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.
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?
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
In case you were wondering what all the hubbub at Mandalay Bay has been about, it's because the National Council of La Raza (the largest Latin@ civil rights group in the nation) has been in in town since last weekend. And today, they will be receiving a very special guest with a very important message.
“Mitt Romney wants you to show your papers,” [Vice President Joe] Biden plans to say, according to prepared remarks. “But he won’t show us his.” [...]
Biden also plans to tell the Hispanic civil rights advocates gathered that the election is a battle between those who want Hispanics to be a part of America and those who want to keep them at a distance.
“There are voices among us who fear your inclusion. This is not new,” Biden says in the remarks. “There have always been fights between the voices of inclusion and the voices of exclusion.”
It’s clear from the speech which side Biden thinks Romney’s on.
"Imagine what the Supreme Court will look like after four years of Governor Romney. Imagine what it will act like. Imagine what it will mean for civil rights, voting rights, and so much we have fought so hard for. Imagine a Justice Department that supports, rather than challenges, continued efforts to suppress the right to vote. Because that’s what will happen if they win."
This is the two pronged argument we discussed back in April. It's bad enough that Mitt Romney wants to end Medicare as we know it, slash Pell Grants and other college financial aid to death, and do even more to destroy the social safety net that's helped build and protect America's middle class. It's even worse that Romney has embraced ugly xenophobia and used it to further his political career.
After all, this just happened earlier this year!
And as we discussed yesterday, this is why Republicans are especially in trouble here in Nevada. Our population isn't just growing, but it's also transforming. We're becoming a more diverse state, especially as Latino and Asian-American communities are fueling the growth here.
So if you're wondering why Joe Biden is here in Vegas today, now you know.
Probably one of the biggest disappointments for me in 2009 was the stinging marriage loss in Maine just one year after Prop H8 stole fundamental civil rights away from LGBTQ Californians. Conversely, the biggest victories for me were the comprehensive DP wins here in Nevada and up north in Washington State. So as I reflect on all that's been queer in 2009, I want to go back to something I wrote just before the November election on why marriage matters.
...
OK, so the Yes on H8/Yes on 1 anti-equality forces are now saying they "don't oppose civil rights". Uh-huh. So they just want "equality by another name"?
OK, so let's assume some of these Yes on 1 folks are serious about "changing" Maine's domestic partnership law to look more like Nevada's. I did my homework on SB 283, the domestic partner law that's now being practiced here in The Silver State. I did my homework and I know what's in the bill and what isn't. Let me give you the gist of SB 283.
[State Senator and SB 283 author] David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. [...]
But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.
And even worse, comprehensive DPs and civil unions are not even treated equally when it comes to state law. That was the experience in Vermont until marriage equality was legalized there. That's what New Jersey is dealing with in regards to their civil unions. That's what California, Oregon, and Nevada are now facing with DPs. No matter how well intentioned the "separate but equal laws" are, separate is simply never equal.
Marriage equality is important because it gives LGBT families the same equal rights and responsibilities under the law as straight families. And even more so, civil marriage equality gives our families the same respect and dignity they deserve.
In Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill in May granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples. That same month conservative interests announced they would attempt to overturn the new law and enough signatures were collected enough to place R-71 on the November ballot.
Gay rights supporters were not ready to declare victory Tuesday night.
"We are hopeful, but we are not stupid. We know better than to think we've got this in the can," said said Jody Lane of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They may be recounting 'til January, for God's sake."
Before the first batch of results came in at 8:15 p.m., supporters laughed as a clip of Stephen Colbert jokingly endorsing Washington's domestic partnership law played on a projector at the Pravda Studios party.
With a bigger crowd by 9:05 p.m., they were still having fun -- but no one was celebrating. "We are really very guardedly optimistic, remembering that a very very large percentage of King County ballots have not been counted," campaign manager Josh Friedes told the crowd.
So far, so good. Washington is on the right path... And here's why it's so important and why we should care about it.
