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.

About That AD 30 Race...

Here at Nevada Progressive, we often note what the Nevada Republican Party does wrong. But today, we're feeling quite positive and generous. So we just have to note one thing the Nevada Republican Party is doing right.

So congratulations, Nevada Republicans. Congratulations on allowing Lauren Scott (R) to run for the Assembly in District 30 (Sparks and Spanish Springs in Washoe County). Oh, and congratulations to Washoe County Republicans on allowing Lauren Scott to speak to the media like State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) originally promised he & his hand-picked Southern Nevada running mates would (before they all broke that promise and went into hiding).

Now with this being said, we still need to correct some statements Lauren Scott made to the Reno Gazette Journal's Ray Hagar about the Nevada Republican Party's relationship with Nevada's LGBTQ communities:

1. Yes, all of a sudden some Nevada Republicans have decided it's "politically expedient" to no longer actively campaign in public on a platform of bigotry and hatred. However, that doesn't mean they've actually changed their policies.

2. Lauren Scott can call it whatever she wants, but she can't deny US Senator Harry Reid's (D) rather quick embrace of LGBTQ civil rights in recent years. We just wonder what she wants to call US Senator Dean Heller's (R), Rep. Mark Amodei's (R), and Rep. Joe Heck's (R) continuing refusal to allow full LGBTQ legal equality.

3. No matter how much the Nevada Republican Party touts its latest round of "rebranding", it can't hide Adam Laxalt's (R) "political issues" and Cresent Hardy's (R) "segregation laws". And no, it can't even hide Mark Hutchison's (R) voting record.

4. Governor Brian Sandoval (R), along with Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D), essentially had to be dragged kicking & screaming out of the Sevcik marriage suit that's now awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Yet while Cortez Masto has remained relatively quiet on the subject since dropping the state's legal defense of marriage discrimination, Sandoval has continued to state his support for marriage discrimination despite admitting he has no legal case left for the Question 2 marriage ban.

5. Just how much support has Lauren Scott received from her fellow Republicans? {crickets}

So yes, it's great to see the Nevada Republican Party allowing for an openly trans* candidate for the Legislature. Really, it's a great achievement for them. It's just too bad the vast majority of them still refuse to adopt a platform that respects all LGBTQ Nevadans. And no, omission is not the same as acceptance.

Oops, maybe we're not feeling as positive and generous as we originally thought we were.

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?

Can't Rebrand "Culture War"

Every so often, we hear about it. Party "leaders" boast about it. Candidates hint at it. And a number of "mainstream" media pundits hype it to death.

Ever since the polls closed in November 2012, we've been hearing about "Republican rebranding". It was supposed to bring the Republican Party into the 21st century. And it was supposed to retool & revitalize the Republican Party in time for the 2014 & 2016 elections.

We can't help but wonder if this is what Republican National Committee (RNC) operatives had in mind when they announced "Republican rebranding". G-O-TEA politicians in Nevada & nationwide rallied in support of Cliven Bundy. G-O-TEA politicians are now rallying behind Donald Sterling. Maryland Republicans are now trying to strip transgender people of basic civil rights. Mississippi Republicans are now jumping on board the "License to Discriminate movement". And regardless of what they say is in their party platform, Nevada Republicans are mostly still lining up against marriage equality.

We can't help but wonder what RNC operatives wanted in terms of "Republican rebranding". They drove Sue Wagner away in favor of embracing "Uncle Sugar". They've let Cresent Hardy trumpet his "philosophy" on "segregation laws". And they follow Rush Limbaugh's lead in slut shaming, race baiting, and homophobic/transphobic fear-mongering.

Shortly after the 2012 Election, the RNC ordered an autopsy. That autopsy report ultimately called for an end to the G-O-TEA Culture War. But instead of doing that, the party has been doubling down on that Culture War to the point of celebrating "outlaw cowboys", "cantaloupe calves", speculation of voting for slavery, and even "freedom to discriminate". Oh, what a "rebranding" Republicans have accomplished!

