Why Your Vote Matters

This has been nothing short of awkward. And now, it's starting to become quite scary. What on earth is going on here?

Most polls (particularly the credible ones) haven't shown it. The campaigns weren't behaving like this was the case... At least not until very recently. And we've heard plenty of credible reports from the field that didn't indicate this at all.

So why have so few Nevadans voted so far? That's the question on nearly everyone's mind.

Already, we've seen speculation of why turnout has been so damned low. Has the lack of a traditional "top of the ticket" been keeping voters away from the polls? Are people not voting as some sort of strange "protest (non)vote"? Is there something else that's causing this very anemic turnout?

We believe there are several factors. We know Clark County has been slow (again) to send sample ballots. We know there are no Presidential or high-profile statewide campaigns pushing hard to bank early votes. And we know the 2014 election cycle has already revealed some strange dynamics.

But ultimately, this election matters. Don't listen to media pundits trying to convince you otherwise. And don't even try to convince yourself that "voting doesn't matter".

In case you're still wondering why your vote matters, talk to people in Pennsylvania who are wondering why it's still legal in their state to shoot live pigeons, cook cats & dogs for dinner, and discriminate against LGBTQ workers. Go ahead and talk to people in Wisconsin about how hard it is to make ends meet because their state government cares more about restricting women's health care than paying ensuring those who work hard can earn a living wage. Try talking to people in North Carolina about how and why it's become so difficult to access access reproductive health care, make ends meet, or even cast a ballot (ironically enough). And please, please talk to those unfortunate souls in states where their respective governments rejected Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Still wondering why your vote matters? Karl Rove and his "TEA Party, Inc." besties are hoping you don't vote. That's because they're hoping they can start doing here in Nevada what they've been "accomplishing" in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, and elsewhere.

Right now, they're jumping for joy over the early vote numbers. That really says a lot. And that should easily dispel any questions on whether your vote matters this year.

If you've just been taking your time to study the whole ballot, we preemptively apologize for this rant. As long as you vote, we're happy. Just remember that early voting ends this Friday.

And for everyone else, pay attention. Realize what's at stake now. And then... Well, now you know just how much your vote matters.

The Latest (@NVGOP) "Culture War" FAIL

Love is in the air. And cash is coming into the wallets. Now that Nevada finally has full legal marriage equality, Nevada businesses are benefiting from all that love in the air. After all, Las Vegas is "The Wedding Capital of the World"!



Of course, this is of no surprise to faithful readers here who've known for some time how lucrative marriage equality will be for The Silver State. However, it's still somehow a surprise for those who don't listen to us.

Case in point: Adam Laxalt (R). While he's still begging for "gifts", he continues to oppose civil rights for LGBTQ Nevadans. He's even tried attacking his general election opponent, Ross Miller (D), over Laxalt's own "political issues".



Another case in point: Barbara Cegavske (R). She repeatedly voted against LGBTQ civil rights (including marriage equality & domestic partnership) while serving in the Nevada Legislature. She proudly introduced a Koch backed "License to Discriminate" bill in the Legislature last year. And even now, she's still promoting a voter suppression agenda that threatens to disenfranchise thousands of transgender Nevadans if enacted.

Oh, and let's not forget these other fine cosponsors of that "License to Discriminate" bill: Cresent Hardy (R) & Mark Hutchison (R). Hardy can never have enough "segregation laws", yet Hutchison has barely uttered a peep on his "religious freedom" agenda since Thursday.

And then, we have US Senator Dean Heller (R) & Rep. Joe Heck (R). Since Thursday, they've been saying this (footage below).



Don't Republicans always say they're the "pro-business party"? So why aren't they happy about all this new business coming to Nevada?

Wait, is this more "Republican rebranding"? Might this be the new rallying cry for "libertarian populism"? Or are we just witnessing another G-O-TEA attempt to obscure another of its "Culture War" losses? (Our money is on the latter.)

Suppression v. Participation

In April 2012, then Assembly Member Mark Sherwood (R-Henderson) threw a fit. For some reason, he felt compelled to troll Twitter during the Clark County Democratic Party Convention. And he decided one of his final acts as a state legislator would be to demand more voter suppression.

And he wasn't alone. In 2011, a slew of G-O-TEA legislators were firmly behind Sherwood's voter suppression agenda. One of them was State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley).

And she didn't stop after Sherwood left the Legislature Building (as a legislator, only to reeenter later as a lobbyist). Rather, Barbara Cegavske decided to sabotage Secretary of State (and current Attorney General candidate) Ross Miller's (D) election reform agenda by demanding voter suppression in lieu of SB 63, Miller's electronic verification bill that would have guaranteed secure elections without disenfranchising lawful Nevada voters. But for Cegavske, she didn't see the point of passing any kind of election related bills that didn't disenfranchise lawful Nevada voters (especially the ones least likely to vote for Republicans).

Now, Barbara Cegavske is running to succeed Ross Miller as Secretary of State. And of course, she's running on a platform of dismantling all the progress Miller and his predecessors made in protecting Nevadans' right to vote. (Start at 14:15 below for the good stuff.)



