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?

Like Clockwork

Haven't we seen this before? It's now like clockwork. Every so often, a certain local media pundit declares his disdain for early voting. And whenever that happens, G-O-TEA politicians & media personalities respond with glee... And with legislation to restrict and/or abolish early voting.

Like clockwork, the above mentioned local media pundit went on another tirade against early voting. But this time, national G-O-TEA media personalities became involved. And this time, the local media pundit contracted a case of the sads when he was caught in the middle of Dave Weigel's rebuttal of the G-O-TEA case against early voting.

Whenever the above mentioned local media pundit rails against early voting, he cries, "SLOTH!" And whenever G-O-TEA politicians rail against early voting, they cry, "INTEGRITY!". But in reality, early voting neither encourages "sloth" nor threatens "integrity". Rather, it's simply a way to allow more voters to participate in our ("small d") democratic process.

And that brings us back to Weigel's Slate column... And to Wisconsin State Senator Dale Schultz (R). He voted against his own Republican Party's plan to severely restrict early voting. And he didn't hold back when he explained to a Madison, Wisconsin, radio station why he did so.

It’s just, I think, sad when a political party — my political party — has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics. And again, I’m a guy who understands and appreciates what we should be doing in order to make sure every vote counts, every vote is legitimate. But that fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud. 

The only thing that we do have in this state is we have long lines of people who want to vote. And it seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to make it easier, to help these people get their votes counted. And that we should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future, rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and trying to suppress the vote.

And Dale Schultz is not alone in saying this. In fact, the bipartisan presidential commission that was appointed after the 2012 Election recommended expansion of early voting in order to avert the kinds of long lines and voter dropout that occurred in states like Florida & Ohio, where Republicans had severely cut back early voting opportunities.

And that was no accident. A Republican Florida State Senator had actually declared, "This should not be easy", when he voted to cut early voting. That State Senator, Mike Bennett, is now the Election Supervisor for Manatee County. And ironically enough, he just convinced county supervisors there to slash Election Day voting sites in order to "save money and allow the county to offer more early voting sites in the future".

This is why we have such a hard time accepting G-O-TEA excuses for attacking early voting, even when a certain local media pundit attempts to validate their excuses. There's no "integrity" in eliminating citizens' ability to participate in our democratic system. There's no "virtue" in forcing hardworking Americans to choose between voting and keeping a job &/or taking care of their families. And there's certainly no "value" in deliberately creating long lines on Election Day that discourage people from voting.

At least Assembly Member Pat Hickey (R-Reno) had a moment of honesty last September when he admitted 2014 will be a "great year for Republicans" so long as we don't vote. That's what they're counting on. They're hoping we don't vote. And they're hoping by eliminating our opportunities to vote, we'll give up and simply don't vote.

Like clockwork, G-O-TEA politicians attack our voting rights. And like clockwork, they come up with elaborate excuses as they attempt to cover up their dirty misdeeds. It's just irritating that like clockwork, a certain local media pundit fails to recognize what's really behind their campaign against early voting.

The Wrong Angle

Last month, she reemerged. And she didn't return empty-handed. No, Sharron Angle introduced a voter ID voter suppression initiative. And she definitely succeeded in stirring up a hornet's nest.

But will Angle's initiative actually succeed? That remains in doubt, especially in the wake of two law suits being filed against it.



Both law suits challenge what plaintiffs consider to be an unconstitutional usurpation of power, since it commands the Legislature to enact something that the Legislature itself is supposed to decide. And both suits declare Angle's initiative to be an unfunded mandate (as it has no funding mechanism for its voter ID program), which would also constitute a constitutional violation. The ACLU of Nevada and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights have filed one suit, while a group of private citizens and activists filed the other suit.

We're left to wonder how much thought "Our Lady of Perpetual Campaigning" put into this initiative. We already knew that it targets a nonexistent problem. We also knew that this would instead create problems for thousands of Nevada voters who are simply trying to exercise their legal right to vote. But now, we're discovering another problem with Sharron Angle's "great idea": It may very well violate the very constitution she claims to hold so near & dear to her.

But then again, we are talking about someone who's still claiming nonsensical conspiracy theories as "evidence" that somehow the 2010 NV-Sen election was "stolen" from her. She still refuses to admit that she list that election all on her own. And now, she's demanding an initiative that's unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional as well.

Funny enough, Angle and her Nevada G-O-TEA disciples have been the ones crying about "integrity". Have they ever examined the integrity of their own voter suppression proposal?