First, the opposition made this about "gay marriage" even though people were actually voting on DPs. They called themselves "Protect Marriage Washington" and warned about how approving R-71 would "put Washington on the path to let teh gayz merry!" Ironically, this proxy war over marriage equality will encourage pro-equality activists to one day go for full civil marriage equality in Washington.
Secondly if the anti-equality forces couldn't muster an off-year election in Washington, what makes them think they can pull a win in Nevada next year with Harry Reid, Rory Reid, and a number of other high-profile races on the ballot? Nevada Democrats have now proven to have a superior turn-out machine than the Republicans, so I doubt voters in a regular general election will be in the appetite to hate on LGBT families just for the sake of hating on them.
And finally, this is truly historic. Again, R-71 in Washington is the first time EVER that voters in any state approved legal relationship recognition. And again, if they can't win in an off-year election like this it gives me hope that 2010 and 2012 won't be so scary for us after all.
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.
Obviously, I was taken aback when I first learned of Ross Miller's proposed voter ID bill. Why would someone of his stature lend credence to nonsensical conspiracy theories and frightening efforts to prevent legal voters from casting their ballots? What. The. F**k?!
So perhaps I overreacted. Fortunately, Mr. Secretary of State was courteous enough to explain what he's proposing... Via Twitter.
@atdleft @LauraKMM this doesn't require an ID card to vote - we'd input photos from DMV into poll book & take photo for those lacking an ID
@atdleft @LauraKMM correct, no fee or requirement to bring an ID to polls; if you have a DMV photo we'd use that, otherwise we'll take photo
The gist is election judges would have photos of the voters right there in the poll books (the books the election judges have in front of them with voters' addresses and a place for their signature), which should satisfy advocates of photo ID, and they should appreciate that this eliminates one of the objections of those of us opposing photo ID requirements, namely that photo IDs can be forged (I sometimes wonder that advocates seem to have never heard of fake IDs). It also eliminates the argument that a current technology is getting enshrined in the constitution, assuming, that is, that electronic poll books aren't just added to the amendment bill.
Setting this up is still an unnecessary cost since it accomplishes nothing. I can also imagine the delays, especially the first time, as voters without photos have to have them taken and election judges struggle with unfamiliar equipment with the predictable technical issues. If the poll books connect to a central database, and it goes down on election day, well, every computer person reading this just shuddered. However, since the voter doesn't have to acquire a photo ID regardless of their ability to do so, it gets rid of the disenfranchisement argument. This assumes the rules for voter ID remain as they are, namely that non-photo ID remains acceptable for registering. Such being the case, I could live with the rest. Yes, it still seems unfair and pointless to make people without photo IDs go through the delay of getting their photo taken, at least when lines are long and there are equipment or operator problems (if this is set up and you need a photo taken, go vote in the primary for local elections or special elections --- no lines), but at least they won't be told they can't vote.
Seconded. This would still lead to longer waits at the polls if implemented. And as I mentioned earlier, there's still the $7-10 million price tag to consider. Frankly, I'd still rather fund road maintenance than this.
However, the intent of this clearly is NOT voter suppression. There is no poll tax involved. And no one will be turned away for lack of a driver's license. If we must have some kind of voter ID law, this is a proposal that progressives and civil rights advocates can live with.
I apologize for jumping the gun on this. Now that I better understand what Ross Miller is proposing, I can clearly see his voter ID proposal is nothing like the tea party's. Again, no voter suppression is involved.
Still, I am concerned about the "tea party" alternative to this. At the very least, this likely means we will see a fight over voting rights during the next session of the Nevada Legislature. And civil rights activists will have to keep their eyes out for what comes next. Fortunately, they can at least breathe easier about Ross Miller's bill.
The Senate on Wednesday turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states as well.
A group comprising mostly Republicans, along with some influential Democrats, had tried to attach the gun amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, a must-pass piece of legislation. But the provision got only 58 votes, two short of the 6o votes needed for passage under Senate rules.
Two Republicans, Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio, joined with 37 Democrats to reject the amendment, which was bitterly opposed by a number of big-city mayors, including Michael R. Bloomberg of New York. “Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment. The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement.