And they're wondering why the 2016 polls are not looking good for them (and even the 2014 polls are not looking as great for them as they claim)? They've been doubling down on "Culture War" for so long that they've succeeded in locking in the 21st Century Know Nothings... While alienating nearly everyone else. And no amount of cosmetic "rebranding" can change this reality.

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.

WoW Is DOA in ABQ?

This past January, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and remembered how far we've come since then. Of course, we also noticed the challenges that remain as women’s reproductive rights face more attacks.

In recent weeks, a new line of attack emerged. What made this (even more) surprising is that it emerged in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Anti-choice activists from across the nation descended upon The Duke City to push a citywide referendum on late-term abortion. This was part of their new "all politics is local" strategy... But this first test didn't go so well for them.

Albuquerque voters on Tuesday defeated a measure to ban abortion at 20 weeks, issuing a major blow to antiabortion activists who had hoped to use the city to test a new strategy to restrict the procedure at the municipal level.

As Salon has previously reported, the effort to get the measure on the ballot was led by Bud and Tara Shaver, two self-described Christian missionaries and extreme antiabortion activists who moved from Kansas to New Mexico with the sole intent of shuttering the Southwestern Women’s Options clinic, one of two late-term abortion providers in the area. [...]

“The voters of Albuquerque showed that they care about women’s health and respect the private medical decisions they make,” Physicians for Reproductive Health Board Chair Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“They saw through this deceptive initiative and defeated a measure that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks, with only the narrowest of exceptions, legislation that would have stripped women of the ability to make the best decision for themselves and their families. … With the defeat of this ballot measure, the voters of Albuquerque affirm that women deserve the best care and deserve privacy and respect.”

OK, so Albuquerque voters rejected a late-term abortion ban yesterday. Why are we talking about it here and now? Perhaps because this has major national implications?

It’s not just about one city though. Albuquerque is home to the only late-term abortion clinics in the state, including Southwestern Women’s Options, one of just a handful of clinics left in the whole country that do very late abortions. (The clinic has become the target of some scary anti-choice harassment and the providers there are featured in the new documentary After Tiller, which you should definitely see.) So a ban there would affect all the folks who travel to the city for abortion care from rural areas elsewhere in the state–and across the US. Micaela Cadena, who is part of the Respect ABQ Women campaign fighting the measure,explained, ”Albuquerque voters are voting for the whole state of New Mexico and also for the rest of the country.” No wonder anti-choice groups have been spending big bucks to get this ban passed."

In recent years, anti-choice G-O-TEA Culture Warriors have been waging the War on Women in Congress and in state legislatures across the nation. And they've succeeded in passing epic hurdles to reproductive health care in a number of states while directing the US House to spend seemingly endless amounts of time on proposed abortion and contraception restrictions. It's forced pro-choice activists to play defense across the nation.

But last night, Albuquerque voters delivered a direct rebuke of this attempt to surreptitiously expand the War on Women into New Mexico. So not only do public opinion pills show a pro-choice majority, but we're finally seeing real election results demonstrating this as well.

So why is Congress still wasting time on attempts to limit abortion and contraception access? Why are the likes of Senator Dean Heller (R-What?) and Rep. Joe Heck (R-Why?) ignoring what's happening in their own backyard? Why is the War on Women continuing despite mounting opposition?

What happened in Albuquerque may very well be a turning point... But it will likely take more public rebukes like this one to end the War on Women once and for all.

What Won't Help

Earlier today, we asked what it would take for the Republican Party to finally come to peace with 21st Century America... And the existence of out & proud LGBTQ Americans. At least we now know what won't help. No really, this isn't helping.

Before running for office, [Dean] Young cut his teeth as a social-conservative advocate and spokesman for then-District Judge Roy Moore, who became a right-wing icon for keeping a stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. "Either you get your lives straight or you get back in the closet where you came from," Young told gay rights activists at a 1996 rally in support of Moore. "The people of Etowah County are going to stand against the homosexual lifestyle and against things that are against the laws of God," he added.