Basically, Barbara Cegavske wants to import the national G-O-TEA voter suppression agenda into Nevada. And if she wins next month, we can expect more of this here in The Silver State.



At the very least, Barbara Cegavske offers a stark contrast from her opponent, Kate Marshall (D).



Ultimately, this race comes down to this: How strongly do we value our right to vote? Do we think it's OK for well heeled out-of-state G-O-TEA aligned special interests to come in and install someone with a stated goal of preventing people from voting? Or do we want to ensure all legal Nevada voters have the chance to participate in the "small d" democratic process?

Just What Is "Rebranding"?

We're still playing/enduring "the waiting game" here. We're waiting for the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals to issue a decision in Sevcik v. Sandoval. And we're waiting to see if the US Supreme Court takes any marriage equality cases for next spring's session.



Yet while we've been waiting for the courts, we haven't had to wait for action in the political arena. Across the nation, momentum for LGBTQ civil rights continues. However, that momentum hasn't been across the board or completely across the spectrum.

In various hot Congressional races across the nation, G-O-TEA candidates continue to campaign on an anti-equality platform. And right here in Nevada, top G-O-TEA candidates like NV-04 hopeful Cresent Hardy (R) and Attorney General hopeful Adam Laxalt (R) continue to make "segregation laws" their premier "political issue".

Perhaps they and others see this as a mere "political issue". But for so many of us, it's not some political football. It's real life... And real love.



And in some cases, sadly, it's a matter of life & death.

Get More:
Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word, Logo TV

Even today, discrimination is still "the norm" in far too many corners of this nation. And certain G-O-TEA politicians want us to believe discrimination is OK... So long as it's "rebranded" as "religious freedom". But no matter what they want to call it, it's still wrongful discrimination.

They even want to prevent many of us from voting. Yes, you read that right. And yes, Secretary of State hopeful Barbara Cegavske (R) is on record supporting the very kind of voter suppression that could disenfranchise thousands of legal Nevada voters if enacted.



While we continue waiting for the courts' respective decisions, we're also waiting for G-O-TEA politicians to get real about their party's "rebranding". News flash: "Rebranding" means nothing if it's just a repackaging of the same old H8.

Caught

Last week, someone was arrested. She registered to vote in Clark County... Twice, as a Republican and as a Democrat. And Biqui Diana Parra Rodriguez has been caught.

In April, Hortencia Segura registered as a Republican in Washoe County... Even though she's not a citizen. And she was caught.

Last week, Washington State Rep. (and aspiring Hollywood beefcake) Mike Hope (R) resigned from the Washington Legislature when news reports revealed that he has been registered to vote in Washington State and Ohio since last summer. Once he resigned, Mike Hope then revealed that he hasn't had a permanent address in his district for a while. In fact, he no longer has a permanent address anywhere in Washington State. He's now relocating back to Ohio. Oh yes, and he has been caught.

Notice a pattern here? For one, all these registration fraud cases just happened to involve Republican voter registrations. And ultimately, all of them were rather quickly caught.

But of course, certain G-O-TEA politicians (cough- Barbara Cegavske -cough) are now demanding voter suppression. And of course, they do so whenever stories like these emerge. Never mind that members of their own party were doing it. Never mind that they're advocating a system where voters are presumed guilty before they can prove their innocence, something that is the exact opposite of American legal tradition. And never mind that the tiny handful of people who try their hands at voter registration fraud are ultimately caught in a rather short amount of time.

So why are they now demanding voter suppression (again)? Why do they want to risk violating the legitimate voting rights of many thousands of Nevadans and millions more Americans? Why are they demanding a "solution" in search of a problem?

The jig is up. They've been caught. We can see right through this latest political stunt, and we sense we're not alone.

Ready for the Job

Every so often, this has reemerged. Back in 2012, an outgoing G-O-TEA legislator hinted at it. In 2013, State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R) and her usual G-O-TEA allies tried to turn meaningful election reform into it. Later that year, Assembly Member Pat Hickey (R) joked about it. And earlier this year, none other than Sharron Angle tried to toss it onto the ballot.

Voting rights is something we should take seriously. But for Barbara Cegavske, voter suppression is great and the Secretary of State's office is just another political stepping stone.



Outgoing Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) has big shoes to fill. And so far, Kate Marshall (D) looks set to fill those shoes. She's already been serving the state as Treasurer. But now, she's ready to pivot to protecting people's right to vote and oversee new business coming to Nevada.

(Below is her speech from the Nevada State Democratic Party Convention in Reno last Saturday.)



And it's really not that dramatic of a pivot. Kate Marshall has already been keeping close watch on our public dollars. She's a trained lawyer. And she seems to care about a little thing called public service.

And Barbara Cegavske? Barbara Cegavske? Barbara Cegavske? Barbara Cegavske? Ain't she grand?

But is she ready for the job?

Still Not Over

Wasn't this supposed to be over by now? The last two Republican Presidential Nominees spoke against it. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed it. Several Nevada Republicans ran away from it... Despite championing it a year ago. But nonetheless, it was supposed to be "dead".

