3171. Senate Energy Democrats Energy Democrats Hire Former Industry Lobbyist to Lead Staff

By Steve Horn, The Real News, January 24, 2019

The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has hired a former fracking lobbyist to lead its minority staff.

As first reported by the publication Greenwire, Sarah Venuto Perez formerly served as lead federal lobbyist for America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), as well as the natural gas electricity companies Centerpoint Energy and Entergy. ANGA, until merging into the American Petroleum Institute in 2015, was the lead federal lobbying organization promoting hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for natural gas in shale basins across the U.S.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is under the Democratic minority leadership of U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a coal and natural gas state legislator who has long served as a vocal supporter of the fossil fuel industry. Most recently, Venuto Perez had worked as chief legal counsel and senior policy adviser for Manchin.

A contradiction is unfolding among Democrats: Venuto Perez’s hire comes as Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, spearheaded by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have pushed the concept of a Green New Deal and creation of a Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Ocasio-Cortez recently told Bloomberg that the House will soon begin the official process of drafting a resolution to have an official written record of what “climate and clean energy policies they would support to combat climate change,” reported Bloomberg.

She said the resolution is still being drafted. “But we’re looking to essentially just define the scope of the Green New Deal” with the resolution.”

Track Record

Prior to her roughly seven years working as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Venuto Perez worked as Assistant Council for the Office for General Counsel for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign during Clinton’s first run for the presidency, according to her LinkedIn profile. Venuto Perez also gave a $2,900 donation to Clinton during her follow-up 2016 run for President while working as a lobbyist for ANGA, according to U.S. Federal Elections Commission data.

While working for ANGA, Venuto Perez also accepted $75 biweekly payroll deductions during the 2016 campaign cycle which went to the lobbying organization’s political action committee (PAC). ANGA donated $66,688 to candidates during that cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org, with Hillary Clinton receiving the most money out of any federal candidate from the organization.

Federal campaign finance disclosure form for ANGA’s PAC in 2015; Image Credit: U.S. Federal Elections Commission

Venuto Perez—formerly Venuto—is married to another fossil fuel industry lobbyist named Nelson Perez, who works as lead federal lobbyist for the London-based electricity generation company National Grid. Throughout her career as a lobbyist, Venuto Perez has frequently lobbied against clean air rules, clean water protections and climate regulations.

For example, while working for ANGA, federal lobbying disclosure forms show that she advocated against methane emissions regulations (methane is a greenhouse gas more potent as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon during its 20 years in the atmosphere). At ANGA, she also lobbied for bills which would expedite the permitting process to ship liquefied natural gas to the export market, fast-tracking which may push aside considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

At ANGA, she also worked on NEPA reform itself, legislation and a regulatory landscape which undergirds it that has long stood in the way of industry desires to expedite the permitting process for its proposed projects. The Trump Administration and congressional Republicans have made a push in recent months, as well, to stave off NEPA.

During her lobbyist tenure, Venuto Perez further advocated on behalf of the SCRUB (Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome) Act. That bill would nix one federal regulation for every federal regulation created, legislation pushed hard both in the U.S. and Canada by the climate change denial network funded by David and Charles Koch.

While at Centerpoint, Venuto Perez lobbied, too, for the Free Industry Act, which would have made greenhouse gases not subject to the Clean Air Act. Also at Centerpoint, she pushed for the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act, which would have prohibited funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement greenhouse gas regulations. Further, she lobbied for S.15, a 2011 bill to halt regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions.

Related Stories

01.

Senate Energy Democrats Hire Former Industry Lobbyist to Lead Staff

02.

Former Coal Lobbyist Confirmed As New EPA Head

03.

City Council Calls for ‘No More Cash for Burning Trash’

04.

The Battle Over West Virginia’s Coal Country

05.

Baltimore Mayor Signs Charter Amendment Banning Water Privatization

And those are just some of the dozens of bills she supported while working for Centerpoint.

Third quarter federal lobbying disclosure form for Centerpoint Energy; Image Credit: Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

Manchin Under Fire

Even before Manchin hired Venuto Perez, his appointment came under fire by climate activists.

