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.

What Happened at Ross Miller's Symposium

So Ross Miller has been making headlines again this week. And his election reform bill now has a number: SB 63. Yesterday, he held a symposium to discuss SB 63 and the larger topic of election reform at UNLV. Robert Lang moderated, and among the other panelists were Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D), Las Vegas political consultant Andres Ramirez, and NYU Law School's Brennan Center's Lee Rowland.



The symposium started off pretty level-headed. Dr. Lang asked Ross Miller for more details on SB 63.





And Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie had a chance to explain why he's been pushing something very similar in his own state.



The Brennan Center's Lee Rowland also had a chance to explain the need for change to the election system.



But after opening statements and questions from Lang, questions came from the floor. Initially, there was a wonky discussion on how SB 63 opens up the real possibility of secure same-day voter registration.



But sadly, that didn't last long. Instead, a few "tea party" speakers saw the opportunity to hijack the discussion and spew out crazy Sharron Angle approved conspiracy theories on nonexistent "VOTER FRAUD!!!".





And herein lies the reason why SB 63 is facing such epic hurdles in Carson City. Even as Ross Miller may be seeking genuine policy solutions to the shortcomings of Nevada's election system, the Legislature is mired in a political brouhaha fueled by these very inaccurate conspiracy theories. G-O-TEA politicians have been pursuing voter suppression measures in order to please their "tea party" base and prevent likely Democratic voters from casting ballots.

What makes this worse is the budget brawl that's likely to consume Carson City this spring. As we discussed earlier this week, Democratic Legislature leaders may be aiming to prevent their Republican counterparts from scoring any kind of "leverage" that they can use to force further budget cuts and/or conservative policy "wet dreams". Unfortunately for Ross Miller, SB 63 may very well land into the crossfire of Carson City's budget war.





Last month, we looked into the "Election Geek Jiu-jitsu" behind what we can now call SB 63.

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?

The key problem that Miller faces is that hardly anyone else in Carson City sees what he sees. Miller looks at SB 63 and sees a unique opportunity to revolutionize the election system. However, teabaggers just look at SB 63 and see a lack of robust voter suppression. And Republican Legislature leaders probably just notice SB 63 and see a chance to gain "leverage" in budget negotiations. And Democratic Legislature leaders still gaze at SB 63 and see an unnecessary distraction that can possibly metastasize into a horrendous way to derail a sensible budget deal while simultaneously causing more election problems in the future by disenfranchising legal voters.

This is why SB 63 faces some daunting hurdles in Carson City this spring. Can Ross Miller somehow overcome them? That remains an open question. How well does jiu-jitsu work in a land dominated by archaic fist fights?

Double-edged Sword? Underappreciated Jiu-jitsu? (Or Both?)

Early last month, we examined Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller's election reform bill. And we specifically looked deeper into the University of Minnesota's Doug Chapin's suggestion that Miller is engaging in some very clever "election geek jiu-jitsu" by cloaking his plan to modernize Nevada's election system in the cover of "addressing voter ID concerns".

Yesterday, we saw this dynamic in play in Reno when Miller pitched his bill to the Reno Republican Men's Club. Interestingly enough, the crowd there seemed to be digging it. But of course, there's a catch.

The group proved responsive to Miller’s proposal, with Washoe County District Attorney Dick Gammick telling the crowd at the Atlantis resort that “it’s about time Nevada gets a voter ID law.”

Gammick was cheered by members of Reno’s Republican Men’s Club after his comment.

Yet, the scene suggested it may be more difficult for Miller, a Democrat, to get his own party’s support. [...]

Miller also told the crowd that Democratic opposition to his bill is founded on “misinformation.”

“There are member of the Democratic party who are conditioned to think that it (voter ID system) means that there is an effort to suppress the vote or that this will result in individuals being disenfranchised.”

This has been Miller's problem all along. Early reports of Miller's bill sounded so good to conservatives wanting to hear "voter ID" that it scared the living daylights out of progressives hearing "voter suppression".