Yet now, the "TEA" powered "License to Discriminate" movement has come roaring back to life. And why's that, you ask? Thank the Mississippi Legislature for this. It just passed SB 2681, which is Mississippi's version of "License to Discriminate".

SB 2681 now sits on Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant's (R) desk. Yet unlike his Arizona counterpart, Bryant is expected to sign SB 2681 into law. And should Mississippi's Governor soon sign it into law, he'll probably boost efforts in Missouri, North Carolina, and Oklahoma to pass similar "License to Discriminate" legislation.

If Cresent Hardy is still experiencing difficulties in understanding what constitutes "segregation laws", he need not look further than Mississippi's SB 2681. Hell, he need not look further than SB 192, the "License to Discriminate" bill that he & Barbara Cegavske introduced to the Nevada Legislature last year.

This was supposed to be over by now. After all, "Republican rebranding"... Oh wait, that's gone nowhere. Instead, the G-O-TEA has been doubling down on its "Culture War". And the recent developments in Mississippi have only confirmed what we've already known.

Never mind the minor cosmetic changes and changing around of certain words. Pay closer attention to what they're doing. This was supposed to be over... But it's not. It may not be over until the courts weigh in. And it may not even truly be over until the Republican Party can learn to say no to its radical base.

Who Else Is Behind the "License to Discriminate" Bills?

What a month this has been for LGBTQ civil rights... And the Republican Party's tortured views on them. Earlier this month, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) and Governor Brian Sandoval (R) decided to drop their legal fight against marriage equality. Yet even after Sandoval did this, his party didn't go along for the ride. Rather, Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R) and Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) twisted themselves into pretzels to try to spin away their opposition to civil marriage equality.

And then, outgoing Assembly Member and current NV-04 candidate Cresent Hardy (R) spoke of "segregation laws", and it all went downhill from there. Shortly after Hardy made those infamous comments, attention turned to Arizona's SB 1062, a "license to discriminate" bill masquerading as "religious freedom" legislation. It was actually based on the same model legislation that inspired the original SB 192 that Hardy cosponsored. And that model legislation has recently been popping up in even more state legislatures across the nation.

So who wrote this "license to discriminate" model legislation? Where did it all come from? Yesterday, we took a closer look at the origins of SB 192/SB 1062 and uncovered a trail that leads to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a shadowy front group that masks all the Koch Industries/"TEA Party, Inc." money being poured into this "license to discriminate" campaign.

However, there's even more to this story. It turns out that the Ethics and Public Policy Center has been working hand-in-hand with another shadowy front group hiding another set of familiar players.

The Center for Arizona Policy has been decrying Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's (R) veto of SB 1062. After all, it prodded Arizona G-O-TEA legislators to introduce and pass the Ethics and Public Policy Center's "religious freedom" model legislation. And it's a state affiliate of CitizenLink, a nationwide religious right outfit.

But wait, who's CitizenLink? Where did that comes from? It turns out that CitizenLink is the 501(c)4 arm of Focus on the Family, a notorious anti-equality organization that's been devoted to fighting against LGBTQ civil rights for over a quarter century. And not only has Focus on the Family been fighting against LGBTQ civil rights in America, but it's recently become involved with Russia's state sanctioned homophobia & transphobia campaign. And it's never hesitated to stoop to shocking lows to promote its extreme agenda.

In the wake of all this "religious freedom" hogwash controversy, State Senator and Lt. Governor candidate Mark Hutchison (R) performed some linguistic gymnastics to try to distance himself (and running mate Brian Sandoval) from the bill he cosponsored in Carson City last year. Now, we have a better understanding of why he's done this (along with other Republican politicians who are running away from the now toxic legislation). And why's that? Simple: It's not easy conveying a "moderate" persona when one is carrying water (and legislation!) for the Kochs' "TEA" powered empire and the extreme religious right.

From "Rebranding" to Crash Landing...

Here we go again. Once more, G-O-TEA politicians must pay the consequences of paying too much attention to the bullshit "words of wisdom" that drop from Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Once again, "El Rushbo" threw a temper tantrum over Jason Collins' return to the NBA courts and Michael Sam's possible entry into the NFL. And once again, G-O-TEA "playaz" are trying to turn Limbaugh's temper tantrum into actual legislation (and losing lobbying clients while doing so).

Oh, and speaking of actual legislation, Rush Limbaugh also had something to say about Arizona's SB 1062, aka Arizona's version of the "License to Discriminate" Bill. Surprise, he loves it! Surprise, he hates the "drive-by media" reporting on the real danger this bill presents. And surprise, he makes absolutely no sense when he claims Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) has been "bullied" over this bill.



We guess Rush Limbaugh would know, since he's the biggest bully of them all. And he's now stooping to new lows (even for him!) to promote the Koch-TEA Empire's greatest legislative masterpiece yet.

