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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

If not, then pay attention to this.



That's what's really at stake here.

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

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

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

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

Freedom to Discriminate?

In the past month, there's been plenty of buzz surrounding some legislation in Carson City. Perhaps that's allowed other legislation to quietly bubble up. One such bill is SB 192.

So what is SB 192? Otherwise referred to as "The Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act", SB 192 claims to "prohibit governmental entities from substantially burdening the exercise of religion". Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) introduced this bill. And already, she's attracted a bipartisan crew of co-sponsors.

So what is SB 192? It's basically Nevada's version of this.

"It's legislative abuse, it's legislative bullying, it's legislative dictatorship and it should not be permitted," said civil rights attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.

Senate Bill 142 is called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. Supporters say it is needed to prevent government from forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs. It was approved last month by the House on a 91-33 vote and is pending before the Senate.

Opponents of the bill say it will invite discrimination and invalidate a Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation. [...]

C.J. Brune of Lawrence attended the rally, and said, "I can't imagine living in a worse world where someone's religion would impact my rights."

Taylor Harris of Hutchinson said, "They're trying to make it legal to discriminate."

Holly Weatherford, with the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, said, "We cannot allow the use of religion to discriminate and call it religious freedom. We must push back."

Jeez, it even has the same title! Just change the state listing at the front. That's all.

Its origins can be traced to ALEC, the "Tea Party, Inc." clearinghouse for radical right legislation. Oh, yes. That's right. ALEC also has model legislation on gutting anti-discrimination laws by claiming "violation of religious freedom". And ALEC member Barbara Cegavske is bringing it to Nevada.



The clear intent of the Kansas version of this bill was to legalize discrimination. A few Kansas legislators have even openly admitted that.

Kansas state Republicans want to make sure residents can discriminate against LGBT people, so much so that they have advanced a bill that would allow individuals to sue the government if they are deprived of the opportunity to do so. Yesterday, the Kansas House overwhelmingly passed HB 2384, the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, which prevents the government from “burdening a person’s exercise of religion” [...]

This is a step beyond the kind of legislation lawmakers have advanced in states like Tennessee that prevent municipalities from establishing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to this bill, not only would municipalities be inhibited from protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination, but those who do discriminate would become protected and entitled to do so.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lance Kinzer (R) claimed his bill is merely about the “free exercise of religion,” but confirmed that an apartment owner could use the measure to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple. It constitutes nothing short of a religious license to discriminate against LGBT people.

The very same bill was attempted in Colorado. Yet there, it died in committee precisely because the Democrats on the committee caught what was hiding behind the title.

Meanwhile Monday, a bill that supporters said was aimed at preserving religious freedom was killed on a party line vote in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, said House Bill 1066 would guarantee that Coloradans' free exercise of religion would not be infringed on. The bill would have allowed a person accused of discrimination to assert their religious convictions in any civil action and then recover attorney's fees. [...]

But opponents, who included the ACLU of Colorado, the Mountain States Anti-Defamation League and the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, argued that the bill would essentially legalize discrimination in the name of religion.

Opponents cited their own examples from other states like a bus driver who refused to drive a passenger to a Planned Parenthood clinic, a boss who fired an unmarried woman who became pregnant and a student counselor who condemned, rather than consoled, gays who came to her.

That's the real aim of SB 192 here in Nevada. If passed, it would provide license to apartment owners who refuse to rent to gay tenants, pharmacists who refuse to provide contraception to women in need of it, bus drivers who refuse to take Muslim passengers to the local mosque, and more. It would open the door to a wide variety of civil rights abuses. And it would unleash a flood of litigation into courtrooms throughout Nevada. So much for "limited government conservatives" whining about "frivolous law suits".

So why even go there? That's what Cegavske's SB 192 co-sponsors need to ask themselves and each other. Should Nevada reallt promote "freedom" to discriminate?

Compounding Tragedies

Nearly three days have passed since the verdict was issued in the George Zimmerman trial. Yet even now, protests in honor of the late Trayvon Martin continue nationwide.

After legendary soul singer Lester Chambers dedicated a song to Trayvon Martin, someone jumped onto the stage and attacked him. Stevie Wonder has already vowed to stop performing in Florida and other "Stand Your Ground" states. And major rallies continue across the nation.

Since Saturday night, we've been forced to pay attention to the intersection of racism and radically flawed gun policies. ALEC, the NRA, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." pushed hard for "Stand Your Ground" in Florida and in other states. And as a result, George Zimmerman is a free man again despite admitting he shot Trayvon Martin dead.



This is the brutal reality of our broken gun policies. This is what happens when we allow the likes of the NRA and ALEC to eviscerate even the most basic of gun safety laws. This is what we've come to.

