"People's Branch of Government"

We found them! They're here! They really do exist!

And here's what they have to say: Nothing. No, really. They're still saying nothing.

When spotted exiting a high dollar fundraiser, State Senate candidate Patricia Farley (R) replied with a mere "thank you" when asked her positions on important issues like gun safety and women's health care.



But hey, at least she politely refused to answer any public policy questions from the hoi polloi. When Becky Harris was asked, she just had her "paid muscle" shout "NO!" at the camera, then put his hand on the camera, then swiftly escort her away. Keep it klassy, Becky!



But hey, at least top secret Nevada Republican candidates Patricia Farley and Becky Harris finally appeared in front of any camera. We're still awaiting the return of State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R) to the public view. We know he has time to accept fake awards. Why doesn't he have time to debate Teresa Lowry on his favorite media pundit's TV show?



No wonder why even one "newspaper" columnist called Roberson and his hand-picked running mates "spineless". They refuse to debate. They refuse to answer any questions in public. They won't even come clean on what they actually stand for.

So why are they even running for office? Have they even looked at the job description for the office they're seeking? Right on top of the Nevada Legislature's web site is this slogan: "The People's Branch of Government". Roberson, Harris, and Farley are all running to serve in this "People's Branch of Government". Each of them is running to serve roughly 129,000 people in Carson City.

So why aren't they acting like it? Why are they hiding? If they want to represent people in state government, they need to stop hiding from the very people they're asking for votes.

Put Up or Shut Up.

Just when we thought there was some sort of synergy happening, the bubble just had to burst. Ralston just had to tweet out some sympathy for "poor" Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson). He figured that since Steve Sebelius is ready to give Rep. Heck a free pass on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), everyone else should as well.

Stop right there. There's a reason why the AFL-CIO, SEIU, & other CIR advocates are not giving Rep. Heck a free pass on CIR. That reason is HR 15.

Earlier this week, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) joined with Rep. Jeff Denham (R-California) and Rep. Joe Garcia (D-Florida) to discuss why they're cosponsoring HR 15. Here's a hint: They actually want to show some leadership. And they actually want to finish the job on CIR.

(Skip to about 44:30 for the good stuff.)



Two other House Republicans, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) and David Valadao (R-California) have already joined Rep. Denham in backing HR 15. And remember that HR 15 closely resembles S 744, the bipartisan Senate CIR bill that Senator Dean Heller (R) crossed over to support. So what's keeping Rep. Heck from supporting HR 15?

Rep. Heck can't honestly say he's "doing everything possible" to pass CIR when he's not actually doing everything possible to pass CIR. It's time for him, and for other House Republicans trying to have it both ways on reform, to put up or shut up. Either they actually do whatever they can to allow a floor vote on HR 15 or they admit that all the G-O-TEA House "leaders" will do on immigration reform is support deporting DREAMers.

The American families and communities who are suffering due to the broken immigration system of today have had enough of the double-talk on Capitol Hill. It's time to put up or shut up.

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.)

Terror in Arizona: Are We Next? Or Will We Learn?

The real-life version of the crime that played out on the casino’s security cameras last month was as daring as anything dreamed up by Hollywood. But it would have made for a poor movie, as it was neither sexy nor sophisticated. And it presented little physical risk to the thief inside the Bellagio — one of many major casinos that tell unarmed security staff to stand down during armed robberies to avoid violence in a crowd.

To casino security experts, it also shows how casinos are vulnerable to theft at a time when other gambling crimes are rising in the poor economy.

Layoffs have affected many departments of the big casinos, including security and surveillance. Less security, experts say, may have motivated the Dec. 14 incident when an armed thief grabbed about $1.5 million in chips off a craps game in the predawn hours and got away on a motorcycle parked just outside. Moreover, Nevada law doesn’t require a guard by each entrance as they are in many other states or countries with casinos that refuse entrance to children and, in some cases, check IDs.

That’s why casino security consultant Willy Allison says the major Strip casinos, for all their high-tech bells and whistles to track crime, “have the worst casino security in the world.”

“You’ve got a better chance of walking into a hooker at the entrance of some of these casinos than a security officer,” said Allison, who organizes the annual World Game Protection Conference in Las Vegas.