Unfortunately for him and other fans of "legalized" wrongful discrimination, the rest of America doesn't feel the same way. The NFL threatened to move the Super Bowl out of the state if SB 1062 had become law. And now, we know Governor Jan Brewer (R) just vetoed it. So there we have it...

Except that's not all. While Arizona faced a potentially horrendous anti-LGBTQ statute, Texas faced a potentially paradigm shifting courtroom decision while California faced one fewer ballot initiative this year. In California, proponents of a ballot initiative to overturn a new law guaranteeing civil rights for transgender students failed to gather enough valid signatures to place this initiative on the 2014 ballot. And in Texas, a federal judge just struck down Texas' marriage ban. Just as we've been saying here for some time, H8 is so outdated and marriage discrimination has no legal leg left to stand on... Not even in Texas.

Of course, the 21st Century Know Nothings are seething in rage tonight. That's why they're reveling in frivolous law suits, accidentally endorsing marriage equality on Twitter, and attacking each other for daring to "attack god". Oh, yes. That's right. They're really going there.

Meanwhile closer to home, the Nevada Republican Party continues to struggle with acceptance of the 21st century. After State Senator and Lt. Governor candidate Mark Hutchison (R-Las Vegas) boasted of his cosponsorship of SB 192 and Governor Brian Sandoval's (R) support for his bill, Sandoval himself then rebuked his own favored running mate Senator Hutchison and promised to veto anything resembling SB 1062. And that would have meant a veto for the original version of SB 192 that Hutchison supported.

Once again, we're seeing the result of all that "Republican rebranding". And what's the result? Just take a look at California, Arizona, & Texas. Republican "leaders" are struggling to save face as their own base demands more and more extreme legislation... Along with a divorce from 21st century America. And funny enough, they're the ones claiming to "defend family values & traditional marriage". Yep, those Republicans are enjoying quite the "rebranding" lately...

License to Discriminate, Brought to You by Koch

What on earth is going on? The Nevada Legislature is not even in session this year. So why is it grabbing headlines this week?

We can thank SB 192 for this. Even though SB 192 itself died in Carson City last spring, its legacy has quickly been resurrected. And now, it's striking fear in the hearts of civil rights advocates across the nation.

So far this year, various reincarnations of SB 192 are bubbling up through several state legislatures. The most notorious one yet has emerged in Arizona in the form of SB 1062. Meanwhile in Georgia and Missouri, similar "license to discriminate" bills have been introduced.



Clearly, these bills are making waves across the nation... But where did these waves come from? Where did this all begin? The answer may surprise you.

We suspect few people have previously known about the Ethics and Public Policy Center. However, we're sure you've already heard of the Kochs and their burgeoning political empire. And believe it or not, the Kochs' well heeled tentacles reach into the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Oh, and it's also funded by the same "TEA Party, Inc." aligned billionaires' club who are behind such infamous TEA fueled entities as Donors Trust and ALEC.

It turns out that the Ethics and Public Policy Center has an "American Religious Freedom Program". And it turns out that "American Religious Freedom Program" gave birth to the "religious freedom"/"license to discriminate" bills that are now emerging in state legislatures across the nation. So finally, the mystery of the origin of these "license to discriminate" bills has been solved.

And surprise (/snark), these bills come from the same source as the rest of the G-O-TEA legislative agenda. Once again, "TEA Party, Inc." is hiding behind shadowy front groups to push Orwellian legislation to further it's extreme ideology. And this is why we shouldn't be surprised that other G-O-TEA front groups are rushing to back the "license to discriminate" movement.

Enough Already... Stop the Insani-TEA

We had it yesterday. We had it with whatever talk (that's not tongue-in-cheek) remains of "Republican rebranding". And we had it with G-O-TEA politicians feigning "moderation" while continuing to promote dangerously extreme legislation.

If Cresent Hardy still needs further examples of actual "segregation laws", he need not look farther than next door. Why? Take a look at Arizona. Arizona's SB 1062, which happens to be identical to the original version of Nevada's SB 192 that Hardy cosponsored last year,
would put into place an exceptionally broad license to discriminate if Governor Jan Brewer (R) signs SB 1062 into law. It would open doors to anti-LGBTQ discrimination, as well as further restrictions on women's health care, "legal" religious intolerance, and perhaps even the reintroduction of "legal" racial segregation... And do so all in the name of "religious freedom".

This is why the pressure is mounting for a veto of SB 1062. Oh, and that pressure isn't just coming from civil rights advocates and progressive activists. Corporate lobbyists, Arizona's 2015 Super Bowl Committee, and even both of Arizona's Republican US Senators are begging Governor Brewer to veto SB 1062.

Yet even as SB 1062 has become such an ugly hot potato in Arizona, another look-alike bill is making its way through the Georgia Legislature. And more specifically anti-LGBTQ legislation is being considered in Tennessee & South Dakota. And to top it all off, some G-O-TEA lobbyist/"media personality" is pushing his allies in Congress to push federal legislation to ban out LGBTQ football players!

OK, it's time for us to say this again. No wait, we'll let our other favorite philosopher say it herself this time.