Manchin speaks at July 19, 2017 Third Way breakfast in Washington, D.C.; Photo Credit: Third Way Think Tank | Flickr

“Anyone but Manchin,” Lukas Ross, senior policy analyst at the climate advocacy group Friends of the Earth, told Politico at the time. “I’d rather pick someone from the phone book.”

In recent months, Manchin has helped to spearhead an effort to create a multinational petrochemical hub in West Virginia. Boosted by over $83 billion in capital from China, the hub would intake gas obtained from fracking in the Marcellus and Utica Shale basins and morph the Ohio River valley region into a petrochemical refining corridor rivaling that situated along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana on the Houston Ship Channel.

Manchin made his mark as one of few Democrats to oppose to President Obama’s Climate Action Plan’s aims to regulate coal-fired power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions. On the day Obama announced the plan, Manchin denounced it as a “war on coal” in a press release published by his office.

“The regulations the President wants to force on coal are not feasible. And if it’s not feasible, it’s not reasonable,” said Manchin at the time. “It’s clear now that the President has declared a war on coal.”

Manchin also came out against a cap-and-trade plan put forth early on in the Obama Administration. In a well-known 2010 Manchin campaign ad, the Senator literally shot the cap-and-trade legislative proposal with a rifle.

The fifth most senior member of the Committee, Manchin assumed the helm because the other four more senior members received appointments to head up other committees. Those include U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee), U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (Budget Committee) and U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) (Finance Committee) and U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) (Agriculture Committee).

Politico noted in November that Democratic Party-aligned advocates were noticeably quiet about the appointment of Manchin, compared to its noisier activism around pushing the concept of the Green New Deal to the fore.

“We’re not shy about bringing the full spectrum of Democratic actions, including protests, to Capitol Hill, but right now our priority is building power and building a vision on climate change,” Julian NoiseCat, U.S. policy analyst for 350.org, told Politico. “We see that primarily in the House at this current moment in time.”

Any Green New Deal passed by the House, where Democrats sit in the majority, would also need to pass through both the U.S. Senate and receive President Donald Trump’s signature of approval to become law. Given much of the Green New Deal deals with energy issues, some parts of that package will likely have to go through the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as well.

“The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee should play a key role in order for a Green New Deal legislative package to get to the President,” Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, told The Real News Network. “Of course, Senate Majority Leader McConnell threw such precedent out the window to rush through Trump’s corporate tax cut without such Committee involvement, but regardless the Energy and Natural Resources Committee should play a prominent role.”

Undermining Climate Commitments

Manchin’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this story. Neither did any of the other Democrats contacted for this story, including the offices of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders sits as a fellow member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Fellow Committee Democrats U.S. Sen. Cantwell, U.S. Sen. Stabenow and U.S. Sen. Wyden also did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Robert Galbraith, Senior Research Analyst for the Public Accountability Initiative — a non-profit group which tracks the influence elite networks have on public policy debates and outcomes — decried the hire

“Hiring a revolving door fossil fuel lobbyist to direct their staff on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee completely undermines Democratic party leaders’ stated commitment to addressing climate change,” Galbraith told The Real News Network. “Political leaders cannot credibly claim to take climate change seriously while taking money from fossil fuel companies and executives and putting fossil fuel lobbyists in positions to influence climate policy,”

3170. Oceans Are Getting Louder, Posing Potential Threats to Marine Life

By Jim Robbins, The New York Times, January 22, 2019

A container ship crossing under the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver. Increasing traffic and the threat of seismic blasts for offshore drilling exploration are dangerous to marine life, scientists warn.CreditCreditAlana Paterson for The New York Times

Slow-moving, hulking ships crisscross miles of ocean in a lawn mower pattern, wielding an array of 12 to 48 air guns blasting pressurized air repeatedly into the depths of the ocean.

The sound waves hit the sea floor, penetrating miles into it, and bounce back to the surface, where they are picked up by hydrophones. The acoustic patterns form a three-dimensional map of where oil and gas most likely lie.