Hickey's Honest Hiccup

While most of our attention has been focused on Washington lately, we can't completely ignore recent rumblings from Carson City. One, in particular, is quite disturbing. And of course, it's the one from everyone's favorite Nevada G-O-TEA bomb thrower, Assembly Member Pat Hickey (R-Reno).

In a recent conservative talk radio interview, Assembly Member Hickey experienced some diarrhea of the mouth got candid about Republicans' plan to win the 2014 Election cycle. In short, they're hoping you don't vote.



And there's actually more to it than just that. As ThinkProgress' Ian Millhiser noted, G-O-TEA campaign strategists want to take advantage of the US Supreme Court's recent attack on the Voting Rights Act to make the playing field even more favorable for their side. So get prepared for another onslaught of voter suppression.

While Nevada Republicans haven't been successful in legislating voter suppression, they have so far succeeded in blocking progress on strengthening voting rights in this state. And to make matters worse, Nevada Republicans in Washington haven't said a peep as their G-O-TEA Congressional colleagues are dead-set on killing any chance of Congress fixing the Voting Rights Act. And as long as that isn't addressed, G-O-TEA forces plan to impose state sanctioned voter suppression in several states with Republican controlled governments.

Of course, Pat Hickey is now attempting damage control. Don't pay attention to that. Rather, pay attention to what his party does and doesn't do on voting rights. After all, actions speak louder than words.

And really, Pat Hickey was only saying aloud what G-O-TEA forces have quietly been working on all this time.

Keep Pursuing the Dream.

Fifty years ago, he had a dream. Today, the dream is still here. We've come a long way since then, but there's still far more to do to fulfill it.

That's what we heard today from the official commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , described the dream at the March. And many are continuing the effort to fulfill it now.

Fifty years ago, John Lewis also spoke at the March. Today, Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) noted what's changed in the past half-century. He also reminded everyone of what still needs to change.



Two years after the March, the Voting Rights Act became law. That opened the doors to greater voter participation as "legalized" voter suppression was done away with. But now, voter suppression is on the rise again as Congress has not (yet) fixed what the Supreme Court broke earlier this year.

This is just one example of the many highs and lows we've experienced in the past fifty years. President Obama also spoke today. He highlighted all that's been achieved, but he also mentioned the problems that remain today. Another one has to do with economic inequality.



Even as we've seen progress on legal equality, economic inequality is still very much the norm. However, it doesn't have to be this way. Former President Clinton also spoke today, and he talked about what we can do now to begin fixing it.



We can reinvest in our schools. We can invest in the rest of our public infrastructure. We can give more people the opportunity to work. We can invest in a better future again.

But will we? Will we invest in our people? Will we ensure the fundamental right to vote? Will we demand more and better opportunities? Will we keep pursuing the dream?

For our sake, and for the sake of future generations, we must.

Deliver on the Vow.

Earlier today, the US Supreme Court threatened four decades worth of civil rights advancements by overturning Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and demanding a redo from Congress. And unless and until Congress comes up with a new VRA Section 4, victims of ballot box discrimination will be forced to endure a much more difficult legal process to pursue justice. So is this what we have to endure going forward?

Perhaps not. Already, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) is promising swift action on restoring the full VRA.

"Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has protected minorities of all races from discriminatory practices in voting for nearly 50 years, yet the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the coverage formula effectively guts the ability of Section 5 to protect voters from discriminatory practices. I could not disagree more with this result or the majority's rationale. The Voting Rights Act has been upheld five times by the Supreme Court on prior occasions, and Section 5 was reauthorized and signed into law by a Republican President in 2006 after a thorough and bipartisan process in which Congress overwhelmingly determined that the law was still vital to protecting minority voting rights and that the coverage formula determining the jurisdictions to be covered was still applicable. Several lower court decisions in recent years have found violations of the Voting Rights Act and evidence of intentional discrimination in covered jurisdictions. Despite this sound record, and the weight of history, a narrow majority has decided today to substitute its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress.

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination in voting."

And that's not all. Senator Leahy already has the support of Mr. Majority Leader...

SenatorReid: Congress needs to right the wrong of this #VRA opinion and ensure that we do not turn back the clock on America’s democratic progress.

And that's not all, either. Civil rights hero and current Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) is vowing to press on to restore the VRA.