Seriously, G-O-TEA politicians need to take her advice. What's the point of all these license to discriminate bills? Sure, they're popular with the G-O-TEA base... But everyone else is disgusted by such blatant and brazen bigotry.

Already, "Republican rebranding" has become the go-to political punchline of 2014. How much more do G-O-TEA politicians want to ruin their own party? Perhaps it's finally time for them to stop this insani-TEA once & for all.

Same Ol' Story, Same Ol' FAIL

Don't blame us for being repetitive. Rather, blame various Nevada Republicans trying to climb up the political ladder. Oh, and blame their "TEA" drinking counterparts nearby for their refusal to acknowledge the existence of the 21st century.

Oh, where do we begin? Let's start with Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R). He made some noise earlier this month with his vocal opposition to Governor Brian Sandoval's (R) approval of outgoing Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto's (D) decision to drop the State of Nevada's legal defense of marriage discrimination in the Sevcik v. Sandoval federal law suit. And so far, he's still going there. Even when a nationally prominent conservative columnist raised her eyebrow over Laxalt's fervent opposition to marriage equality, he responded by claiming he's "compelled to defend our constitution". Apparently, Adam Laxalt still needs those "basic plumbing lessons" on the inner workings of the US Constitution.

Oh, and he needs to step away from Cresent Hardy's "segregation laws" and Barbara Cegavske's delusions of grandeur. They don't seem to have an understanding of the Constitution or common sense. They only seem to understand the deepest dark desires of the G-O-TEA base. But then again, this may be why Adam Laxalt is following their lead.

And herein lies the heart of the Republican Party's "rebranding" FAIL and identity crisis. Various Republican "leaders" have attempted to "rebrand the party" into a more "consumer friendly image". But whenever they've tried, the 21st Century Know Nothings have fought back with more demands for ideological "purity". And so far, they've succeeded in forcing the party to double down on their "Culture War".

Case in point: Arizona. The legislature there passed the equivalent to the original SB 192 (there, it's SB 1062). And now, the bill awaits Governor Jan Brewer's (R) decision to sign or veto.

On one hand, US Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) has joined a growing chorus of Republicans and conservative business groups begging Governor Brewer to veto SB 1062 along with all the state’s Democrats and civil rights advocates. But on the other hand, the 21st Century Know Nothings who comprise the G-O-TEA base want SB 1062 to become law, even as the state faces another round of boycotts should the "License to Discriminate Bill" become law. Yet even as the deadline to act on this bill quickly approaches, Arizona's Governor hasn't given any indication of what she will do to it.

So don't blame us for being repetitive. Rather, blame the G-O-TEA politicians who keep peddling their outdated platform that celebrates wrongful discrimination. And blame the "TEA" fueled Culture Warriors who still refuse to admit defeat in their effort to undo the entire 20th century. They keep living the same old story, and the Republican Party keeps failing into the same old FAIL.

No "Freedom", Just FAIL

Last year, an unexpected bomb was dropped on Carson City. That bomb nearly blew up the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature and put into question the state’s progress on civil rights. But in the end, it only blew up on State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) when Assembly leaders decided to shelve her bill (after an sharply amended version passed the State Senate).

The short yet lurid life of SB 192 in Carson City managed to shock a number of civil rights advocates and political observers. In recent years, the State of Nevada has made progress in recognizing LGBTQ civil rights. Why would this state suddenly undo all that progress to grant "freedom to discriminate"?

When SB 192 died in Carson City last spring, many assumed that would be the end of this debate. But all of a sudden, it's making news again. Why? Assembly Member, SB 192 cosponsor, and NV-04 candidate Cresent Hardy (R-Mesquite) evoked his religious beliefs to explain why he can't agree to "segregation laws" like ENDA (that combat wrongful discrimination). And shortly after Hardy dropped his bomb, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) followed suit with his bizarre argument against marriage equality.

And now, the story has become national. How so? The same shadowy religious right/G-O-TEA interest groups that wrote SB 192 for Barbara Cegavske pushed SB 192 here in Nevada are now on the verge of passing a look-alike bill into law in Arizona.

Like SB 192, the Arizona "Freedom to Discriminate" bill seemed to come out of nowhere. But unlike SB 192, the Arizona bill was not watered down, and it ultimately sailed through both houses of that state's legislature. That's why civil rights advocates are now trying whatever they can think of to convince Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto this bill and spare the state a costly legal fight & huge PR embarrassment.

Once again, we're seeing a campaign to legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination masquerade as "concern for religious liberty". Once again, we're seeing the bulk of G-O-TEA politicians go along to get along with their 21st Century Know Nothing base. And once again, we're reminded of why "Republican rebranding" is already shaping up to be the most EPIC FAIL of 2014.

"T Word" Fireworks

With today being the deadline for most bills to pass their originating houses in the Nevada Legislature, reality is setting in for legislators whose bills don't seem to have the votes to survive tonight. And with the deadline for the Legislature to act on The Education Initiative (aka IP 1) long gone, any legislators who were hoping to craft a competing tax reform initiative have had to relinquish their fantasies. Well, that is, any legislators not named Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) have had to.