Yesterday, Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) reiterated his support for the bill... But did so in a way that can hurt Miller politically. He again tried to tie this to proposed legislation to allow for some sort of driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, probably in hopes of sparking more anger on matters of immigration. And like the other Reno Republican men mentioned above, Hickey couched his support in terms of implementing "voter ID". So while Hickey's endorsement of Miller's bill may help boost Republican support for the bill, it also looks like Hickey is going out of his way to "help" Miller bleed Democratic support for election reform.

And there may be yet another dynamic at play here, one that I wasn't completely considering until I read between the lines here.

It could cost Nevada up to $10 million to implement the system. [Senate Majority Leader Mo] Denis [D-North Las Vegas] contents that would be a waste of tax money when there is no evidence that Nevada’s current system is prone to voter fraud.

“Part of this is on voter fraud, supposedly trying to fix the problem,” Denis said. “But we don’t really have any documented evidence that there is a problem. So when it comes to funding an issue, when we also have education and economic issues…that is not going to be a priority for us.”

Are at least some Republicans also chomping at the bit to pass Ross Miller's election reform bill in hopes of offsetting the costs of implementation with budget cuts elsewhere? May this be the true reason why Mo Denis and Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) are just hoping to quietly kill this bill in committee? Would they rather deny Republicans even the slightest chance of (mis)using this as "leverage" to extract budget cuts and/or another conservative policy priority?

Already, it looks like there are some high-stakes political games happening behind the scene in Carson City while Ross Miller tries to gin up bipartisan support for his bill. At the same time, Ross Miller is trying hard to score an important policy win on election reform that may lead to dramatic results if passed and properly implemented. Perhaps Miller is also looking to score a key political win before officially announcing his poorly kept secret of a 2014 Attorney General campaign.

So there are already many intriguing layers to this fight for election reform in the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature. It just remains to be seen if this bill falls prey to #NVLeg power plays and "leverage" grabs... Or if Ross Miller can yet find a way to thread the needle and outfox all the "leaders" in Carson City.

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.

Rory Be Gone? Get to the Root of It

"The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil"- 1 Timothy 6:10, Bible

It's saddening to see this...

In one of the most brazen schemes in Nevada history, gubernatorial candidate Rory Reid’s campaign formed 91 shell political action committees that were used to funnel three quarters of a million dollars into his campaign, circumventing contribution limits and violating at least the spirit – and maybe the letter – of the laws governing elections.

Reid, who was fully aware of what was done, essentially received more than $750,000 from one PAC – 75 times the legal limit -- after his team created dozens of smaller PACS that had no other purpose other than to serve as conduits from a larger entity that the candidate funded by asking large donors for money. Indeed, the shell PACs were formed in the fall and dissolved on Dec. 31, after they had served their short-term function, which was to help the candidate evade campaign contribution laws.

Reid solicited donations for the Economic Leadership PAC, which raised more than $800,000 over a five-month period – donations that were then disbursed in $10,000 increments to dozens of other PACS, which quickly funneled the money back to the candidate’s campaign account.

But why would any of us really be surprised? This is the system we have, and the politicians who raise the most corporate money are rewarded.

Already, we are hearing of "OUTRAGE!!!" over this... But this is merely the symptom. Hardly anyone in Carson City wants to talk about the disease.

Hmmm... I wonder why?

Nevada’s campaign finance laws are written to favor incumbents and the special interests that fund them — and that won’t change any time soon.

Let’s say a candidate is weighing a run against an incumbent and wants to know how much money the office-holder has. That’s nearly impossible because candidates for office aren’t required to report money in the bank.

Perhaps a constituent wants to see who is funding a candidate’s campaign before deciding how to vote. Even getting that basic information can prove tricky. Many reports are written by hand and are suspiciously hard to read.

The reports also can’t be searched electronically, making it difficult to track an individual donor’s contributions.

Critics also take issue with the schedule for releasing candidates’ contribution and expense reports.

For years, Ross Miller has lobbied The Legislature to reform our horribly antiquated Nevada campaign finance laws to make them more transparent. But for some reason, it keeps getting killed.

Hmmm... I wonder why?

Maybe instead of screaming about the symptoms, we should look at the disease.

And what might be the disease, you ask? Go back to the top of this diary.