And it's not as if we're immune to this here in Nevada. In fact, we know all too well here in Nevada what happens when "Tea Party, Inc." and the gun lobby get their way. Tragedy occurs. Case in point: the latest scandal to hit the Reno Police Department.

The mentally ill 19-year-old who bought a gun from an on-duty Reno police sergeant was found by a judge last year to have a mental disability, which makes him prohibited from possessing a firearm under state and federal law, a Reno Gazette-Journal investigation found. [...]

Sgt. Laura Conklin did not ask for a background check when she sold the young man the firearm on July 2. Those checks are not required for private party sales under state or federal law.

The case has re-ignited the debate about background checks for private gun sales. The Nevada Legislature argued during the 2013 session about the need for background checks for all sales and passed a measure requiring them, but Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the bill, saying it would “erode Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights.”

Adding to the controversy, Washoe District Court clerk Joey Orduna Hasting said late Monday that they made a mistake in their coding system and the man’s case was not sent to the Nevada Department of Public Safety to be included the background check system. That means his name has been missing from the list for more than a year.

Oh, yes. That's right. A Reno police officer actually sold a weapon to someone who wasn't supposed to own it! Apparently, this is the kind of "freedom" that Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NRA) wanted to protect when he vetoed SB 221 last month. And apparently, this is the kind of "freedom" that Senator Dean Heller (R-NRA) felt compelled to protect when he joined the G-O-TEA veto of an even more modest federal background checks bill in April.

These are the consequences we face for inaction on gun safety reform. A police officer can sell a firearm to someone who had already been found unsuitable for firearms ownership. A man can "legally" shoot to death another young man because "he looked suspicious" (read: black). A man can open fire in an elementary school and gun down twenty children & six adults to death. And throughout this state and across this country, many more people can meet their untimely demise. And we can thank the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." for these compounding tragedies.


Do we really want more?

Something Must Change.

Sorry. I couldn't help it. I just had to say it today.



What happened in Connecticut this morning was tragic. And it was horrific. And yes, it didn't have to happen.

That's what makes the series if events today even more tragic. 18 innocent children are dead, along with at least 8 adults. A small town in Connecticut has been devastated by horrific violence. And it really didn't have to happen. And if we want to prevent future tragedies like this one, then we must act.

You’re not supposed to say this on days like today, but political action is exactly what’s needed. The usual voices will try to shut down the debate by warning against “politicizing” the tragedy. But we should “politicize” it, if by that we mean undertaking a discussion about how our elected officials can act to stop this madness.

Gun violence is one area where something approaching a bipartisan consensus has formed among commentators and observers that reform is imperative, even as the only people who continue to refuse to act are those in a position to actually change things. This time, our public officials —the president included —simply must start an actual policy discussion about the appropriate response to the slaughter caused by the easy availability of guns. Not just a “conversation” about how screwed up our culture is or the usual argument over whether Evil and/or mental illness are the real culprits (as the gun rights advocates tell us) that require addressing. It’s easy access to guns that translates the darkest of human impulses, whatever their cause, into the massacre of innocent children.

Greg Sargent makes a great point here. Even though we've heard plenty of people declare on the cable news channels that "now is not the time" to discuss better gun safety, we just can't do that. How many times have we heard this before when other incidents of mass gun violence occurred? How many more of these must we endure as a nation before we finally take action?

Just this past Tuesday, someone opened fire inside a mall in the Clackamas County suburbs of Portland, Oregon. Two people died, and many more were frightened just as they were doing their Holiday shopping. And then, less than 72 hours after that gruesome act of violence in Oregon, someone else opened fire in an elementary school in Connecticut. And Desert Beacon has a full list of even more mass shootings that occurred just this year. Again, this is truly disgusting. And both events should show us that we can no longer blithely ignore this growing problem of domestic terrorism carried out by easily accessible guns.

While today should be a day to allow those who lost loved ones to grieve, today should also be a day to ponder what happened... And address what's wrong with our gun policies. Here's Salon's Joan Walsh.

Guns in national parks. Guns in church. Guns in schools and day care centers. All over the country, the spaces that used to be gun-free zones are now open to them. According to Mother Jones, in 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Now there are about 300 million, a 50 percent jump. Yet BuzzFeed found that President Obama only mentioned gun control three times in the last campaign.

It’s not just the NRA who are political villains in this story: the right-wing Koch-funded ALEC has been pushing to weaken gun laws too. In fact, the lame-duck right-wing GOP-controlled Michigan Legislature just passed an ALEC-backed bill allowing concealed loaded guns in schools, churches and day care centers,and abolishing the county panels that controlled concealed-pistol licensing.