Never mind that the law may not agree with Senator Roberson. And never mind that the politics certainly don't seem to agree with him. Despite the many legal & political obstacles Senator Roberson and his IP 1 alternative mining tax face, he still refuses to give it up.

In fact, he's pressing on with it. He's releasing details of his IP 1 alternative tomorrow. And it's already developed a bipartisan consensus. Unfortunately for Roberson, it's increasingly looking like a strong bipartisan consensus of opposition to his tax plan.

In a letter sent to each senator Tuesday, Roberson invited Democrats and critical Republicans alike to provide input on the details of his proposed mining tax.

"It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be bipartisan in nature and that we put politics aside and collectively do what is right for the children of our state," Roberson wrote in the letter. [...]

"We don't do industry-specific taxes," said Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, an early opponent of Roberson's effort. "I know he's using one of his emergency measures for this, but I don't know what the point is. Leadership isn't going to let it pass. It's not going to get a hearing." [...]

"I want a bipartisan proposal that happens this legislative session that produces more funding for this school year," said Sen. Debbie Smith, D-Reno, who hadn't yet seen the letter that was sent to her office this afternoon.

"I'm not really amenable to doing an alternative," said Denis. "However, I want to be open, and I've committed to meeting with him," he said, noting he has an appointment with Roberson tomorrow.

Yikes. This isn't looking good for Senator Roberson. After all, this has been his "brilliant" plan to defeat IP 1. Instead, it just looks like Education Initiative supporters have the better chance of securing the last laugh while Roberson's mining tax alternative dies in the crossfire of convoluted Carson City politics.

Last week, Senator Debbie Smith wasn't buying Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-Denial) line of BS over "The Sunset Taxes". This week, she's reading Roberson. Can he really survive amidst all that shade?

And on top of that, Roberson continues to run into trouble with his own party. Good luck with Governor Sandoval. And good luck with Sharron Angle.

So expect fireworks this week... But I have a feeling Senator Roberson may not appreciate this fireworks show.

Amended SB 192 Passes Full Senate

Just minutes ago, the full Nevada Senate approved SB 192. And the vote wasn't close. In fact, it was 14-7.

All the Republicans voted for the bill introduced by one of their own, Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley). However, Democrats were split. Senators Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas), Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas), Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas), and Justin Jones (D-Enterprise) voted in favor. Meanwhile, Senators David Parks (D-Paradise), Mark Manendo (D-Paradise), Joyce Woodhouse (D-Henderson), Debbie Smith (D-Sparks), Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas), Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), and Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley) all voted against SB 192.

So what happens next? It's on its way to the Assembly. However, there is a catch.

Remember that SB 192 was amended to address concerns over the bill providing license to discriminate. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed an amended version earlier this month with new language clarifying that this law can not be used as legal justification for any type of civil rights violations.

Yet with this being said, several Senators clearly still had concerns. Will the new language really be enough of a safeguard to prevent future attempts to (mis)use this bill to justify wrongful workplace, housing, health care, and other forms of discrimination? Will gay couples be wrongfully denied of housing? Will a bus driver be allowed to deny a Muslim passenger the ability to stop at the mosque? Will any pharmacists try to deny contraception to their patients?

Will there be law suits flying all over state and federal courts anyway? And why is this bill even necessary in the first place? Many are still scratching their heads over these last two questions.

However, there were more than enough Senators to pass it today. We'll just have to wait and see what the Assembly does with it. Oh, joy. (/snark)

SB 192 Is AMENDED, Passes Committee

Last month, we took a closer look at SB 192. It claims to "preserve religious freedom", but it's actually a pernicious plan to undermine anti-discrimination laws in order to attack others' freedom. Early on, SB 192 gathered plenty of co-sponsors and looked like a sure bet to pass.

But over the past month, that's changed. In particular, the increasing talk of this as a "Trojan Horse Bill" has forced lawmakers to rethink their support for the bill. But is it enough to stop the bill?

Perhaps so. I've been monitoring the Senate Judiciary Committee all morning. And while they've been dealing with a full load of bills (tackling everything from betting on federal elections to repealing "crimes against nature"!), I've yet to hear a peep on SB 192.

And just minutes ago, AP reporter Sandra Chereb tweeted that only one bill remains on Judiciary's docket. And that bill is... Another gaming bill, specifically regarding sports kiosks. So what just happened?

So far, SB 192 has not come up in this committee, its originating committee. And remember, today is the deadline for a bill to pass its originating committee. So if SB 192 does not pass committee today, it's officially dead.

For a bill that suddenly generated plenty of controversy over religion, discrimination, and civil rights, SB 192 looks to be suffering a rather quiet death. But funny enough, this quiet death somewhat resembles its quiet birth. Ah, poetic justice...