At another rally at Moore's courthouse one year later, Young said of homosexuality, "If animals tried it, they would get bit." (According to biologists, animals try it all the time.) He added, "We love all homosexuals, but we don't appreciate their lifestyle. To the homosexuals who will not change, you are not welcome here in Etowah County or in the state of Alabama." [...]

Young justified his position in 2002 by noting that under the state's anti-sodomy statute, gay sex was technically a felony. Speaking out against the gay "lifestyle," he said, "is no different than speaking against murder and other crimes. It breaks the law of Alabama to have homosexual conduct and is against the laws of nature and nature's God." [...]

At a debate in October [2013], Young warned that America's days were numbered unless it took dramatic steps. "We are witnessing the end of a Western Christian empire," he said. "We will see the end of this nation if we don't do something, and do it fast." He summed up his views on stem cell research thusly: "Stem cell research, they tell me that fat has the same thing and there is plenty of fat here. We don't mess with babies." (The idea that fat cells could be a stand-in for embryonic stem cells is still being researched.)

Dean Young is running for Congress in Alabama. The special election primary is today. If Dean Young wins the primary tonight, he will likely be in Congress soon... And he'll replace Jim Wheeler and the Washoe County Republican Party as "Top G-O-TEA Crazy of the Week". At least this will be good news for Nevada Republicans?

Probably not. After all, this is only further proof of how radically out of touch the G-O-TEA is with the rest of the nation. Voting for slavery, decrying the reality of working women, and comparing LGBTQ people to murderers really don't make for good "minority outreach".

Why does this feel so familiar? Oh, yes. That's right. We've seen this crazy train before.



Believe it or not, attempts to dehumanize entire swaths of people don't make for good "minority outreach", either. Yet throughout this year's debate on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors have constantly attacked American families and berated entire communities. And now, they have the gall to complain about civil rights issues being "distractions from real issues"...

Like what?! Like another G-O-TEA induced manufactured crisis? Or perhaps another battle in the G-O-TEA's War on Women? Or maybe another round of spreading Obamacare misinformation? It certainly can't be "#4jobs", as the G-O-TEA's beloved austerity programs kill jobs.

This isn't helping. No really, this penchant Republican "leaders" have for leading the charge on all this G-O-TEA Culture War nonsense while dropping the ball on actual governance is only hurting the Republican Party going forward. We've been saying this repeatedly here. And we'll probably have to continue saying this for the foreseeable future, as Republican "leaders" just can't stop drinking that toxic "TEA".

We're still wondering what it will take for the Republican Party to make peace with the reality of 21st Century America, but we certainly know what won't help. When will they finally get that memo?

Keeping Hope (& ENDA) Alive

Someone's on a roll this month! Senator Harry Reid (D-Fierce) may have played a major role in reopen the government, but he isn't resting on those laurels. Rather, he's turning up the heat and bringing the beat.

Just moments ago, Senator Reid just let slip his plans to file cloture on something long awaited (and long overdue).

Reid is likely to file a cloture petition on the bill this evening, a Democratic leadership aide told BuzzFeed Thursday, which would set a vote on the motion to proceed on debate of ENDA for Monday evening.

If the motion to proceed, which requires 60 votes, is agreed to, the Senate would debate and eventually vote on the bill. The vote would be the first Senate vote on the legislation since 1996 and the first vote ever on the legislation with both sexual orientation and gender identity protections.

Advocates say that they have clear support from 59 senators, including all 55 Democrats in the Senate and four Republicans, with a handful of other Republican senators as potential yes votes.

"We're one step closer to making America far more equal. ENDA is about common-sense workplace protections for LGBT Americans that 80 percent of Americans believe already exist. There's only upside to this issue," Human Rights Campaign vice president of communications Fred Sainz told BuzzFeed.

Oh, yes. That's right. ENDA is finally reaching the Senate floor.

