Compounding Tragedies

Nearly three days have passed since the verdict was issued in the George Zimmerman trial. Yet even now, protests in honor of the late Trayvon Martin continue nationwide.

After legendary soul singer Lester Chambers dedicated a song to Trayvon Martin, someone jumped onto the stage and attacked him. Stevie Wonder has already vowed to stop performing in Florida and other "Stand Your Ground" states. And major rallies continue across the nation.

Since Saturday night, we've been forced to pay attention to the intersection of racism and radically flawed gun policies. ALEC, the NRA, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." pushed hard for "Stand Your Ground" in Florida and in other states. And as a result, George Zimmerman is a free man again despite admitting he shot Trayvon Martin dead.



This is the brutal reality of our broken gun policies. This is what happens when we allow the likes of the NRA and ALEC to eviscerate even the most basic of gun safety laws. This is what we've come to.

And it's not as if we're immune to this here in Nevada. In fact, we know all too well here in Nevada what happens when "Tea Party, Inc." and the gun lobby get their way. Tragedy occurs. Case in point: the latest scandal to hit the Reno Police Department.

The mentally ill 19-year-old who bought a gun from an on-duty Reno police sergeant was found by a judge last year to have a mental disability, which makes him prohibited from possessing a firearm under state and federal law, a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation found. [...]

Sgt. Laura Conklin did not ask for a background check when she sold the young man the firearm on July 2. Those checks are not required for private party sales under state or federal law.

The case has re-ignited the debate about background checks for private gun sales. The Nevada Legislature argued during the 2013 session about the need for background checks for all sales and passed a measure requiring them, but Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the bill, saying it would “erode Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights.”

Adding to the controversy, Washoe District Court clerk Joey Orduna Hasting said late Monday that they made a mistake in their coding system and the man’s case was not sent to the Nevada Department of Public Safety to be included the background check system. That means his name has been missing from the list for more than a year.

Oh, yes. That's right. A Reno police officer actually sold a weapon to someone who wasn't supposed to own it! Apparently, this is the kind of "freedom" that Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NRA) wanted to protect when he vetoed SB 221 last month. And apparently, this is the kind of "freedom" that Senator Dean Heller (R-NRA) felt compelled to protect when he joined the G-O-TEA veto of an even more modest federal background checks bill in April.

These are the consequences we face for inaction on gun safety reform. A police officer can sell a firearm to someone who had already been found unsuitable for firearms ownership. A man can "legally" shoot to death another young man because "he looked suspicious" (read: black). A man can open fire in an elementary school and gun down twenty children & six adults to death. And throughout this state and across this country, many more people can meet their untimely demise. And we can thank the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." for these compounding tragedies.


Do we really want more?

Standing on Bitter Ground

On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.

Thousands of demonstrators from across the country — chanting, praying and even fighting tears — protested a jury’s decision to clear neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager while the Justice Department considered whether to file criminal civil rights charges. [...]

The NAACP and protesters called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday in Martin’s February 2012 shooting death. The Justice Department said it is looking into the case to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. [...]

In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. “You can’t justify murder,” read one poster. Another read “Don’t worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans.” Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. “I was really devastated. It’s really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free,” she said. [...]

In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin’s name and “No justice, no peace!”

“We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men,” said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest’s organizers. “And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system.”

A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".

Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?

That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?

Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.

So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.

RGJ Hands SB 63 Election Reform a Life Preserver. (But How Long Can It Last?)

This week has been a critical one on the voting rights front. Yet another study was released this week demonstrating how voter suppression is accomplished with the kind of voter ID laws desired by the "tea party". Meanwhile here in Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller faced a grueling hearing for SB 63, his election modernization bill featuring an electronic poll book proposal.

After yesterday's hearing, even more doubts emerged over the viability of SB 63 in the Nevada Legislature. Will certain Republicans try to amend the bill and replace Miller's preferred electronic poll book with the very ALEC model legislation that encourages voter suppression? And if/when that happens, how long/short will it take for Democratic leadership to kill the entire bill once and for all?