UPDATE 10:50 AM: Doh! I should have noticed Steve Sebelius' tweet two hours ago. SB 192 was dropped from Senate Judiciary's agenda. So it's officially dead. I'll express my condolences to Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) over the loss of her bill. (/snark)

UPDATE 11:00 AM: Whoops! Not so fast. Steve Sebelius just had to retract what he tweeted, as Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) is insisting that SB 192 is still on the agenda and will get a vote today. So we may have to wait a little longer, and we may even have a committee vote on public record soon.

So stay tuned, since this story isn't over yet.

UPDATE 11:10 AM: Senator Cegavske apparently agreed to work with Senators Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley) and Mark Hutchison (R-Las Vegas) to amend SB 192 to clarify it can NOT be used as an end run around anti-discrimination laws. And apparently, that's good enough for everyone on the committee. It passed unanimously.

This will need closer examination. But so far, it looks like the most egregious aspects of SB 192 are gone. In the coming days, we will be investigating this further to see what's now in SB 192 and what it now means. So stay tuned, as this story is now far from over.

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back?

Well, at least I have some good news to give today. At long last, the Nevada Senate passed what's now SB 139. And not only that, but the bill passed 20-1! Only Senator Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City) voted against it, while all the other Senate Republicans joined all the Senate Democrats to vote to include transgender people in Nevada's hate crimes laws. This was long overdue.

So why am I not too excited today? Well, that's because SB 192 still lurks behind the scenes. If enacted, SB 192 can effectively render null & void SB 139 and all other anti-discrimination laws under the guise of "religious freedom". Ironically enough, Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) voted for SB 139 today, yet she brought SB 192 from the back rooms of ALEC to the Nevada Legislature.

Remember that SB 192 is exactly the same as the "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" introduced in Kansas last year and Colorado earlier this year. So pay close attention to the University of Miami School of Law's Caroline Mala Corbin as she explains the true nefarious purpose of this "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act".

A closer inspection, however, reveals that the impetus behind the Kansas act is not protecting religious rights across the board, but protecting the right of certain religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In particular, the Kansas act creates a defense to municipal anti-discrimination ordinances. Sparking the Kansas act was the city of Lawrence's expansive anti-discrimination protection: in Lawrence, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment and places of public accommodation is illegal. According to its sponsor in the state House of Representatives, the Kansas act would, for example, provide a legal defense to a religious landlord who refused to rent to a same-sex couple. [...]

Because only substantial burdens on religion trigger heightened protection, the first question under the Kansas act is whether an anti-discrimination ordinance requiring a landlord to rent to a same-sex couple imposes a substantial burden on a landlord whose religion condemns homosexuality. The housing ordinance does not require the landlord to engage in homosexual conduct. Nor does the housing ordinance require any landlord to live with someone who does. It does not even demand financial support for the religiously condemned behavior. At most, the landlord may be said to facilitate religiously proscribed conduct by providing same-sex couples with a place to live, and presumably, sin. But does this mean a landlord's religious rights are substantially infringed any time his company rents property to people who act contrary to his church's teachings? If a landlord's religion opposes contraception, does that mean his company can refuse to rent property to women who use it?

In addition, if "facilitating" religiously proscribed conduct amounts to a substantial burden under the law, then a large swath of discriminatory actions could be deemed legal. If providing shelter facilitates homosexual conduct, then arguably so does providing food and health care. Does this mean that restaurants and hospitals can refuse to serve gay and lesbian Kansans? May a storeowner or salesperson refuse to sell beds or bed linen to gay and lesbian customers because, well, wouldn't that be facilitating their sinful conduct? The willingness to describe attenuated impositions as a substantial burden on someone's free exercise of religion ought to raise questions about whether the law is really about protecting religious rights, or about animus towards an unpopular group of people. As numerous Supreme Court cases have held —including Romer v. Evans, which held unconstitutional an attempt to forbid any state action meant to shield people from sexual orientation discrimination — the latter is not a legitimate state interest.

In their legendary 6-3 ruling in Romer v. Evans in 1996, the US Supreme Court invalidated Colorado's law prohibiting LGBTQ inclusive anti-discrimination ordinances because the state has no business subjecting certain people to otherwise wrongful discrimination just due to who they are. This may ultimately compel Kansas to change its version of what we call SB 192. Federal courts have already said no to states green-lighting this kind of discrimination. Why should Nevada play with this fire?

Perhaps because of Colorado's history on this matter, its version of this bill received heightened scrutiny when it was presented to the Colorado Legislature earlier this year. And that's ultimately why the bill died in the Colorado House. Again, why green-light wrongful discrimination and invite otherwise unnecessary expensive litigation?

Funny enough, it's always "tea party" approved conservatives like Barbara Cegavske who complain about "frivolous law suits". Yet they keep introducting legislation that encourages just that. Ah, the irony of the radical right's "CUL'CHUR WARZZZ!!!!!"

Today, the Nevada Legislature took a major step toward providing equal protection under the law for LGBTQ Nevadans. They should keep progressing. We don't need ridiculous and unnecessary regression. Legislators need to do more research and uncover what's actually in SB 192.

The Evolution Will Not Be Televised?