“These men that voted to strip the Voting Rights Act of its power, they never stood in unmovable lines,” Lewis told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “They never had to pass a so-called literacy test. It took us almost 100 years to get where we are today. So will it take another 100 years to fix it, to change it?” he asked.

Congress voted to renew the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006, each time with increasingly larger margins.

Twenty Republican senators who are still serving in Congress supported re-authorization in 2006 and only 33 members in the House voted against it.“It is going to be very difficult,” to pass legislation in this Congress, Lewis admitted, “but people said the same thing in 1965.” “I think what happened today with the Supreme Court will motivate hundreds and thousands of people, African American, latino, white, Asian American, Native Americans, men, women, students, to come out. The vote is precious.”

And that's not even all! Back in March, even the former Republican House Judiciary Committee Chair vowed to restore the VRA if SCOTUS were to overturn any parts of it. Now, it's time for him to deliver on that vow.

This nation is supposed to provide "liberty and justice for all". Yet how is this even possible if millions of Americans can't even vote? How is this even possible when millions of Americans are constantly threatened by draconian voter suppression laws meant to prevent them from exercising this most basic right? It's time for Congress remember the most basic vow this country makes to its citizens.

How SCOTUS Is Forcing Congress to Save the Voting Rights Act

Over the years, we've looked at attacks on voting rights throughout the nation. We know many Americans still face hardships in even reaching the ballot box. But apparently, the US Supreme Court (majority) is again ignoring reality. In a "party line" 5-4 vote, SCOTUS overturned Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

So why is this important? Southern Poverty Law Center Founder Morris Dees explains.

Section 5 was enacted because Congress concluded that prior anti-discrimination laws were not strong enough to overcome the resistance of state and local officials determined to deny African Americans the ability to exercise the right to vote.  Those officials were concentrated in the South.  All too often, they would play games with the Justice Department, adopting new discriminatory voting schemes as soon as old ones were challenged. Section 5 put an end to the game playing.  It requires jurisdictions with a history of egregious voter discrimination – jurisdictions like Alabama – to submit proposed voting changes to the Justice Department or a federal court for review before the changes can be implemented.

Section 5 does not prohibit voting changes.  It simply provides protections against changes that are discriminatory.  Section 5 does not require covered jurisdictions to forever submit proposed changes to the Justice Department.  Those with a ten-year clean bill of health can avail themselves of the “bailout” provisions and remove themselves from Section 5’s coverage. [...]

The racial polarization in the presidential election was not unusual for my home state.  In the history of voting in Alabama, not a single black candidate has been able to defeat a white incumbent or win an open seat in a statewide race.  In majority white local jurisdictions, black political success is still rare.  Today, for example, not a single black sheriff or probate judge serves in a predominantly white Alabama county.  As a result of the high degree of white racial bloc voting, black office holders in Alabama are confined almost exclusively to minority districts created as a result of lawsuits like the one I filed in 1970 to ensure that black voters are not completely subsumed by majority white districts hostile to their interests.

The fact that voting is racially polarized does not mean that only racists can win elections in Alabama.  My state has seen many progressive white office holders over the years.  But, in a democracy, elected officials tend, over time, to be responsive to the interests of the electorate.  And in the state of Alabama, the electorate is still highly polarized along racial lines.  That polarization distorts the political process in ways that retard the growth of multiracial coalitions and give the majority the ability to dominate the minority. Given Alabama’s racial history and its reality of racially polarized voting today, the potential for electoral game playing still exists.  It’s that potential that Section 5 was designed to address.

In a way, civil rights activists dodged what would have been the deadliest bullet to progress on racial equality. The Court let Section 5 itself stand...

Or did it? After all, Section 5 (pre-clearance of voting laws in identified discriminatory trouble spots) can only be carried out with Section 4. And this is because Section 4 sets up the map of discriminatory trouble spots!

So what happens now? SCOTUS is sending this matter back to Congress. Wait... WHAT?!

Earlier today, the Supreme Court declared Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional. Section 4 is the formula which determines which jurisdictions are subject to “preclearance” under the law, meaning that new voting laws in those jurisdictions must be reviewed by the Justice Department or a federal court before they can take effect. Although today’s opinion ostensibly would permit Congress to revive the preclearance regime by enacting a new formula that complies with today’s decision, that would require a functioning Congress — so the likely impact of today’s decision is that many areas that were unable to enact voter suppression laws under the Voting Rights Act will now be able to put those laws into effect.