The seismic air guns probably produce the loudest noise that humans use regularly underwater, and it is about to become far louder in the Atlantic. As part of the Trump administration’s plans to allow offshore drilling for gas and oil exploration, five companies have been given permits to carry out seismic mapping with the air guns all along the Eastern Seaboard, from Central Florida to the Northeast, for the first time in three decades. The surveys haven’t started yet in the Atlantic, but now that the ban on offshore drilling has been lifted, companies can be granted access to explore regions along the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific.

And air guns are now the most common method companies use to map the ocean floor.

“They fire approximately every 10 seconds around the clock for months at a time,” said Douglas Nowacek, a professor of marine conservation technology at Duke University. "They have been detected 4,000 kilometers away. These are huge, huge impacts.”

The prospect of incessant underwater sonic tests is the latest example cited by environmentalists and others of the growing problem of ocean noise, spawning lawsuits against some industries and governments as well as spurring more research into the potential dangers for marine life.

Some scientists say the noises from air guns, ship sonar and general tanker traffic can cause the gradual or even outright death of sea creatures, from the giants to the tiniest — whales, dolphins, fish, squid, octopuses and even plankton. Other effects include impairing animals’ hearing, brain hemorrhaging and the drowning out of communication sounds important for survival, experts say.

So great is the growing din in the world’s oceans that experts fear it is fundamentally disrupting the marine ecosystem, diminishing populations of some species as the noise levels disturb feeding, reproduction and social behavior.

A 2017 study, for example, found that a loud blast, softer than the sound of a seismic air gun, killed nearly two-thirds of the zooplankton in three-quarters of a mile on either side. Tiny organisms at the bottom of the food chain, zooplankton provide a food source for everything from great whales to shrimp. Krill, a tiny crustacean vital to whales and other animals, were especially hard hit, according to one study.

“Researchers saw a complete absence of life around the air gun,” said Michael Jasny, director of marine mammal protection for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of several environmental groups suing the federal government in an effort to stop the seismic surveys.

Measuring the sounds of commerce

Each seismic shot from the air guns is estimated to reach up to 260 underwater decibels, equal to about 200 decibels in the atmosphere. Container ships, another noisemaker on the seas, make sounds up to 190 decibels — the equivalent of 130 decibels in the atmosphere. (The launch of a space shuttle, by contrast, reaches about 160 decibels for those nearby.)

Every 10 decibels is an order of magnitude. An explosion of 200 decibels, then, is 10 times more intense than the sound of a container ship. Because water is much denser than air, sound travels underwater about four times faster and much farther than above the sea’s surface.

“At any one time, there are 20, 30 or 40 seismic surveys going on around the world,” for oil and gas exploration, as well as for geological research, Dr. Nowacek said.

All told in the first year of the newly approved exploration, more than five million of these huge explosions would occur all along the United States’ eastern coastline.

Christopher Clark, a senior researcher in the bioacoustics program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, who has studied whale communication for 40 years, described the noise as a “living hell” for undersea life, which is exquisitely tuned to sound. 

A coalition of environmental groups has filed suit against the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, claiming the agency is violating several federal laws protecting wildlife, including the Endangered Species Act, by allowing the blasts. And governors from 10 states have protested the offshore drilling decision and are seeking to join the legal action.

Harming or injuring marine mammals is forbidden under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In November, NOAA issued five authorizations allowing seismic exploration companies to “incidentally, but not intentionally, harass marine mammals.” Because of the government shutdown, other government action to begin testing has been postponed until at least March 1.

The companies involved in the exploration disagree sharply with the claims of harm. “More than 50 years of extensive surveying and scientific research indicate that the risk of direct physical injury to marine mammals is extremely low,” Gail Adams-Jackson, vice president of communications for the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, said in a statement. She contended that the groups’ efforts are solely aimed at stopping offshore exploration and development.