The provision was pushed by Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, but was co-sponsored by several Democrats from states where gun rights are broadly supported, like Montana, where Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester both favored it. The Senate’s majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada — who is up for re-election in 2010 — also supported the amendment. [...]
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and generally a supporter of gun rights, said she opposed Mr. Thune’s amendment because it infringed on states and cities. “The Thune amendment would invite chaos in our cities,” she said. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, as well as Mr. Schumer, also took the floor with speeches railing against the amendment.
Sorry, but why should people from one state ignore the laws of the other state on something as important as a gun permit? California cities, like Los Angeles and San Diego, are facing major gang violence headaches thanks to the ease of these criminal groups to purchase weapons here in Nevada and in Arizona, then carry them across state lines. And for that matter, any other violent nutcase can now get whatever assault weapons he/she wants here and take them to states like California that otherwise have stricter gun laws. And now we want to make it easier to ignore the provisions in state laws (like California's) that ensures concealed weapon permits don't fall into the wrong hands?
I've lately been pleasantly surprised by Harry Reid, but I guess it's back to the usual disappointment today. Who is he to tell states like California and New York not to do what they can to keep residents safe? Maybe most Nevadans don't mind the lax gun laws here, but that doesn't mean we should be imposing our standards on other states.
And really, Republicans like John Thune that pushed this nonsense are hypocrites. Don't they talk about "states' rights" all the time? Yet when states want to do something like allow marriage equality, legalize marijuana, or enact better gun safety laws, all of a sudden they have no rights in the GOP's eyes. So I guess "states' rights" only matter to them when certain states want more conservative policies?
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?
Earlier today, we were discussing the treacherous future of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in Congress. Unfortunately, our worst fears are finally coming to full fruition. House G-O-TEA "leaders" are now going all in on their plot to kill the bill.
At the Capitol, House Speaker John Boehner stated a specific policy preference Tuesday that will alienate the entire Democratic Party if he adheres to it, and thus doom the reform effort. And elsewhere in the Beltway, influential conservatives have grown more confident and explicit about abandoning the immigration issue, for at least a couple of years.
Taken together, it means that enacting new immigration legislation will either require Democrats to cave on a key demand, or require Boehner to abandon his preference and break his word to his conference that he won’t move ahead without a majority of his members in support.
“It’s clear from everything that I’ve seen and read over the last couple of weeks that the American people expect that we’ll have strong border security in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system,” Boehner said outside the Capitol Monday afternoon. His spokesman Michael Steel explains that the statement is consistent with Boehner’s “long-standing emphasis on border security.
”But it amounts to a de facto endorsement of the conservative view that any steps to legalize existing immigrants should be contingent upon implementation of draconian border policies. As is Boehner’s custom, it also eschews the word “citizenship,” suggesting that even if Democrats agree to a trigger, he won’t guarantee that it would be aimed at a full amnesty program, and, thus, eventual voting rights for immigrants already in the U.S.
So this is what it's come to. Because House Republicans are so afraid of their 21st Century Know Nothing base, they don't want to pass any real CIR legislation. Yet because at least some of them also recognize the political risk of killing CIR, they're now trying to blame someone else for their own politically craven act(s).
This is why G-O-TEA "leaders" have been grasping at straws and blaming everything from Benghazi to the IRS to terrorism to LGBTQ civil rights to health care reform for their own decision to kill immigration reform. Funny enough, these are the same people who always lecture everyone else on "personal responsibility". Why won't they take their own advice?
Heck wasn’t just pandering to his conservative audience; he had said something similar last year when he addressed the Hispanics in Politics group in Las Vegas. The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to black slaves. The high court has subsequently ruled that the amendment confers citizenship on all children born on American soil, no matter the legal status of their parents. “We’re one of the only industrialized counties that grants birthright citizenship,” Heck added after the Republican meeting.
