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?

The Numbers Don't Lie.

It's been a while since the last time we examined the voter registration numbers. But with another big election looming, we figured it's time to take a look at what's been happening lately.

Back in July 2012, Nevada Democrats had a 4.43% voter registration advantage (or around 47,500 raw votes). In July 2014, Nevada Democrats closed the month with a 64,983 raw vote lead. That means Nevada Democrats now have a 5.49% voter registration advantage.

For Clark County overall, Democrats now have a 13.29% advantage and 106,742 raw vote lead. In NV-03, Democrats now have a 1.1% advantage and 3,520 raw vote lead. And in NV-04 (overall, not just Clark County), Democrats now enjoy an 11.38% advantage and 33,546 raw vote lead.

And in case you were wondering about the hottest Nevada Legislature races of the year, here are the numbers to keep a close eye on. In the Summerlin South based State Senate District (SD 8), Republicans now have a mere 16 raw vote lead, which is so tiny that we have to go all the way to the thousandths to reach a percentage (0.003%). But in nearby SD 9 in the Southwest Vegas Valley, Democrats have jumped to a 3,628 raw vote lead, or a 6.53% registration advantage. And in the Henderson based SD 20, Republicans now stand at a mere 468 raw vote lead, or a 0.01% voter registration advantage.

Of course, the numbers can change some more in the next 10 weeks. The voter registration numbers certainly experienced some change during the final weeks of the 2012 cycle.

Early this year, some were wondering how Nevada Democrats could get their act together in a midterm year with no top of the ticket fireworks. Now, we have a better sense of how they may just pull it off. The numbers don't lie.

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?

Ross Miller's "Jiu-jitsu"

Much has been said about a Japanese martial art known as Jiu-jitsu. It helps to know what one is speaking of.

Jujutsu is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon. [1][2] The word jujutsu is often spelled as jujitsu, ju-jitsu, jiu-jutsu or jiu-jitsu.

"Jū" can be translated to mean "gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding." "Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique" and represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force. [1] Jujutsu developed among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon, or only a short weapon. [3] Because striking against an armored opponent proved ineffective, practitioners learned that the most efficient methods for neutralizing an enemy took the form of pins, joint locks, and throws. These techniques were developed around the principle of using an attacker's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.

And it most certainly helps to know how to practice it. We know Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) has incredible MMA skills. So is it possible that he's now putting those to use in pursuing election reform? Doug Chapin from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs seems to think so. In fact, he's now calling Ross Miller's proposal "Election Geek Jiu-jitsu"!

I'm not sure that the issues of cost and lack of fraud are enough to kill the proposal, however. Indeed, it looks to me like Miller's goal in making this proposal (and spending the money) is not to prevent fraud but rather to end the voter ID debate in a way that simultaneously improves the state's election process.

By itself, ending the voter ID debate is a huge boon for states. I can't even begin to imagine how much time and money was spent legislating, litigating and fighting about voter ID in the last election cycle alone; this bill essentially settles the argument at what might end up being a fraction of the cost. Moreover, the electronic poll books the state is proposing are popular with local election officials like Clark's Lomax, who are looking to upgrade from the traditional printed poll books, and activists like Ramirez, who are tired of their voters becoming Election Day pawns in the voter ID battle.

Viewed from this angle, Miller's proposal could be described as an effort to use the momentum on voter ID to enact other desirable changes in Nevada's election system. Indeed, you could call it a kind of jujitsu, the martial art that "uses an attacker's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it."

I know this is something we already explored here earlier this week, but I think it's worth exploring some more due to the ongoing confusion over Miller's idea. And since Doug Chapin is from Minnesota, where this idea originated and where progressives are still battling radical right demands for voter suppression, he has some good insight on what this is really about.

This may indeed be a brilliant strategy to secure progressive election reforms that otherwise would never be considered. Elections officials have wanted to replace those printed poll books with something more 21st century for some time. But because of the ongoing budget brawl and more pressing funding demands, they've been left in the dust. This may indeed be the best, and perhaps the only, way for Ross Miller to deliver the goods and upgrade our antiquated system.

And as we've discussed before, this may very well solve logistical problems that have stood in the way of expanding voter participation. How can extreme "tea party" outfits keep challenging and intimidating legal voters if poll workers can instantly verify those voters? And how can those same outfits continue arguing against reforms like same-day voter registration if the equipment is available to register and verify those new registrants right on the spot?

What may be tricky is execution. Can poll workers be transformed into IT professionals? Will poll workers be able to handle voters whose looks may have changed since the last time they checked in with the DMV? And will the technology ultimately work? These are questions that may be worth exploring some more.

And of course, there's another matter hampering this, a matter that Doug Chapin should have perhaps took into stronger consideration. Remember that our state government is notoriously cheap. And because Carson City is gearing up for yet another extended budget brawl, who really has an appetite to "spend money on a nonexistent problem", as both Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Mo Denis have put it?

And it's still unclear as to Pat Hickey's true motives in talking up Miller's bill. Is he really considering supporting it? Or is he just (mis)using it to drive a wedge between Ross Miller and Democratic Legislature leaders? May he also be (mis)using this bill to simply muddy the waters on the issue of granting some sort of driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants? This is certainly something to consider.

But without a doubt, there's a method to what has seemed to be Ross Miller's "madness". And as I've found out the hard way, there's more than initially meets the eye here. Perhaps Ross Miller can even turn all this angst and confusion over his proposal to his advantage by appealing to Brian Sandoval's and Michael Roberson's desires to score some "moderate" looking "bipartisan" achievement. And perhaps while he's doing that, he can figure out a way to ease Democratic concerns regarding his proposal.