Must we really keep asking what the problem is? It's all the corporate money flooding our system, buying and selling candidates to the highest bidder, and silencing all those who can't afford to bribe their way into power. We are now seeing this on the national level with the Koch family and their fellow "Tea Party, Inc." comrades in bloated checkbooks trying to buy wholesale control of our entire government, but it seems Nevada has been plagued by this kind of manipulation for even longer.

[Now Senator] Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said campaign finance reform is unlikely without constituent pressure.

“The only way it’s going to happen is if the public demands it,” she said. “The people who benefit the most from loose campaign finance rules are those in elected office.”

The ultimate solution to the state’s transparency problems, Leslie said, is public financing of campaigns.

“If you take the money out, you’ll get a lot more qualified people to run for office,” she said. “You’ll take away the power of special interests, who will not have as much influence.”

Sheila Leslie is right. And so is Bill Moyers. So who else is listening?

Instead of whining about the symptoms, we need to take on the disease. In the near term, it helps to have a better idea of who is donating to whom. And in the long term, we need to make people understand that the only way to clean the system is to clean the money supply.

So before I hear anyone else screaming about what Rory Reid did or didn't do, or whatever new campaign money scandal soon emerges, I want to hear real solutions. Like Clean Money. Seriously, it's time to put up or shut up.

Leg Watch: Sex, Lies, & Corporate Cash

Oh goody, Ralston is back... And he hits hard on the new "scandal" everyone in Carson City is talking about.

I have been ruminating on what the proper reaction is to Steven Horsford’s “Money for Something and Your Access Ain’t Free” fundraising pitch. Or what the proper reaction to the reaction might be. [...]

What Horsford did was crass, heavy-handed and arrogant. But it takes a spectacular naiveté or a willful ignorance — and there is much more of the latter than the former in much of the reaction — not to realize this is just par for a course where membership is reserved only for a closed circle and where the entry fee for influence is often too rich for almost anyone without a Las Vegas Boulevard South address.

Of course, Ralston is talking about State Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford (D) sending out a ridiculous letter recently promising special meals with him for big contributions. He even promised meals and extra "quality time" with Committee Chairs, apparently without even asking them if they wanted to do this!

It was pathetic. It was lame. It was dirty... And oh boy, it was clumsy!

So what exactly were the Republicans criticizing?

I smiled when I read of state Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio tut-tutting about Horsford’s solicitation, suggesting his counterpart had been intimidating lobbyists not to contribute to Republicans during the campaign season. This is laugh-out-loud funny, folks.

Raggio is the anti-Horsford, but not in the way he implied. When he was majority leader, Raggio was anything but blunt. A master of finesse, he knew how to inspire fear with a carefully chosen word or two, or perhaps by using someone else to send a message.

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t suggest Raggio ever did anything unethical. But when a consummate insider, a man who served on gaming and managed care boards while being the most powerful legislator in the state for decades, expresses disdain for Horsford’s blunt instrument, I figured he must be muttering, “That young man needs to learn a little subtlety.”

Even better, state GOP Chairman Mark Amodei’s sense of outrage was comically outrageous. “We never operated that way when we were in the majority,” Amodei told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Probably no laws were broken, but it sends a bad sign about the whole process. You need to raise money, but you don’t do that.”

This from the man who, while a state senator, auditioned for a job as the mining association’s top lobbyist and formed a political action committee with business interests he regulated. A sense of irony is always helpful, Mr. Chairman.

So Raggio and Amodei bash Horsford over his clumsy letter and want us to forget everything they did when in the majority? Seriously? And they want us to ignore their newest scandal involving their "Star Senator" Barbara Cegavske?

And if anyone is truly serious in uprooting Carson City corruption, why not discuss possible solutions? Solutions like clean money campaigning?



It's already being implemented in several states, and the results so far have been clear. If we really want to solve this problem, let's get to the root of it.

So what's the real root of this problem? It's MONEY, as in the corporate money that buys access in Carson City. Take the big corporate money out, and none of this has to happen any more For many decades now, it's been standard operating practice that the "big bid'nis'eez" with the best connected lobbyists, best parties, and biggest campaign contributions get the most access in state government. If we really want to do something about this problem, let's get to the source of it by ridding our election system of all this corporate corruption.

So when will we ever get a serious discussion on clean money campaigns and serious election reform? When will we demand that our elected officials listen to us instead of the big corporate powers that be?