Hispanic leaders say it’s hard to reconcile Heck’s claim to be open to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants with his willingness to question the widely held interpretation of the citizenship clause. That’s turf typically tread only by Republican hard-liners such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa and former Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Heck also rattled the Hispanic community when he voted for King’s amendment earlier this month cutting funding to Obama’s popular policy to halt deportations of illegal immigrants brought here as children. The national Democratic Party responded with a scathing Spanish-language radio ad against nine vulnerable Republicans, including Heck, who defended the vote as a repudiation of the president for sidestepping Congress with an executive order. But the vote feels personal, not political, to some of Heck’s supporters.
Their preferred policies are incredibly toxic, and so are their politics. And now, House Republicans are going for this political Hail Mary of a blame game in hopes of making their own hot mess of killing reform magically go away. Do they really think we're all that stupid?
Rural lawmakers expressed dismay Tuesday with the latest redistricting maps that would add a big chunk of northern Clark County to the rural state Senate District 19.
While Washoe County would likely be represented by four state senators, the same number it currently has, rural Nevada would go from three representatives to two if not one.
“It dilutes the ‘cow counties,’ ” said Assembly Minority Leader Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka. (He’s a rancher, and therefore allowed to use the sometimes-pejorative vernacular for the state’s less-populated counties.)
“The rurals are entitled to be represented like any other minority.”
Huh? When did the Voting Rights Act ever elevate "population minorities" to the same legally protected status as racial minorities? Is Goicoechea really trying to claim that rural Nevada is "discriminated against" when it has the most subsidized government services of any of us? I dare Pete Goicoechea to go to West Las Vegas and talk with the residents who remember the "Mississippi of the West" days, when no African-Americans were allowed to even step in the front door of any Strip casinos! And I dare him to go to East Las Vegas and talk with the residents who are still enduring the anti-Latin@ xenophobia that his party's US Senate candidate tried to tap into to win last year.
[Face palm]
Eureka County objected to the Senate maps. Former Elko Assemblyman John Carpenter, who served 24 years in the Legislature, also lodged the same complaint, saying Elko County would also include parts of Clark County including west of North Las Vegas and Mount Charleston.
Carpenter said, “My greatest fear is that someday the northern rural counties, the cow counties, would be represented by a senator from Southern Nevada.”
Oh, lordy. Oh yes, it's such an "injustice" to lump Elko and Ely into the same district as Indian Springs and Moapa! Oh, the horrors! (I'm obviously being sarcastic here, since the part of Clark County included in the new SD 19 is sparsely populated. None of North Las Vegas and very little of the City of Las Vegas [just Providence and Kyle Canyon] even touch it.)
So what's the real objection here? Simple: Population. And Power.
For decades, rural Nevada, along with Washoe County, has had disproportionate power and control over state affairs. Even though Clark became the most populous county in the state in 1960, we still haven't yet seen Clark become all that much of a force in Carson City. Again, look at the distribution of state college funds, and the distribution of public safety funds, and the constant resistance to progressive tax reform despite growing support statewide.
This really looks to be "The Cow Counties' Last Stand". Deep down, they know that Nevada is changing. Not only is Nevada's population growing more diverse, but it's also becoming more urban as Greater Las Vegas continues to reinvent itself. As we talked about on Monday, the "Bonanza" vision of Nevada is fading as the state makes the transition from bucolic desert wonderland to dynamic urban destination. And as we make that transition, our attitudes our changing on issues like taxes, land use, environmental stewardship, civil rights, and the overall needs for government.
To paraphrase James Carville's famous 1992 statement, "It's the population, stupid." And though rural legislators have long been able to maintain power in Carson City despite the rise of Vegas, time may soon be running out for them.
A federal district court judge in Florida ruled today that a key provision in the new health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.
Roger Vinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, agreed with the 26 state-government plaintiffs that Congress exceeded its authority by passing a law penalizing individuals who do not have health insurance.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," Vinson writes. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."
The judge has the chutzpah to cite McCollough v. Maryland:
[S]hould congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say, that such an act was not the law of the land. McCulloch, supra, 17 U.S. at 421, 423.
