Government
  42. Vermont Coalition for Open Government
  43. Vermont Press Association
  44. Washington Civil Rights Council
  45. Win Without War

Yup, AALL is not a signatory. — Joe