Today offered a breakthrough of sorts. Another prominent Republican endorsed marriage equality. This time, he's a current elected official. And this time, he's a sitting US Senator. And this time, he's someone who even made Mitt Romney's VP short list.

So what compelled Senator Rob Portman's (R-Ohio) change of heart? His son came out.

"I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about," Portman said. "It has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry. And during my career in the House and also last couple years here in the Senate, you know, I've taken a position against gay marriage, rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition. And had a very personal experience, which is my son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay and that it was not a choice and that, you know he, that's just part of who he is, and he'd been that way ever since he could remember."

Portman said his son's revelation led him to drop his opposition to same-sex marriage. "And that launched an interesting process for me, which was kind of rethinking my position," he said. "You know, talking to my pastor and other religious leaders and going through a process of, at the end, changing my position on the issue. I now believe people ought to have the right to get married."

Certainly, this comes during an already exciting month on the LGBTQ equality front. The Prop 8 and DOMA law suits are scheduled for oral arguments in The US Supreme Court later this month. Many prominent Republicans who had previously served in elected office, as White House staff, and/or in the last 4 Republican Presidential Campaigns recently filed amicus briefs to the Court urging pro-equality rulings in both cases. And now, we have this.

So are Republicans finally evolving on LGBTQ equality? Frank Bruni seems to think so. And he seems to think today's big announcement can help in expediting the process.

Rather than quibble with it, I’d prefer to note how profoundly emblematic his announcement is. Coming right after the widely publicized amicus brief in favor of gay marriage that dozens of prominent Republicans signed, Portman’s remarks illustrate a rapid movement by, and rising tension within, a party that has largely allied itself with social conservatives and is bit by bit breaking with them on this issue.

Seeing how this plays out over the next few years is going to be fascinating, though there’s no doubt how it will play out over the long haul. The majority of Republicans will be forced to publicly embrace same-sex marriage, because a huge majority of young Americans already do. There’s only one trajectory here—toward acceptance and equality—and to ignore that is to risk political marginalization and irrelevance.

In any case, my question for and about Portman, a decent and thoughtful man I’ve known for many years, isn’t why it took a gay son to move him to his current stance, but whether it really took a gay son to do that, and whether he was here or almost here a while back, but just didn’t say so.

What’s too infrequently noted or written is how many Republicans who aren’t on the party’s far right have privately, silently accepted and supported gays and lesbians but have stayed publicly mum, and articulated contrary positions, in the interests of political survival. A big part of what’s changing now isn’t their hearts. It’s their belief that they can be true to their hearts without committing political suicide, because America has made extraordinary progress, and because there’s no turning back.

Steve Benen, however, was not in such a generous mood. He couldn't help but ask some tough questions on today's big announcement.

[I]f Portman learned about his son's sexual orientation in 2011, why did it take the senator so long to come around? And why was he still endorsing discriminatory policies in 2012?

While we're at it, the Cleveland Plain Dealer noted that Portman could support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but the senator said he hasn't done this because he says "economic policy issues are his specialty." First, senators are required to tackle a variety of issues. Second, I've seen Portman's positions on economic issues, and if they're his "specialty," he's in trouble.

But even putting all of that aside, there's also a larger consideration to keep in mind about the nature of societal change.

To be sure, I'm genuinely glad Portman has done the right thing, and can only hope it encourages other Republicans to do the same. What I find discouraging, though, is that the Republican senator was content to support discriminatory policies until they affected someone he personally cares about.

What about everyone else's sons and daughters? Why must empathy among conservatives be tied so directly to their own personal interactions?

We've seen this a few too many times. A Republican will support Medicaid cuts right up until he sees the program up close, with his own eyes. Republicans will be skeptical about federal disaster relief right up until it's their community that sees devastation. Republicans are prepared to deny basic rights based on sexual orientation, right up until it's their loved one who's gay.

It seems the key to American social progress in the 21st century is simple: more conservatives having more life experiences.

Yes, that was harsh. But on the other hand, there may be a whole lot of truth to what Benen says. As of late, it seems like the bulk of the Republicans "coming out" for equality are the ones with the most to gain and/or least to lose by "coming out".

Meanwhile in the heart of the G-O-TEA, strong resistance to equality remains. In fact, current G-O-TEA darling & Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) just boasted of his continuing strident opposition to marriage equality yesterday at CPAC! And of course, CPAC itself lists pro-homophobia/transphobia organizations as its co-sponsors while limiting the involvement of pro-equality Republican outfits.

Even here in Nevada, where one would think "libertarian" attitudes on "personal freedom" would influence Republicans otherwise, evolution has been incredibly difficult. None of the Nevada Republicans in Congress has endorsed marriage equality. Governor Brian Sandoval (R-Scared?) continues to fight equality in court. And even a certain (in)famous Nevada Republican legislator has introduced a "Trojan Horse Bill" meant to strip even the basic defenses from wrongful discrimination from LGBTQ Nevadans!

So Rob Portman's big announcement today is certainly a major step forward. It's now just a matter of whether his fellow Republicans will start moving alongside him. That question looks to be up in the air at the moment.

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?