The companies and NOAA Fisheries said that the effects on marine life could be kept to a minimum by careful monitoring and mitigation, which would involve acoustic monitoring to detect mammal vocalizations and shutting down exploration when sensitive species like the endangered North Atlantic right whales are observed.

There are no more than 400 to 500 of the migratory right whales, which can grow up to 60 feet long, and calve and nurse their young from North Carolina to Florida. Right whales are already emaciated and stressed by a warmer ocean — they live in the Gulf of Maine, which has warmed considerably more than other bodies of water. Reproduction has been drastically reduced. And the seismic noise can mask ship sounds, resulting in collisions, another leading danger for the whales.

“We require strong protections for North American right whales in areas where they are expected to be present, including all designated habitat,” Benjamin Laws, a NOAA biologist said, defending the issuance of the permits.

Carrying sound across the ocean

Cavitation, the noise from the synchronous collapse of bubbles created by a ship’s propeller, as well as the rumble of ship engines, poses an ever bigger problem to marine life. And shipping noise could double by 2030.

Years of constant blasts could be extremely harmful, others argue, and not just for right whales. Because of the way sound reverberates in the ocean, the noise can be unrelenting.

“Prolonged chronic stress of any kind is bad, because it shunts resources away from reproduction,” Dr. Nowacek said. “It presses your adrenal glands to produce adrenaline and stress hormones, causes weight loss and immunosuppression.”

In a landmark study, when ship traffic greatly decreased after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, researchers noted a significant drop in stress hormones in the feces of right whales in the 

Bay of Fundy in Canada, the first evidence that ship noise can cause chronic stress in whales.

Moreover, acoustic communication is primary in the marine ecosystem, where visibility is so limited. Many whale species are highly intelligent, social beings and communicate in the clicks, moaning, singing and calling of their own languages. Some whales, and orcas (the largest in the dolphin family despite their killer whale designation), hunt prey through echolocation, a kind of natural sonar.

“Sound can travel enormous distances very fast and whales have evolved to take advantage of that,” said Dr. Clark, who has listened to whales near Ireland from coastal Virginia. “They can hear storms a thousand miles away.”

Aside from the seismic noise, compounded sounds from container ships to navy sonar are posing a problem for marine life. As the number of ships moving around the world has increased significantlyin recent years, cavitation, the noise from the synchronous collapse of bubbles created by a ship’s propeller, as well as the rumble of ship engines, poses a bigger and bigger problem. A recent study found that shipping noise could double by 2030.

Noise masks whale expressions between families, which can affect orientation, feeding, care of young, detection of prey and even increase aggression. Already 80 percent of communications of some species of whales is masked by noise, according to models assessed by a team of biologists.

“It’s ripping the communications system apart,” Dr. Clark said. “And every aspect of their lives is dependent on sound, including finding food.”

About 20,000 known species of fish are able to hear, and some 800 species are known to make sounds of their own to hunt, mate, navigate and communicate. One fish, the plainfish midshipman, for example, sings to the females to mate and defends nests with barking sounds.

Other studies show that beaked whales are extremely sensitive to noise, and in frantic efforts to escape seismic air guns or navy sonar they have been forced to change their dive patterns to the surface. Some have died from decompression sickness.

Loud noises can also affect behavior and even ecosystems by altering where species go. In 2008 in Canada’s Baffin Bay, seismic testing is believed to have delayed the southward migration of narwhals — the whales with the long spiral tusk — until it was too late and they became trapped in sea ice. More than 1,000 died.

The blasting can take a particular toll on a part of the body in invertebrates called the statocyst. In octopuses, squid, lobsters and other invertebrates, the organ is responsible for orientation and balance. Damaged, it disorients the creatures and makes them vulnerable to predators.

Still, while research has expanded in the last decade, much is difficult to pinpoint and sometimes impossible to study. “You can’t study a whale’s hearing,” said Lindy Weilgart, a researcher at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and the author of an analysis of 115 studies, released in 2018.

The exposure of mammals to such noise has been likened to living in a permanent construction zone. “Sometimes listening on the headphones gives you a headache within 10 minutes,” Molly Patterson, a researcher who studies underwater sound, said in the 2016 documentary “Sonic Sea.” “You have to take the headphones off, you have to turn the volume down. The whales can’t turn the volume down.”