So maybe this dude from Minnesota is onto something. Perhaps this is "misunderestimated" brilliance in political martial arts. We just have to see if and how it becomes practical good politics, as well as actual good policy, here in Nevada.

Ross Miller v. Tea Party, Inc. (& Why This Matters)

So Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has been in the news lately due to his election reform bill. However, that's not all he's been up to lately. He's also pursuing a potentially groundbreaking development in campaign finance.

Remember this story from July? "Tea Party" astroturf outfit AFP Nevada had campaigned in a Democratic (??!!) State Senate primary in North Las Vegas, and the Secretary of State's office noticed that AFP had done so without complying with state disclosure laws. (AFP is notorious for keeping its donor list a secret.) So AFP landed in the hot seat.

Yet despite this, AFP continued campaigning in several State Senate races, though this time AFP campaigned in races where Republicans needed to win to flip control of the State Senate. Perhaps because AFP's campaign was rather clumsy at times, Democrats managed to retain control of the State Senate. But nonetheless, AFP likely violated state law again by campaigning without disclosing any financial reports.

And this is why AFP has landed into deep trouble.

Miller’s court case against Americans for Prosperity, a gigantic national conservative group founded by the Koch Brothers, could pull back the curtain on the organization’s donors. AFP spent a reported $33 million during Campaign 2012, according to Open Secrets. But, by federal law, as a 501C entity AFP does not have to disclose its donors.

To the Federal Election Commission, that is. But Miller’s case against AFP, using its foolish meddling in a Democratic primary, is like a sheriff in the Old West: You come to my town, you play by my rules.

Miller, who acknowledges there is no national case law, basically argues in a lawsuit that AFP cannot expressly advocate for or against a candidate and get away with not disclosing its donors under Nevada law. The local AFP chapter never registered as either a nonprofit or PAC, [thus] exposing the national organization to Miller’s suit. It’s a case surely being monitored by DC experts and one with potentially wide ramifications for campaign disclosure, which Miller has long advocated.

And in case you were wondering, here's the provision in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that AFP landed into trouble with.

NRS 294A.0025 “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” defined. “Advocates expressly” or “expressly advocates” means that a communication, taken as a whole, is susceptible to no other reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate or group or candidates or a question or group of questions on the ballot at a primary election, primary city election, general election, general city election or special election. A communication does not have to include the words “vote for,” “vote against,” “elect,” “support” or other similar language to be considered a communication that expressly advocates the passage or defeat of a candidate or a question.

The spin crew at AFP Nevada still claim they did no wrong. But in examining the doorhangers, mailers, and other material they were sending to voters, it becomes quite crystal clear that AFP literature "advocated expressly" against voting for Democratic Legislature candidates. And since AFP Nevada engaged in this very activity without registering a PAC and disclosing its campaign finances, it's unclear as to exactly how AFP will defend its actions.

If Ross Miller succeeds in this law suit, Ralston is correct that it will have wide ramifications. AFP and other shadowy "Tea Party, Inc." outfits will have to think twice before campaigning. And they may ultimately have to agree to disclose campaign finances and show us the voters their donor lists. And if this happens, it will be a huge win for "small d democracy" as it gives progressives a path forward in challenging secretive big corporate money in a post-Citizens United nation.

Voter ID? Or Something More?

Yes, we're back to talking about Ross Miller's election reform proposal. However, we saw another Democrat speak in favor of it today. Prominent Las Vegas based Democratic consultant Andres Ramirez took to The Nevada View to offer an alternative perspective to this debate.

[... T]he proposal being offered by Secretary Miller is an innovative and intelligent way to solve the concerns that people have about preventing fraud in our elections, as well as increasing protection for voters. Proponents of voter id laws generally claim that voters need a form of identification with a photo to provide the greatest assurance that the voter is who they claim to be. This proposal solves that issue without requiring and burdening voters to spend money on identification or taking additional time out of their schedules to obtain an identification card.

On the voter protection side of this issue, it is a common problem in minority communities for voters to get challenged at polling places by poll watchers intent on disrupting the process. Generally, they target people who are not carrying identification cards to force that voter to cast a provisional ballot or to intimidate the voter from casting a ballot at all. Oftentimes voters will just leave without casting a ballot after being targeted by unscrupulous poll watchers. Those voters that choose to stay and cast a provisional ballot are limited to only voting in federal races, and are denied from making choices in important state and local races. This process proposed by Secretary Miller will eliminate that situation from occurring, and ensuring that voters will not be denied the opportunity from casting a ballot due to not carrying an identification card. Secretary Miller may not need to prevent fraud in our elections, but there is definitely a need to increase the protection of voters’ rights at the poll. This proposal will actually benefit minority voters as opposed to disenfranchising them. Secretary Miller should be commended for tackling this issue in a smart and effective method.

This is another way to look at it. What about all the voters who are forced to cast provisional ballots after being challenged? Might this be a way to cut down on provisional ballots and allow more legal voters to vote whole ballots?

And might this be a way to actually cut down on voter suppression? Will teabaggers still be so eager to challenge voters if there was a way to instantly verify voters? And how can they keep harping on "voter fraud" if this kind of system is implemented?

May this also pave the way for more progressive election reforms? Since Ross Miller is seeking an electronic poll book to instantly verify voters, might this allow for same day voter registration? Can this actually increase voter participation?

Not everyone is convinced. Even some progressives are still expressing serious doubts about Ross Miller's proposal. Hugh Jackson announced on KSNV's "The Agenda" today that he's still not a fan.



And even Ramirez admitted that there may be better uses for the cost involved with this proposal. But then again, running elections well doesn't come cheap. Might this be worth the cost? Or is this just an unnecessary solution in search of a nonexistent problem that would only lead to further complication of the voting process?

I'm sensing this won't be the last time we talk about this.