At this point, Senator Reid is confident he has the votes for ENDA in the Senate. After all, all of his Senate Democrats support the bill. And on top of that, several Senate Republicans have either announced their support for ENDA or are open to voting for the final bill. Even Senator Dean Heller (R-????) is sounding like his vote is in play.

Even Cindy McCain has asked her husband to support ENDA. Sadly, he's still living on a very altered reality opposed. And the 21st Century Know Nothings have rather desperately stooped to new lows to try to kill ENDA in the Senate.

Why? Remember, we covered that on Tuesday. And that probably guarantees a sizable number of Senate Republican "Nay" votes... And tougher times ahead when it reaches the (G-O-TEA Mad) House.

But for now, major progress is being made in the Senate. And Senator Reid has taken ENDA further than it's ever gone before on Capitol Hill. That at least keeps hope alive that wrongful workplace discrimination will one day be a thing of the past.

"It's Pretty Basic."

On Monday, we looked at the prospect of Congress doing something productive for a change. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) vowed a Senate floor vote on ENDA (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act) next month. And today, he's a few steps closer to that goal.

ENDA already had 53 cosponsors going into this week. But now, that number is up to 54 as Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) signed onto the bill. And on top of that, ENDA will gain another cosponsor as soon as Senator-elect Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) is sworn in.

In addition, more Senators have announced support for ENDA or at least openness to considering it. The two remaining Democratic holdouts, Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), recently announced their support. And Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) just said he's "inclined to support" ENDA. And that's not all.

The Washington Post suggests several other Republicans who have previously supported LGBT rights, including Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Dean Heller (R-NV), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Though Flake previously supported ENDA in 2007, he now believes the latest version “will increase the potential for litigation and compliance costs.” This belief contradicts ample evidence showing that businesses of all sizesbenefit from nondiscrimination protections. Flake told the Washington Blade that he also opposes the inclusion of transgender protections, which had been stripped from the 2007 House bill he voted for.

One Senator who it seems will not be voting for ENDA is John McCain (R-AZ). Despite lobbying from his own wife, McCain seems to still be concernedabout “whether it imposes quota, whether it has reverse discrimination, whether it has the kinds of provisions that really preserve equal rights for all citizens.” He went on to draw an odd comparison between ENDA and thedesegregation busing that attempted to break down racial lines after schools were integrated.

Despite McCain’s claims, the bill expressly prohibits preferential treatment, quotas, or any kind of retaliation against people who oppose its provisions. It’s quite unclear who would be bused where if LGBT people were simply protected in the jobs they already have.

Sadly, it's not all good news. Many Republicans remain strongly opposed to workplace equality. Never mind the evidence showing workplace discrimination to be an economic loser, the usual G-O-TEA suspects just can't let go of their H8.

Why is this? As we discussed yesterday, far too many Republicans are following the lead of the 21st Century Know Nothings. And in a column for The Hill, Marge Baker explained just how far they're going to try to kill ENDA.

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber said earlier this month that ENDA would be used to protect child predators. Former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt warned last month that if ENDA passes, Christians could face bankruptcy or even starvation. American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer has shared his outrageous – not to mention bizarre – belief that “ENDA would represent the return of Jim Crow laws.” And Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver may have taken the cake with his prediction that ENDA could result in the “death of some individuals.”

That’s quite a frenzy over a law that would simply protect LGBT Americans from workplace discrimination. And as more and more conservative Americans embrace workplace protections for all, these far-right voices get even fringier.

But some in the GOP are resisting these far-right voices and standing up for decency. This summer three Republican senatorsjoined their Democratic counterparts in a bipartisan vote that moved ENDA out of committee. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski put it simply: “No discrimination against anyone at any time — it's pretty basic.”

It is pretty basic. And since the Senate is expected to vote on ENDA before Thanksgiving, it’s time for senators to ask themselves whether they are going to stand on the side of fringe extremists spouting wild predictions and warning that the sky is falling or on the side of basic fairness and common sense.