Is the individual mandate "prohibited" by the Constitution? Is it being use to accomplish an object not intrusted to the government? This citation is nonsensical. The judge argues:
[T[he means used to serve [the health bill's] end must be “appropriate,” “plainly adapted,” and not “prohibited” or inconsistent “with the letter and spirit of the constitution.” [.. .] The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be utilized to “pass laws for the accomplishment of objects” that are not within Congress’ enumerated powers. As the previous analysis of the defendants’ Commerce Clause argument reveals, the individual mandate is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.
This reasoning turns McCollough on its head. The issue is not whether the Constitution empowers Congress to enact an individual mandate, but rather whether the object of Congress' use of the individual mandate is a purpose permitted by the Constitution. The judge concedes the object is Constitutional and that the Constitution does not prohibit an individual mandate. Thus, the reasoning even this judge applies compels a finding that the individual mandate is in fact constitutional.
In the end, the judge bootstraps the individual mandate to declare the entire health bill unconstitutional because, the judge argues, the mandate is essential to the functioning of the entire scheme. How this squares with the mandate not being "necessary and proper" is beyond me.
The decision however, has a better chance of succeeding in higher courts precisely because of the non-severability decision. The insurance companies will be happy with this decision, as opposed to the Virginia decision which struck down the mandate but not the health bill.
That said, I doubt any of these decisions survive.
The [Commerce C]lause as written gives Congress the power to regulate economic decisions and there is a long line of Supreme Court cases that reinforce Congress’ broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Health care comprises some 17 percent of the national economy and the failure to purchase health insurance — the very passivity that Vinson is referring to — is having a significant impact on national health care spending and growing costs.
But this too is an argument that he rejects. “If impact [of the uninsured] on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce.” Caring for the uninsured, in other words, is free and creates no cost shifts throughout the system.
That’s just not true (doctors and hospitals and treat the uninsured for free) and the argument unravels further when Vinson completely dismisses the Necessary and Proper Clause by arguing that it’s subservient to the Commerce Clause. That Clause, Vinson writes “is not really a separate inquiry, but rather is part and parcel of the Commerce Clause analysis as it augments that enumerated power by authorizing Congress ‘To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to regulate interstate commerce.”
This is the kind of distortion that really undermines the entire decision and sets Vinson apart as an activist who has decided that Congress has no power to regulate insurance companies, establish exchanges, extend drug discounts to seniors, and give small businesses tax credits to help purchase insurance are all unconstitutional. Conservatives should be outraged.
Isn't it funny how teabaggers often praise The Constitution... Except when they don't like it? The Commmerce Clause was included in Article I, Section 8, for a reason. Congress has the authority to make laws to ensure a fair and orderly marketplace. And in this case, Congress passed health care reform last year to make health care more affordable and accessible. There's really nothing in The Constitution making this "illegal", and teabaggers are really grasping at straws in hoping that these overtly political decisions from a small handful of "activist" conservative judges are somehow upheld.
Let's see what The Supreme Court Justices have to say when this case ends up in their hands.
Earlier this afternoon, we caught a first glimpse at Judge Russell's panel's first draft of redistricting maps.
Incumbent Rep. Joe Heck’s congressional seat would have more Democrats than Republicans and one central Las Vegas congressional district would be almost 43 percent Hispanic, according to maps released by the Nevada District Court today.
The masters decided against drawing a district with a majority of Hispanic voters, as Republicans wanted.
“The Special Masters concluded that bloc voting by the white majority was not shown to usually defeat a minority’s preferred candidate,” they wrote.
The three “special masters” appointed by Judge Todd Russell drew the maps after holding hearings and taking public testimony this week.
- NV-01 is now 42.8% Latino (in general population I believe, not VAP) and centered in Las Vegas' urban core. Its voter registration breakdown is 52% Democrats to 25% Republicans.
- NV-02 now narrows to Greater Carson-Reno and Northern Nevada. Its voter registration breakdown is 42% Republican to 35% Democratic.
- NV-03 narrows to mostly just the Southwest side of the valley and Henderson-Boulder, along with some of Summerlin and all of the southern rurals (Searchlight and Laughlin). It's 40% Dem and 37% GOP.