That's why many civil rights activists are afraid. Congress will have to write a new Section 4 in order to enforce Section 5. So can Congress do that?

I think you already know the answer. So it's time to start asking Senator Dean Heller and Rep. Joe Heck. And it's time for President Obama and Senator Harry Reid to figure out how to actually make Congress work to save something that's so critical to saving our democracy. After all, how can our democracy function if many of our citizens can't even vote?

Supreme Rebuke

It's that time of the year again! It's June, so the US Supreme Court is handing down rulings. And today, the High Court issued a(nother) surprising rebuke of Arizona's xenophobic anti-immigrant statutes.

In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, an initiative that soon imposed harsh restrictions on voter registration. Since the passage of Prop 200, Arizona counties have rejected over 31,000 voter registration forms due to failure to provide additional "proof of citizenship" (far beyond what federal law already calls for). But today, the US Supreme Court said no more.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004. Arizona officials say their law is needed to stop non-Americans from voting in elections, while opponents see it as an attack on minorities, immigrants and the elderly.

But the high court agreed with the federal government in the case.

So what does this mean? Basically, Arizona violated Article I, Section 4, of the US Constitution by attempting to supersede federal election law. So now, Prop 200 is no more and Arizona (and any other states trying to prevent certain citizens from exercising their legal voting rights) can no longer erect additional barriers to the ballot box.

Prop 200 is one of many examples of Republican/"tea party" efforts to use xenophobia to gain political success. But now that they're experiencing more embarrassing electoral failure in the wake of backlash to this campaign of xenophobia, at least some top Republicans are now backtracking on this... And warning the rest of their party to follow suit.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday told conservatives who are trying to block the measure that they will doom the party and all but guarantee a Democrat will remain in the White House after 2016’s election. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., went a step further and predicted “there’ll never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party” if immigration overhaul fails to pass. [...]

“After eight years of President Obama’s economic policies, and, quite frankly, foreign policy, people are going to be looking around,” Graham said. “But if we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016. We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run.”

In 2012, Obama won re-election with the backing of 71 percent of Hispanic voters and 73 percent of Asian voters. A thwarted immigration overhaul could again send those voting blocs to Democrats’ side. That has led some Republican lawmakers to support immigration reform, but the party’s conservative base still opposes any legislation that would create a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living here illegally.

Democrats are well aware of the numbers. “I would tell my Republican colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, that the road to the White House comes through a road with a pathway to legalization,” Menendez said. “Without it, there’ll never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party.”

Ouch. That's harsh. But on the other hand, that's likely so true.

After all, this is why these top Republicans are now calling on their party to embrace comprehensive immigration reform. However, they still face epic resistance from the base of their own party. And as long as the 21st Century Know Nothings continue to resist reform, Republicans will continue to face electoral trouble ahead.

So not only is the US Supreme Court rebuking this toxic "TEA" of xenophobia, but so are a growing number of voters. So when will Republicans finally be ablebto quit it once and for all?

Sandoval Threatens Veto of AB 440/AB 441 Election Reform

As we've discussed many times here before, this session of the Nevada Legislature has been quite action packed. We've seen many successes... And we've seen some failures. But without a doubt, Session #77 looks to be going down as a very memorable one.

Early last month, Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) joined forces with Assembly Member James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor) to introduce AB 440 and AB 441. Both revolutionize voting in Nevada by extending the registration deadline and bringing early voting style election centers to general election day. Last month, we saw compelling testimony for AB 440 and AB 441.





But of course, Governor Brian Sandoval (R-"TEA" Curious) isn't interested in that. Here's what PLAN tweeted earlier today on the Governor's newest veto threat.



While the Nevada State Democratic Party didn't have a colorful meme in response, Chair Roberta Lange had this to say.

“Today Governor Sandoval joined right-wing Republican Governors across the county in their blatantly political efforts to restrict voting rights. Nevada has one of the most restrictive voter registration deadlines in the county, yet Governor Sandoval thinks this arbitrary deadline that keeps thousands of Nevadans from voting is acceptable. Sandoval's announcement that he will veto this bill is only the latest sign that Republicans recognize their pro-Wall Street, anti-middle class agenda is out of touch with Nevada voters, and that the only way they can win at the ballot box is to prevent as many people from voting as possible.”

But ultimately, this isn't about partisan sniping. This is about empowering people to exercise their legal right to vote. Why should people be denied a chance to participate in the democratic process? Is it truly fair and appropriate for the state to deny people a chance to participate because they want to register in mid or late October?