We can only wonder if Senator Heller is asking himself this. Perhaps he is, considering that he's not slamming the door on ENDA (just yet?).

It is pretty basic. This is about ensuring equal treatment under the law for all American workers. No really, that's all.

While it's frustrating that it's taken this long for ENDA to near 60 Senate votes for passage, at least we're finally approaching it now. The only question is if more in Congress (including those Republicans on the House side) can recognize something so basic.

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.

Blurred Lines? (Or Just Plain Crossed?)

Before the nation started getting jittery over possible drumbeats for war in Syria, we were dealing with a very different kind of crisis. All over the media, pundits were aghast. There were cries of horror. And there was plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth. And it was all over Miley Cyrus twerking at the VMAs.

Sure, there was plenty about Ms. Cyrus' twerking that was disturbing. However, what also disturbed me was the sexist "slut shaming" she had to endure afterwards. Why was she condemned for her suggestive dancing on stage... But not Robin Thicke for his alarming song? Perhaps the New Zealand law students shown below were also thinking about this, as their parody of Thicke's "Blurred Lines" music video (which is also the same song Thicke & Cyrus danced to at the VMAs) aims to highlight the degradation of women in using them as naked props while suggesting rape can sometimes be "excused".

(The video below may not be safe for work, but Thicke's actual video most definitely is not.)



So why are we talking about Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus today? Simple: The "Blurred Lines"/VMAs controversy is emblematic of the larger problem of sexism in our society.

And the sexism isn't limited to the entertainment industry and pop culture. Just this week, Rep. Joe Heck's (R-TEA Curious) campaign manager flippantly dismissed criticism of Heck's own voting record on (disrespecting) women's rights. Also this week, Senator Mitch McConnell and the national Republicans backing him caught a whole lot of heat over their misogynistic attacks on McConnell's Democratic opponent. And on top of that, a Washington Post columnist (Richard Cohen) even tried to blame Miley Cyrus for the increasingly infamous Steubenville rape!

How can we ever achieve true equality when we stomp on women's rights and treat them as mere sexual toys? America, we have a problem. And no, the problem is not the feminists pointing out the problem.

Robin Thicke may sing/rap about "Blurred Lines", but I'm concerned about him and so many other men flagrantly crossing the line on degrading women. When did it become OK to do this in Hollywood and Washington? Think about it.

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.

The DREAM & The Id

Every so often, I'm asked why I'm so hard on the 21st Century Know Nothings. Why am I always "calling names" and "being mean"? If you really want to know why, it's not difficult to figure out.

Here, I'll let 21st Century Know Nothing folk hero Steve King (R-Iowa) explain.

“There are kids that were brought into this country by their parents unknowing they were breaking the law. And they will say to me and others who defend the rule of law, ‘We have to do something about the 11 million. Some of them are valedictorians.’ Well, my answer to that is…it’s true in some cases, but they aren’t all valedictorians. They weren’t all brought in by their parents. For every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.”

King also said during the interview that there were people in his state who were advocating for immigration reform because they depended upon cheap, illegal labor. “What they really, of course, mean is amnesty,” he said, “and then they will tell me, ‘I need someone to gather my eggs,’ or ‘I need someone to harvest the hogs, I need somebody to milk my cows.’”

He continued, “These are arguments that get weighed in with all of this, but there are many businesses in the state and in the country that were developed and evolved into the business they are today because of the anticipation of having cheap, illegal labor standing there ready to take those jobs.”

This is not the first time King has shown public disdain for undocumented immigrants. Last month, he tweeted about “brazen self professed illegal aliens” at his Washington, D.C., office and, earlier this year, advocated for an electrified fence along the border between the U.S. and Mexico.

And of course, Rep. King also has a penchant for comparing immigrants to dogs. So there's that.

Occasionally, Congressional G-O-TEA "leaders" try to spin this away and find silly excuses for this extreme rhetoric. They fail to actually make it go away because they match this extreme rhetoric with extreme legislation (like the recent amendment to deport DREAMers that passed the house on a mostly party line vote).