Today, Ross Miller can breathe a little more easily. That's because the Reno Gazette Journal published an editorial this morning singing the praises of SB 63. Here's the key passage.

It is inevitable the state will replace those paper election books,if for no other reason than to save money in austere times; Washoe County Registrar of Voters Dan Burk estimated at a hearing on Thursday that he could save $50,000 to $60,000 every election cycle by replacing those paper books.

Although some details remain to be worked out and it will take tax money to make it work, Miller’s plan is a good start at reaching that goal. [...]

So, it’s difficult to see how including a photograph —copied from those taken at the DMV, in most cases —would make things any more difficult for a voter. It wouldn’t cost any additional money, as obtaining a government ID may; nor will it require voters to make a special trip to obtain an ID.

What it would do is make it a little easier on poll workers to meet their responsibility to determine whether voters are who they say they are.

And what Miller’s Senate Bill 63 would do is bring Nevada’s elections into the 21st century. It deserves approval.

Of course, the RGJ framed this in a conservative way. "Why, of course voter ID makes perfect sense! And that's why we just love us some Ross Miller & SB 63!" However, I doubt Miller minds this at all. After all, this fits quite well into his strategy of "election geek jiu-jitsu".

It just remains to be seen if today's RGJ editorial can convince enough Republicans to back away from ALEC and its preferred voter ID model legislation. It also remains to be seen if skeptical Democrats can be assured that SB 63 will do no harm in inviting future voter suppression and/or more immediate complications to negotiations on otherwise unrelated bills (such as the budget and driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants).

But at least for now, SB 63 is hanging on to see another day at #NVLeg. It just remains to be seen how much of an appetite legislators truly have for election modernization.

Can "Jiu-jitsu" Save SB 63? The Real Voting Rights Fight Behind the Theatrics.

Back in December, we discussed martial arts. Yes, that was something else. What was really impressive was analyzing Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller and what the University of Minnesota's Doug Chapin famously proclaimed to be "election geek jiu-jitsu".

In January, we came to know this "election geek jiu-jitsu" as SB 63. Miller even hosted a symposium on this and larger issues of election reform & voting rights. Mayhem then erupted when "tea party" agitators screamed about nonexistent "VOTER FRAUD!!!" At that point, I sensed trouble ahead.

And today, that trouble emerged. And of course, it emerged from Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-ALEC).

MT @SandraChereb: Cegavske says cheaper, easier, to require voters to get own ID card. /Thus does GOP turn @rossjmiller's plan to voter ID.

That is, it's cheaper and easier for the radical right to initiate voter suppression. We know Cegavske is a member of ALEC, the "Tea Party, Inc." clearinghouse for radical right legislation. She must have been upset over Ross Miller supporting his own bill instead of ALEC's model legislation for voter suppression.



Remember that this is what Barbara Cegavske and the rest of the "tea party" are demanding when they call for strict voter ID laws. They want voter suppression.



When Cegavske and her "TEA" fueled allies cry "VOTER FRAUD!!!", they're crying about a virtually nonexistent problem that's already taken care of under current law. And the "solution" they're peddling disenfranchises young & minority voters. It just so happens that young & minority voters typically don't vote for Republican candidates. I'm sure you can do the math from here.

If not, then pay attention to this.



That's what's really at stake here.

Going back to SB 63, conservative support for Ross Miller's bill had always looked suspect. Pat Hickey may have tipped his hand back in December when he drove a wedge between Miller and Democratic Legislature leaders by trying to tie SB 63 to unrelated legislation regarding driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Now, Barbara Cegavske is confirming what we've been suspecting all along.

If conservatives really want election integrity, Ross Miller is serving it to them on a silver platter with SB 63. It has modernization. And it has visual verification. And it's not meant to disenfranchise legal voters. But wait, that may be the real problem certain radical right lawmakers have with SB 63. That explains Cegavske's call for (more) ALEC model legislation.