- And NV-04, the brand spanking new district, takes in Ely and Tonopah, then gallops its way down to Clark County to take most of North Las Vegas, the Northwest end of the valley, and Summerlin. It's 46% Dem and 33% GOP.
So far, it looks like Dina Titus, Ruben Kihuen, and Barbara Cegavske all live in the new NV-01, while Mark Amodei lives in the new NV-02, Joe Heck and John Oceguera live in the new NV-03, and Steven Horsford and John Lee live in the new NV-04. And so far, it looks like Horsford may get to breathe a nice sigh of relief, Kihuen gets to do a good fist pump, and the rest have huge political headaches awaiting them.
Tomorrow morning, I'll have more analysis of this late breaking development... But in the mean time, here are my quick observations:
- Judge Russell probably dodged a HUGE legal bullet, as his panel split the difference on the Voting Rights Act issue by giving NV-01 sizable Latino influence without unduly packing it.
- Nevada Democrats overall dodged HUGE political bullets in getting two safe Dem Congressional seats, along with a State Senate map that favors Democrats (more on that later, too!).
- However, two particular Clark County Democrats will have to bite painful bullets. Dina Titus' base is now split between NV-01 and NV-03, so she will have to choose whether to fight a bloody primary with Ruben Kihuen in NV-01 or agree to challenge Joe Heck again in NV-03. And if she chooses the latter, then John Oceguera had better watch out.
- At this point, Nevada Republicans look to be the biggest losers. Joe Heck is far from safe in the new NV-03, NV-04 looks quite out of reach from them, the State Senate will probably be less likely to flip with Shirley Breeden's and Alison Copening's districts made more Democratic (along with Elizabeth Halseth's too, haha!), and the Assembly still looks firmly out of reach for them as well.
And unless the Nevada Supreme Court somehow decides to invalidate this map, which I see as increasingly unlikely (judging by their recent smoke signals in letting this panel call the shots for now), these new Congressional and Legislature maps are probably here to stay. And so far, I'm mostly liking what I'm seeing. Let the games begin!
At Hispanics in Politics last month he said Black people have been fooled into voting for Democrats, and he was here to help. You know, cause us colored folk are ignorant and child-like, lacking the sophistication to make important political decisions, thus we need the helpful hand of non-Blacks to keep us on the straight and narrow.
The Tarkanian campaign truly believes that because he played basketball and his dad led many a Black man to victory, that somehow that will lead Black folk in congressional district four to vote for him.
Do Black people love basketball so damn much, they're willing to totally forget that Mr Tarkanian is an aggressive supporter of the Tea Party (the same Tea Party the NAACP* said was racist) with policy positions that rival Sharron Angle’s?
Do Black people love basketball so much that they’re willing to overlook the fact that Mr Tarkanian thinks racial profiling is effective police work?
Do Black people love basketball so much that they won't care that Mr. Tarkanian's wife complained just yesterday about people tweeting about the Voting Rights Act?
Team Tarkanian thinks that answer is yes, because again: Team Tark thinks Black people are stupid.
So now, Danny Tarkanian thinks African-American Nevadans will just love him because he's the son of "Tark the Shark" and knows how to shoot hoops himself?! Now I know Baby Tark himself is vapid enough to believe that, but I'm even surprised to see that his campaign staff really believe that this is "effective black community outreach". After all, there's nothing that historically oppressed minority communities appreciate more than being treated as complete imbeciles. (/snark)
The voters of NV-04 truly deserve better than this. Why on earth would any candidate believe he's winning voters by insulting their intelligence? And why on earth should Southern Nevada's communities of color be subjected to someone like Danny Tarkanian who believes he knows what's best for them more than they do?
The way Baby Tark is going, I can't wait to see how he tries to appeal to Asian-American, disabled, and LGBTQ voters! (/snark)
Prop H8 had passed in California. And even though I didn't have any immediate marriage plans, I nonetheless felt like all my future hopes and dreams were ripped away from me. I didn't know what to do... Until I got activein workingto undo the damage.
Yet even though I'm seeing progress in my new home state, I still have raw feelings about what happened in California last fall. I still have wounds that are only starting to heal.