One way many have escaped the cacophony is by heading to the Arctic. But as polar ice melts, and seismic exploration and ship traffic there increase, it is no longer the refuge it once was.

Ocean noise can also have economic repercussions: Research in Norway shows that commercial fishermen return to the dock with 40 to 80 percent fewer fish when exploration is underway nearby.

Regulations on underwater noise are few and far between and experts are searching for solutions. The United Nations recently held a weeklong symposium on noise pollution and marine life.

Voluntary efforts to turn down the volume are having an effect: The Port of Vancouver started the ECHO (Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation) Program, asking mariners to reduce noise by having ships slow down and fix cavitation on the propellers. 

At the same time, though, if the Trans Mountain pipeline is built from the tar sands of Alberta to a port near Vancouver, as planned, tanker traffic in the Salish Sea is expected to increase by seven times. Marine biologists say that would exacerbate the difficulties the region’s endangered orcas already face in finding prey.

Scientists and environmentalists are urging that more research be conducted, to learn much more about the effects of sound and ship traffic on the creatures of the sea.

“The effects on marine mammals are felt across an extraordinarily large scale,” Mr. Jasny, the marine mammal protection director, said. “And loud noise has an effect on species across the food web.”

3169. Mariela Castro Espín: The Change in the Language about Gay Marriage in the Draft Constitution Is an Improvement

By  Mariela Castro Espín, Granma, January 3, 2019

Mariela Castro Espín

The reformulation of the previous Article 68, which is currently contained in Article 82, should be interpreted as an advance in a process as complex as the reform of the most important norm in our social and political context.

Contrary to the distortion and misrepresentation that has been spread on social networks in recent days, the current article on marriage maintains its vocation of inclusion, in total harmony with the principle of equality and non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is also contained in the proposed constitutional text in the current Article 42.

The constitutional reference to marriage is now in a new chapter, in which families in all their diversity are addressed. Marriage is enshrined as a social and legal institution, and is recognized as one of the forms of family organization, but not the only one.

With respect to the subjects of marriage, the concept of spouses is used, a legal construction that refers to the people who have formalized their marriage bond, and that in no way limits the possibility that people of the same gender can consent to marriage as a form of legal recognition of the union they have chosen to construct. Do not doubt that Article 82 erases, in constitutional terms, any binary allusion or basis in terms of gender and the heteronormativity that characterizes the regulation of marriage that exists in the text that we are trying to reform today.

The new formulation establishes de facto unions as a novel element, without binding them to any gender; according to statistics and the opinions of experts on families in our country, this form of relationship is the most used in our society.

Another original element is the fact that no express reference is made to reproduction as the purpose of marriage or of families, which dissociates this outdated concept that meant family dynamics revolved around offspring. This, obviously, will visualize the right of people who, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, do not conceive of reproduction as the ultimate goal of their life projects, but do decide to form families regardless.

There is no retreat; the essence of Article 68 is maintained, in fact the current wording, as I have set out, transcends the previous proposal.

We have an initial challenge – to guarantee the positive vote of the majority of our electorate in the democratic exercise scheduled for February of next year. From today and up to that date, we must strengthen communication and awareness strategies among the population to provide all the arguments that are needed.

After the referendum, and with the favorable vote of the majority of our people, in which I have every confidence, we must concentrate on the formulation of the law that will put into practice everything related to families and, in particular, to marriage.

This law, the Family Code, should be informed by the most advanced scientific positions on the subject, and we will have to take as references the similar experiences that exist internationally, but also our own social reality. The proposed amendments to the current Family Code should articulate and guarantee marriage as is constitutionally conceived – as a plural, inclusive institution, to which all people can accede without distinction.

I insist that faced with the manipulative campaigns that the counterrevolution is disseminating on social media to sabotage the referendum, promoting a No vote, we have the duty to undertake a good and rigorous campaign to inform the people and the world.