Again, this isn't about partisan politicking... Or at least, it shouldn't be. Apparently, Governor Sandoval feels otherwise. And numerous eligible Nevada voters may ultimately suffer because of this.

Food for Thought on AB 440/SDR

So today's been the big day. AB 440 & AB 441 faced a big hearing in the Assembly Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. AB 440 calls for same day voter registration (SDR), and AB 441 establishes election day vote centers.

There's been plenty of testimony today. Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) and Assembly Member James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor) began by explaining their legislation. And then, Clark County Election Department Chief Larry Lomax spoke. Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) specifically asked him about the great, nonexistent "voter fraud crisis". Here's Lomax's response.



Following him was PLAN's Howard Watts. He explained the real voter problem here, which is that far too many voters are disenfranchised.






Those sentiments were echoed quite cogently by the Nevada State Education Association's Gary Peck.



And local progressive super-volunteer and voter registration maven Teresa Crawford shared her personal experience. Yes, otherwise legitimate voters couldn't exercise their right to participate in our democracy. Why? They missed the arbitrary deadline.





Earlier in the hearing, Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) stated, "If a single person [who could legally vote] hasn't had a chance to vote, then we haven't done our job." That's the problem right now. People who can otherwise legally vote can't because they just couldn't make an arbitary deadline set up by the government.

And funny enough, another Assembly Member has personal experience with this proposed solution. When Elliot Anderson (D-Winchester) lived in Wisconsin, he personally took advantage of that state's SDR law. Why? He found out about a local election at the last minute. And let's face it, many in this state don't even realize approaching state & federal general elections until the last minute!

And let's face it, most people's lives are hectic. They don't pay as close attention to politics and elections as we do. I've personally run into family & friends who couldn't vote... Just because they missed the registration deadline.

These people are not out to commit fraud. They're not interested in any kind of nefarious electioneering. They just want to cast their legal right to vote. So why are we stopping them with the current arbitrary deadline?

Think about it.

The Next Big Election Reform Bills

As mentioned earlier, this has been an incredibly busy session of the Nevada Legislature... And we're only halfway through! One fascinating development this session has been Secretary of State Ross Miller's push for election reform. He's been championing SB 63 to create electronic poll books and streamline the process. And in arguing for this, Miller has suggested this will open the door to another major reform.

And now, that other major reform is in play. AB 440 calls for expanded (including same-day) voter registration, and AB 441 sets up election day vote centers not unlike what already happens during early voting. Ross Miller has teamed up with Assembly Member James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor) to offer these bills. If passed, and especially if passed alongside SB 63, these bills will revolutionize our election system in Nevada.

Miles Rapoport is a former Connecticut Secretary of State, and he's now President of the nonpartisan public policy think tank Demos. Here's what he's had to say about same day registration in his state.

Maine, New Hampshire and seven other states allow citizens to register and vote, or update their existing registrations, on Election Day or during early voting periods. Year after year, these Same Day Registration states lead the nation in voter turnout. As a group, they have boasted average voting rates that are 10 to 12 percentage points higher than non-SDR states. Voter turnout was seven points higher in SDR states than non-SDR states in the 2008 presidential election. When offered the opportunity, voters use Same Day Registration. They will also fight to keep it. Last November, Maine citizens overwhelmingly voted to restore SDR in a so-called "People's Veto" of a Same Day Registration repeal bill that the Maine legislature had passed earlier in the year.

Same Day Registration just makes sense in our highly mobile society, where over 35 million people changed residences in 2011. Many of these individuals learned on Election Day that they could not vote a ballot that would count because they were not properly registered at their new addresses. Our voter registrations don't follow us when we move. Many other eligible voters are just too distracted by the daily demands of work and family to register to vote before the deadline passes.

[... T]he SDR bill, offers a simple solution to these common problems. Just drop by your local registrar's office on Election Day, fill out a voter registration application or update your existing voter registration, show proof of residency, and vote.

It's important to note that Same Day Registration holds special benefit for young people, lower-income voters and voters of color -- segments of the electorate with higher rates of geographic mobility. It's no coincidence that their registration rates lag behind others. Experts predict greater voter turnout increases for these citizens with Same Day Registration.

Other states have already been doing this. And California is next to implement it. Demos has even more 411 on SDR.