The yard signs that were stolen from my front yard. The homophobic insults coming from my own family. The belligerent Yes on H8 paid canvassers trying to bully my dad into taking away my civil rights. The "urine yellow" Yes on H8 signs being sprinkled all over my neighborhood by the anti-equality churches. These are my memories from the campaign.
The married couples wondering if their marriages were still "legally valid". The couples that waited too long and missed the chance to get a "limited edition marriage". The kids who were bullied in school before and after the election. These are still memories I have from the first days after Prop H8 passed.
Beating myself up constantly about why I didn't do more to stop this oncoming tragedy. This is the guilt I still have over my failure to do enough to stop Prop H8 from passing.
This is why the special elections in Maine and Washington are so important. I don't want my friends in either state to feel what I felt after Prop H8's passage. I don't want their civil rights stripped away from them. I don't want to see any more Prop H8s succeed in hurting any more LGBT families.
Just like California last year, the opposition is using blatant lies to deceive people into voting for discrimination. And in fact, the very same scumbags that ran Yes on H8 in California are doing the same with Yes on 1 in Maine!
This is what's motivating me now. I don't want my friends in Maine to suffer. I don't want my friends in Washington to suffer. I don't want a "deja vu experience" of seeing the same California sad story unfold all over again.
This is why I'm doing all I can to help. Will you please join me? If each of us pitches in a few spare dollars, we can stop the radical right from assaulting our families and our community any further. We can stop being victims and start turning back the tide of hatred.
Time will soon run out. We have just over a month left until the election. Please join me in giving whatever you can to help No on 1 Maine and Approve R-71 Washington have the resources necessary to win this year. Whatever your "Prop H8 story" is, remember it and do what you can to prevent it from repeating.
In Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill in May granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples. That same month conservative interests announced they would attempt to overturn the new law and enough signatures were collected enough to place R-71 on the November ballot.
Gay rights supporters were not ready to declare victory Tuesday night.
"We are hopeful, but we are not stupid. We know better than to think we've got this in the can," said said Jody Lane of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They may be recounting 'til January, for God's sake."
Before the first batch of results came in at 8:15 p.m., supporters laughed as a clip of Stephen Colbert jokingly endorsing Washington's domestic partnership law played on a projector at the Pravda Studios party.
With a bigger crowd by 9:05 p.m., they were still having fun -- but no one was celebrating. "We are really very guardedly optimistic, remembering that a very very large percentage of King County ballots have not been counted," campaign manager Josh Friedes told the crowd.
So far, so good. Washington is on the right path... And here's why it's so important and why we should care about it.
First, the opposition made this about "gay marriage" even though people were actually voting on DPs. They called themselves "Protect Marriage Washington" and warned about how approving R-71 would "put Washington on the path to let teh gayz merry!" Ironically, this proxy war over marriage equality will encourage pro-equality activists to one day go for full civil marriage equality in Washington.
Secondly if the anti-equality forces couldn't muster an off-year election in Washington, what makes them think they can pull a win in Nevada next year with Harry Reid, Rory Reid, and a number of other high-profile races on the ballot? Nevada Democrats have now proven to have a superior turn-out machine than the Republicans, so I doubt voters in a regular general election will be in the appetite to hate on LGBT families just for the sake of hating on them.
And finally, this is truly historic. Again, R-71 in Washington is the first time EVER that voters in any state approved legal relationship recognition. And again, if they can't win in an off-year election like this it gives me hope that 2010 and 2012 won't be so scary for us after all.
This is probably the quirkiest and funniest story of 2011. At the start of the year, everyone was wondering what kind of deal would be made to please most incumbents and share the treasures of Congressional gerrymandering. Honestly, that's what I was thinking when I released my first scenario for changing Nevada's Congressional map. I mean, come on... Nevada's Legislature had always been able to agree to a bipartisan gerrymander that kept most happy. Couldn't they do it again?