But now, all of a sudden, we're supposed to believe them and their "KIDS Act". Earlier today, PLAN called BS on this nightmare for DREAMers and their families.

“We have a serious crisis with our broken immigration system, and instead of addressing it in a comprehensive manner, Congressman Joe Heck and his colleagues are offering a crumb to some DREAMers and deportation for the rest,” said Astrid Silva, immigration organizer with the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and co-founder of DREAM Big Vegas, an organization of and for undocumented youth known as DREAMers.

Congressman Joe Heck and members of Congress proposing the so-called “KIDS” Act are some of the same politicians who killed the DREAM Act in 2010, opposed deferred action for DREAMers to prevent them from deportation in 2012, and then voted to defund that initiative. [...]

On Monday, United We Dream, the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the nation, came out against this thinly-veiled attempt by House leaders to give their party political cover on the issue of immigration without presenting any serious solutions. PLAN agrees with United We Dream and rejects any proposal that puts millions of Latinos, Asians, and immigrants into a permanent underclass or excludes them from a pathway to citizenship.

Silva said, “House Republicans like Congressman Heck have a choice before them: deliver a real solution on immigration and start to rebuild their political brand with the fastest growing demographic in the country, or step further and further away from mainstream America and the Latino and immigrant community with extreme proposals that fall short of a real, long-term solution. Voters want immigration reform with a path to citizenship. It would be a positive step forward for the economy and our country."

As usual, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Superficial) wants to look "moderate" while voting "tea party". So of course, he's jumping onto this bill to try to have it both ways.

And of course, he hasn't said a peep on Rep. Steve King's outlandish new comments. Because of course, what Rep. King says speaks to the 21st Century Know Nothing id. And he & other G-O-TEA politicians long ago decided to pander to that 21st Century Know Nothing id instead of challenging it.

Of course, House Republicans don't like to hear this. Why must immigrant rights activists "call names" and "be mean"? Never mind that they're not the ones calling immigrants "dogs" and refusing to pass legislation that already passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote last month. And they've yet to repudiate Steve King and his latest round of bigoted insani-TEA.

Could this be due to their fear of admitting they don't have the ego or super-ego to reign in their "TEA" tinged id?

Hail Mary, Full of FAIL

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?

Oh, yes. That's right. Rep. Joe Heck (R-"TEA" Drinker) is always here to remind us.

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?

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?

No Quiet Wait

It wasn't supposed to be this way... Or was it? Perhaps this was just bound to happen.

In February, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) suggested he could vote for a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill. But earlier this month, he essentially voted to kill CIR by voting to pass an amendment to deport DREAMers. What a turn of events in the matter of just four months.







So this morning, local immigrant rights activists rallied outside Heck's new Henderson adjacent office to demand a 180 on CIR. And that's not all. Some special guests arrived with a special message for Rep. Heck.





One was Carla Hernandez. She's a DREAMer who's starting college and studying to become a physical therapist. She almost exclusively speaks English and only knows of life in Southern Nevada. Why did Joe Heck just vote to deport her?

Another guest was Aurora Aguilar. She herself emigrated from Cuba, while her husband came from Mexico. But because he crossed the border after tiring of the long lines and high costs (of "doing it the legal way"), he was deported. And as of now, ICE is barring him from living with his own family and watching his own children grow up.



However, we didn't just see CIR supporters gather outside Rep. Heck's office. Local "tea party" outfits also showed up to decry any type of CIR. And true to 21st Century Know Nothing form, they decried the myth of "amnesty".





The G-O-TEA base was out in full force this morning. And all Heck's staffers could tell both sides was to fill comment forms and view his latest video explaining his latest vote to deport DREAMers stance on immigration issues.

Meanwhile, everyone continues to wait for Congress' next move on CIR. It just looks like both sides aren't waiting quietly.

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.