Unfortunately for Ross Miller, SB 63 may become "collateral damage" should Republican legislators demand the kind of voter ID legislation that promotes voter suppression. Democratic leaders clearly don't want that. Even Harry Reid has stomped his foot down on it. And not too many in Carson City seem to have the appetite to invest in modernizing Nevada elections. So Mr. Secretary and SB 63 may be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It remains to be seen if any kind of martial arts can save SB 63 at this point.

Freedom to Discriminate?

In the past month, there's been plenty of buzz surrounding some legislation in Carson City. Perhaps that's allowed other legislation to quietly bubble up. One such bill is SB 192.

So what is SB 192? Otherwise referred to as "The Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act", SB 192 claims to "prohibit governmental entities from substantially burdening the exercise of religion". Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) introduced this bill. And already, she's attracted a bipartisan crew of co-sponsors.

So what is SB 192? It's basically Nevada's version of this.

"It's legislative abuse, it's legislative bullying, it's legislative dictatorship and it should not be permitted," said civil rights attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.

Senate Bill 142 is called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. Supporters say it is needed to prevent government from forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs. It was approved last month by the House on a 91-33 vote and is pending before the Senate.

Opponents of the bill say it will invite discrimination and invalidate a Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation. [...]

C.J. Brune of Lawrence attended the rally, and said, "I can't imagine living in a worse world where someone's religion would impact my rights."

Taylor Harris of Hutchinson said, "They're trying to make it legal to discriminate."

Holly Weatherford, with the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, said, "We cannot allow the use of religion to discriminate and call it religious freedom. We must push back."

Jeez, it even has the same title! Just change the state listing at the front. That's all.

Its origins can be traced to ALEC, the "Tea Party, Inc." clearinghouse for radical right legislation. Oh, yes. That's right. ALEC also has model legislation on gutting anti-discrimination laws by claiming "violation of religious freedom". And ALEC member Barbara Cegavske is bringing it to Nevada.



The clear intent of the Kansas version of this bill was to legalize discrimination. A few Kansas legislators have even openly admitted that.

Kansas state Republicans want to make sure residents can discriminate against LGBT people, so much so that they have advanced a bill that would allow individuals to sue the government if they are deprived of the opportunity to do so. Yesterday, the Kansas House overwhelmingly passed HB 2384, the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, which prevents the government from “burdening a person’s exercise of religion” [...]

This is a step beyond the kind of legislation lawmakers have advanced in states like Tennessee that prevent municipalities from establishing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to this bill, not only would municipalities be inhibited from protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination, but those who do discriminate would become protected and entitled to do so.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lance Kinzer (R) claimed his bill is merely about the “free exercise of religion,” but confirmed that an apartment owner could use the measure to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple. It constitutes nothing short of a religious license to discriminate against LGBT people.

The very same bill was attempted in Colorado. Yet there, it died in committee precisely because the Democrats on the committee caught what was hiding behind the title.

Meanwhile Monday, a bill that supporters said was aimed at preserving religious freedom was killed on a party line vote in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, said House Bill 1066 would guarantee that Coloradans' free exercise of religion would not be infringed on. The bill would have allowed a person accused of discrimination to assert their religious convictions in any civil action and then recover attorney's fees. [...]

But opponents, who included the ACLU of Colorado, the Mountain States Anti-Defamation League and the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, argued that the bill would essentially legalize discrimination in the name of religion.

Opponents cited their own examples from other states like a bus driver who refused to drive a passenger to a Planned Parenthood clinic, a boss who fired an unmarried woman who became pregnant and a student counselor who condemned, rather than consoled, gays who came to her.