By April, the answer was starting to sound like one big fat "NO!" And as spring sprang and the budget brawl was becoming increasingly brutal, Nevada's pundit class was finally starting to realize that a huge "game change" was in the works. And despite the Legislature brokering a budget deal in late May (once the state Supreme Court forced it), a compromise gerrymander was looking increasingly impossible. And once sine die was reached in early June, the legal fight officially became a battle royale... And I noted that it wasn't exactly a bad thing.
Maybe this really isn't a bad thing? After all, the current districts we have are a result of a bipartisan "incumbent protection" gerrymander. Perhaps now that judges will decide the new district boundaries rather than politicians looking to protect their own behinds and/or use redistricting as a bargaining chip for something else, we'll see Congressional and legislative districts that actually make more sense. Here's to hope!
In August, redistricting took a weird turn when Judge James Todd Russell appointed "special masters" to handle the map drawing... And decide all the legal issues that he was supposed to rule on! By October, Secretary of State Ross Miller rushed to the Nevada Supreme Court to beg our state's highest court to end what seemed to be turning into a fiasco. By then, most of our state's politicos were begging Governor Sandoval and the legislators to try one more time to agree on some sort of redistricting compromise. Jon Ralston most notably asked the Gube and the Leg to "make them (Judge Russell and the "special masters") irrelevant", but I wasn't ready to give up on our new bold experiment just yet.
So is independent redistricting perfect? Nope, just look at what's happening next door. But by the same token, we can also look next door and see an overall better functioning process that gives voters more control than the usual powers that be. And that would be quite the "special" departure from the usual politics that surrounds redistricting here in Nevada.
I honestly don't know if the current judiciary mess or retrying the Legislature is the better path to take for this current round of redistricting here. But moving forward, we really need to reexamine our State Constitution (which currently requires the Legislature to redraw its own districts and Congressional Districts) and ask if we really want to endure this kind of nonsense ten years from now.
I noted that despite many legal and political hiccups, both Arizona and California ultimately ended up with fairer and more logical Congressional and Legislature maps. Maybe if we just let this process work, Nevada could also be as lucky?
Oh, we certainly ended up so! The new maps were released in mid October, and the new state of play suddenly sent a whole lot of politicians scrambling. And in addition to Congress, the Legislature also saw a huge overhaul as both Assembly and Senate districts shifted southward.
Of course, this made the Nevada GOP furious. Funny enough, they were originally pushing for court drawn maps in the hope of the redistricting law suit landing on the lap of a Republican friendly judge. And of course, they got that! However, they still threw a temper tantrum once the new maps emerged. Why? Oh, it wasn't a gerrymander... And all of a sudden, they were forced to acknowledge the shift of the balance of power from rural white Republicans to multicultural and multi-ethnic urban and suburban Democrats.
Huh? When did the Voting Rights Act ever elevate "population minorities" to the same legally protected status as racial minorities? Is [Assembly Member Pete] Goicoechea [R-Eureka] really trying to claim that rural Nevada is "discriminated against" when it has the most subsidized government services of any of us? I dare Pete Goicoechea to go to West Las Vegas and talk with the residents who remember the "Mississippi of the West" days, when no African-Americans were allowed to even step in the front door of any Strip casinos! And I dare him to go to East Las Vegas and talk with the residents who are still enduring the anti-Latin@ xenophobia that his party's US Senate candidate tried to tap into to win last year. [...]
So what's the real objection here? Simple: Population. And Power.
For decades, rural Nevada, along with Washoe County, has had disproportionate power and control over state affairs. Even though Clark became the most populous county in the state in 1960, we still haven't yet seen Clark become all that much of a force in Carson City. Again, look at the distribution of state college funds, and the distribution of public safety funds, and the constant resistance to progressive tax reform despite growing support statewide.
This really looks to be "The Cow Counties' Last Stand". Deep down, they know that Nevada is changing. Not only is Nevada's population growing more diverse, but it's also becoming more urban as Greater Las Vegas continues to reinvent itself. As we talked about on Monday, the "Bonanza" vision of Nevada is fading as the state makes the transition from bucolic desert wonderland to dynamic urban destination. And as we make that transition, our attitudes are changing on issues like taxes, land use, environmental stewardship, civil rights, and the overall needs for government.