I want to make plain that the principles of the Revolution and the rights of all people are protected in the new constitutional text. Now we have to legitimize them with the Yes that we will provide in the Referendum.

Trust that the educational and transformative nature of the law will ensure justice prevails in the legislation that derives from the Constitution. Cuba needs this Constitution, and on February 24, Cuba will once again rise up, for all time.

Let’s say Yes to the Constitution, and then close ranks to achieve implementing legislation as advanced as what our new constitutional text will be.

I want to congratulate the National Assembly and emphatically, the Drafting Commission, for its rigorous work, for its conceptual and methodological contribution to this democratic exercise, and for the critical spirit it has maintained regarding its own efforts, to perfect the following processes that we will undertake.

I want to congratulate Homero Acosta for masterfully carrying out his duties as a jurist and as an educator, as he taught us deputies, but also our people.

Also the people of Cuba, for their political maturity, for their valuable contributions, and for the responsibility assumed.

Most especially, I want to congratulate an educator who has been an inspiring example in my life, who taught me that you can love the Revolution without abandoning your family, and that you can love your family without abandoning the Revolution. Thank you for your example, as a father and as a revolutionary.

3168. Debating a New Constitution: Cuba Seeks to Improve Governance

By Marc Frank, Reuters, January 17, 2019

A meeting to discuss the draft Cuban Constitution in Havana. Photo: Photo: Cinthya García Casañas / Cubadebate

If a revamped constitution is passed next month, as reports in the state-controlled media have suggested, new executive positions, from a prime minister to provincial governors and municipal mayors, will be created to lighten the load on single figureheads, such as the president, and increase the focus on executing policy.

Provincial government will be reduced under the proposals in a land the size of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania and municipal government strengthened.

“The structural changes in government proposed in the constitution all seem aimed at improving efficiency,” said William LeoGrande, a professor of government at American University.

“For example, the new post of prime minister puts someone in charge of the day-to-day job of overseeing the ministries,” he said.

The proposals dovetail with ongoing economic reforms of the Soviet-style system. They imply stronger governance, such as making state companies more autonomous and implementation of a tax system after more than a half a century of no direct taxes.

The terms of ward delegates, the only directly elected leaders in the country, will double to five years and the leaders of municipal assemblies and mayors will make up provincial councils led by the governor, replacing provincial assemblies.

The ward-level delegates already make up the municipal assemblies and elect their local executives. They will now also ratify the governors proposed by the president and who will coordinate between the national and municipal levels.

Bert Hoffman, a Latin America expert at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, said Cuba’s new President Miguel Diaz-Canel “wants to show that he is a modernizer and second, someone who achieves change.”

Like LeoGrande, Hoffman said economic reforms were moving slowly because there appeared to be resistance and a lack of consensus among the Communist-ruled island’s leadership under Diaz-Canel.

“So he takes on the institutional setup which does not immediately affect powerful interests and where he can make progress. It will also allow him to bring in new cadres and consolidate his power base,” Hoffman said.

Campaigning is prohibited in Cuba, and candidates for the ward posts are nominated at neighborhood meetings. They need not belong to the Communist Party, and many candidates are independents, but only a few government opponents have ever competed. In 2017 they were barred from doing so.

The candidates for the provincial and national assemblies are not directly elected. Commissions composed of representatives of Communist Party-controlled organizations, such as the trade union federation, present them as a slate for a public vote. They in turn elect the executive.

Assuming the new constitution is passed, only the 605-member National Assembly will take office through this indirect method in the future.

During a grassroots debate on the constitution, before the final version was drafted, issues such as gay marriage and social equality dominated discussion, according to the government, while thousands of citizens raised various concerns over the electoral system.

Meanwhile, while state-run media are pushing for a “yes” vote, debate on whether to vote for or against the revamped constitution is raging among a smaller percentage of the population with access to the internet.

“I will vote no because Article 5 of the Constitution leaves the country in the hands of the Communist Party for centuries to come,” tweeted Yoani Sanchez, the island’s most famous blogger and editor of an online newspaper.