That's the real aim of SB 192 here in Nevada. If passed, it would provide license to apartment owners who refuse to rent to gay tenants, pharmacists who refuse to provide contraception to women in need of it, bus drivers who refuse to take Muslim passengers to the local mosque, and more. It would open the door to a wide variety of civil rights abuses. And it would unleash a flood of litigation into courtrooms throughout Nevada. So much for "limited government conservatives" whining about "frivolous law suits".

So why even go there? That's what Cegavske's SB 192 co-sponsors need to ask themselves and each other. Should Nevada reallt promote "freedom" to discriminate?

Mark Sherwood's Parting Gift: Voter Suppression

My soon to be (Republican) ex-Assembly Member apparently noticed on Saturday that Clark County Democrats were holding a convention... And he figured he'd have one more chance to promote his "signature legislation". Seriously, this was the level of conversation he was engaging in on Twitter.

Even though Sherwood is on his way out, he still can't seem to give up his fight against "voter fraud", one of the greatest dumbass "solutions" looking for a problem of our time. Even though voters are 39 times more likely to be struck by lightning and 3,500 times more likely to report a UFO encounter (!!!) than commit voter fraud, for some reason Mark Sherwood can't stop talking about this virtually nonexistent "CRISIS!!!" Is he planning to move to Area 51 soon?

Or is there another motivation? Across the country, Republican led state legislatures have passed restrictions on voting, such as voter ID laws and rollbacks of early voting opportunities. And funny enough, these restrictions hurt low-income voters, communities of color, and students the most. Conveniently for Republicans in these states, these voters tend to be the ones they struggle the most with. Coincidence?

The voter suppression bills that he and several other Republicans introduced last session also happened to match the "model legislation" proposed by ALEC, the increasingly controversial corporate funded radical right group that's been pushing "tea party" backed "model legislation" across the country. And yes, ALEC has "model legislation" for voter suppression. I wonder why?



Oh yes, and did I mention that "voter fraud" hardly ever happens? As always, here's Desert Beacon with the facts.

Conflating potential problems with actual incidences of voter fraud is misleading and serves to promote vote suppression without actually improving voting integrity. Indeed, an organization or party might seek to have the Prematurely Resurrected vote — but, that would require having someone assume the identity of the dearly departed, and then vote in the face of a possible $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail. Since, unlike shoplifting, prosecution is assured and the charges will always be for a major felony, voter impersonation is extremely rare.

How rarely voter fraud is attempted is demonstrated as follows: “A report by the public-integrity section of the Justice Department found that from October 2002 to September 2005, the department charged 95 people with “election fraud”; 55 were convicted. Among those, fewer than 20 people were convicted of casting fraudulent ballots.” [MJ]

A study from Barnard College came to similar conclusions: “The statistics bear me out. From 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once. That’s 26 criminal voters — voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident — the voters that Republicans warn about.”

Given the miniscule numbers of actual cases of voter fraud there is cause for concern about the willingness of courts to uphold vote-suppression statutues with insufficient attention to the actual evidence at hand. “The case for voter fraud—individuals impersonating others at the polls—is largely built on hype and the type of hearsay that should not be permitted in court for the purposes of denying individuals the right to vote. Unfortunately, in four cases so far the courts have been unwilling to police the evidence, take seriously the fundamental nature of voting rights, and protect franchise rights.“ [Schultz, HamlineU, pdf]

Got that? There is no "voter fraud" crisis. All the anti "voter fraud" bills seek to do is engage in voter suppression. And this isn't the first time Mark Sherwood has thrown a temper tantrum over this. Last year, Sherwood joined with Crescent Hardy to push a bill to end early voting in Nevada. Even though Jon Ralston may hate the concept of early voting, the fact of the matter is that it gives legal Nevada voters more opportunity to participate in "small d democracy". So obviously, the radical "tea party" right now hates it.

Even though Mark Sherwood may be on his way out, his dreams of voter suppression may still be "in the mix" in future legislative sessions. Let's hope they go exactly where last year's attacks on voting rights went. (Thankfully, nowhere.)