[... W]hile many elected officials in states across the country have focused on passing laws that would disenfranchise millions of people and do nothing to improve the voting process--like restrictive voter identification laws--they have neglected to address the most important issues of our democratic access. Our antiquated voter registration rolls are inefficient, inaccurate, and an obstacle to voting for tens of millions of eligible U.S. citizens.

The [February 2012] Pew report finds that 51 million U.S. citizens of voting age--a quarter of the eligible population--are not registered to vote. That means that there is a huge population that is not even able to get to the ballot box. Moreover, millions of people show up at the polls to find they are not on the registration list because of simple flaws in the system.

The report concludes that these problems demonstrate the need for comprehensive voter registration modernization.

The first and most important step that states should take in this regard is to enact Same Day Registration. Analyses have consistently shown that SDR is a measure that increases voter participation dramatically and, importantly, allows people to fix registration problems at the polls on Election Day. States with SDR have had higher voter turnout than those without SDR for over 25 years. Data shows an average voter turnout 7 percentage points higher than the average turnout for non-SDR states in November 2008. The top five states in terms of voter turnout were all SDR states.

We've all seen this. We've seen people who wanted to vote, but couldn't because they missed the deadline. And even some who did register before the deadline still didn't vote because they didn't know where to vote.

How is anyone helped by preventing otherwise legal voters from casting ballots? How does any of us benefit from excluding these people from our democratic process? Think about it.

SDR is more efficient. It may ultimately be quite cost effective. And perhaps most important, this gives more legal citizens the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

So why not just do it already?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

If not, then pay attention to this.



That's what's really at stake here.

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

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

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

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

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'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.

All Shook Up

Last night, Jon Ralston had State Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas) and State Senator Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas) on his show to discuss yesterday's startling turn of events. Believe it or not, we've seen even more twists and turns in the past 18 hours.

(Skip to 19:30 to start the Denis/Kihuen segment.)



Just as I had expected earlier, someone else is quickly jumping on this bandwagon. All of a sudden, State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) also wants "driver's privilege cards" for undocumented immigrants. And he may even introduce his own bill for it!

On Tuesday, Roberson voiced strong support for a Utah-style driver’s privilege card for undocumented immigrants, adding that the Republican caucus may come out with its own proposal soon.

“A lot of immigrants in Nevada are on the roads now, whether it’s to get back and forth to school or get children back and forth to school or to go to work,” Roberson said. “The fact that these immigrants may be driving without a license or card and without insurance, I think we can do better than that as a state.”

So there's now bipartisan consensus here. So is all well? Not for Nevada Republicans. Chuck Muth eviscerated Roberson (again) on his blog last weekend for "Hispandering" (nice one, Chuckie) already, so he probably isn't liking this. And so far, other top Republicans in Carson City may be more inclined to side with Muth.

Sen. Don Gustavson, R-Reno, one of the Legislature’s most conservative Republicans, was dismayed by the idea of granting driving privileges to undocumented immigrants.

“I would not be supportive just letting people come in the country illegally and giving them a driver’s license. No!” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to allow them to come in the country illegally then give permission to drive legally.”

As we had discussed yesterday, the "tea party" base of the Republican Party has no interest in moderation. Hell, Chuck Muth is now vitriolically referring to it as "Hispandering"! And the likes of Don Gustavson and Pat Hickey seem eager to fight Roberson on this.

And speaking of Hickey, he stirred the pot some more yesterday by continuing his false equivalency argument for voter ID. As Mo Denis said above, there is a huge difference between utilizing resources to solve a serious problem (uninsured and unlicensed drivers on the road) and spending money to "solve" a nonexistent problem (as in the great "VOTER FRAUD!!!" hoax). But shortly after saying this, Denis announced something that probably won't sound like music to Ross Miller's ears. So now, both incoming Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) and incoming State Senate Majority Mo Denis have announced opposition to Ross Miller's election reform bill!

While Republicans are split over tackling legal status for immigrant drivers, Democrats are now split over election reform. And thanks to Pat Hickey stirring the pit, both issues are starting to look like a tangled mess. At least Denis and Roberson won't need Assembly Republican votes to pass some sort of legislation clearing the way for some sort of driver's licenses for immigrant drivers. However, Ross Miller will definitely need more Democratic support to pass his election reform legislation. And so far, top Democrats just don't see the need for it... And Republican meddling may very well be harming Miller's chances of coalescing Democratic support for it.

So far, the Nevada Legislature is looking increasingly "all shook up"... And it isn't even in session yet!