That's from Liz Benston's chilling article in today's Sun about the shortcomings of casino security on The Strip. And remember, we are still most likely the most visited place on earth with over 37 million visitors per year. And Las Vegas Boulevard is the #1 attraction here. As it's been said many times before, we are such an attractive target for prospective terrorists that we can't afford to ignore this.

The video on top is from last month's infamous Bellagio robbery. Thankfully, no one was injured then... But what could have happened if someone with far more sinister motives had attacked? Or if someone with serious mental issues had just lashed out? Or if the robber had just decided to turn violent? Do we really want to see any of these scenarios approach real life?

But you know what? This scares me a little, but there's something else that scares me even more. I'm thinking about what The New Yorker's George Packer wrote on Sunday. (H/T Blog for Arizona)

[F]or the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. Not just arguing against their opponents, but doing everything possible to turn them into enemies of the country and cast them out beyond the pale. Instead of “soft on defense,” one routinely hears the words “treason” and “traitor.” The President isn't a big-government liberal—he's a socialist who wants to impose tyranny. He's also, according to a minority of Republicans, including elected officials, an impostor. Even the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the 112th Congress was conceived as an assault on the legitimacy of the Democratic Administration and Congress.

This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.) And it has gone almost entirely uncriticized by Republican leaders. Partisan media encourages it, while the mainstream media finds it titillating and airs it, often without comment, so that the gradual effect is to desensitize even people to whom the rhetoric is repellent. We’ve all grown so used to it over the past couple of years that it took the shock of an assassination attempt to show us the ugliness to which our politics has sunk.

Again, I am reminded of what happened last year. A number of Harry Reid and Nevada Democratic events were on The Strip, including the November 2 victory party at Aria. At one point, some "tea party" group was looking to have an election night party there as well.



At some points, it seemed Nevada was precariously close to violent explosion as the Senate campaign was heating up. Even though the vast majority of Nevadans knew better and behaved better, there were always a few on the fringe who lashed out. Have we learned from the bitter campaign of last year and the horrific Arizona tragedy of last week? And are Clark County law enforcement and Strip casinos prepared to fend off someone intent on wreaking violent havoc on Las Vegas?



This morning, we discussed Nevada's lax gun laws and severely insufficient mental health resources. Add cracks in security and increasingly extreme and hateful political rhetoric, and we might have a recipe for disaster.

You know what scares me the most? Maven put her finger on it yesterday.

I’m not going to suggest that such correlations necessarily mean that self-described Tea Party supporters are more violent, or prone to commit or support violent acts against the government. But when there’s enough smoke, reasonable people might be forgiven thinking there is a fire somewhere.

Add to this, the influence of Fox News and similar media outlets, who have undertaken a deliberate campaign of mis-information designed to fan the flames of Tea Party mistrust - because it makes for great ratings, and even greater revenues for them, while their pundits enjoy even brisker book sales and public appearance ticket receipts. It isn’t ideology that drives that train - it’s money. [...]

I’ll tell you what the real tragedy of all this could be. That come a year from now, and nothing has changed. We’ll have ‘moved on’ to the next crisis. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of moving on before having made a good faith and BIPARTISAN attempt to fix what’s wrong.

Even with all the security in the world enveloping The Las Vegas Strip, we may still be in danger... Because of our own hot heads. Again, we must rethink how we do "politics" these days. Without a doubt, there are also issues of gun safety, mental health care, law enforcement, and much more that must be addressed at the local, state, and national levels, all of us "ordinary people" can do something about this... Now.

Steve Sebelius adds much needed sense to the debate raging on cable and on the net.

[N]either Angle nor Palin pulled the trigger on Saturday. Neither Angle nor Palin told Loughner to do what he did.

I wonder if perhaps people such as Angle and Palin — and anybody else who uses the rhetoric of violence in a political context — may want to consider that there are people out there who aren’t quite sane. That these people may interpret that language far more literally than the rest of us, and even act on it, with deadly results. This is especially true in a political and economic environment where desperation is high, reason is scarce and hatred is plentiful.

Following the shooting, the sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, blamed the vitriol in the political arena for the tragedy, saying his state (with its anti-illegal immigration law) had become ground zero for that vitriol. “That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences,” he said.

Indeed, our free speech does have consequences. And while those consequences should never be cause for us to circumscribe our rights, they should at least give us pause before we exercise them. This is America, after all, a democratic republic, where we settle our disputes with ballots, not bullets. Or at least, where we should.

And this is exactly what we must remember.