After the Aurora, Colo., shootings,in which formerly banned assault weapons were used, even Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper dismissed talk of renewing the federal assault weapons ban. Stricter gun control measures wouldn’t prevent “acts of evil,” Hickenlooper insisted: “If there were no assault weapons available and no this or no that, this guy is going to find something, right?” In fact, the Aurora shooting inspired more gun control legislation, but it went nowhere, as Alex Seitz-Wald reported this week. Only three days ago, formely banned assault weapons were used in the Clackamas, Ore., mall shootings. Will that trigger a new push to restrict and ban assault weapons and their ammunition? Probably not.

But today, a day when children as young as kindergarteners were told to hold hands, close their eyes and walk past scenes of unspeakable carnage –that’s a perfect day to begin a new conversation about what’s wrong with our gun culture. Clearly, we are getting numb to massive gun violence. It’s hardly inappropriate that the murder of at least 18 children, reportedly between the ages of 5 and 10, might shock us out of our numbness and inspire more activism and legislation –and political courage.

Sadly, we as a society have become far too numb to the brutal reality of gun violence. Can that change today? If the events of this week can't, then I don't know what can. For goodness sake, not even elementary schools are immune from this any more! Children were shot dead inside their classroom! If that isn't repulsive, then I don't know what else can be.

Again, today is a day to grieve lost loved ones. And today is a day to share condolences. However, today is also a day to reflect on this metastasizing crisis of rampant mass shootings and out-of-control gun violence. Something must change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid.

I've said this before, but I truly feel compelled to say this again. This Nathan Sproul fiasco truly exposes the hypocrisy of the now "TEA" fueled Nevada Republican Party. How? Let me... No, wait, I'll first let Desert Beacon explain. She reminded us this morning of just who was crying "FRAUD!!!" in Carson City last year.

None of these ALEC inspired [voter suppression] bills passed. Interesting… they all seem to have been sponsored by white Republicans…

Fortunately, none of those bills passed last session. However, we just can't expect ALEC & its teabagger followers to relentlessly on this. They may very well reintroduce their voter suppression "model bills" again next year.

And strangely enough, they may use this latest scandal as "reason to act". However, we should remember why this argument doesn't fly. One is that the county election departments and Secretary of State's office can easily detect and combat this kind of fraud already, just as they are doing now. There's simply no need to scare real, legitimate voters away from the polls.

The other reason should be obvious. If these "tea party" Republicans really care about "fighting fraud", why won't they demand that their own party quit encouraging fraud? Seriously, they need to clean their own stinky house before they grandstand in Carson City and in front of TV cameras on their "important efforts to fight fraud!"

And this brings me to the other Nevada Republican who should really know better. Remember that none other than Dean Heller served 12 years as Nevada Secretary of State. Above all others, he should know and care about matters of election integrity. And especially since Dean Heller has been trying so hard to make "ethics" such a central issue in his US Senate reelection campaign, one would think Heller would hold his own party and his own campaign to the highest of ethical standards.

Yet despite all his lofty rhetoric, Dean Heller did absolutely nothing to halt the blatantly unethical and potentially criminal acts coming from the very Team Nevada that's been doing field for him. Perhaps Brad Blog best describes Republicans' use of insidious tactics (even the "not so illegal" ones) to try to gain an edge in "voter registration".

While it's one thing to target your registration drives to areas which may be more friendly to your party --- college campuses or African-American communities for Democrats, evangelical communities and gun shows for Republicans --- it seems quite another thing entirely to systematically instruct registration workers to misrepresent themselves and lie about what they are doing, in order to filter out potential supporters of a party other than the one they are working for.

Our investigation to date suggests this practice is not just systematic, but may even be at the core of the registration strategy for the Republican Party and the Romney campaign. While it's only slightly less appalling than destroying Democratic registration forms, or changing voter addresses so that they will be disenfranchised come Election Day, it certainly seems as if it ought to be as illegal as it is clearly unethical and even unAmerican.

If it's not illegal already in every state in the union, it damned well seems that it should be.

And yet, "Team Nevada" Republicans have resumed using these tactics. And just before they were shamed into dropping the company that pioneered and mastered these tactics, they were outsourcing "voter registration" to this company. And "Team Nevada" Republicans are working the field for Mitt Romney... And for Dean Heller. Remember this next time Dean Heller tries to lecture anyone on "ethics".

Hypocrisy, thy home is in the Nevada Republican Party.

Mark Sherwood's Parting Gift: Voter Suppression

My soon to be (Republican) ex-Assembly Member apparently noticed on Saturday that Clark County Democrats were holding a convention... And he figured he'd have one more chance to promote his "signature legislation". Seriously, this was the level of conversation he was engaging in on Twitter.

Even though Sherwood is on his way out, he still can't seem to give up his fight against "voter fraud", one of the greatest dumbass "solutions" looking for a problem of our time. Even though voters are 39 times more likely to be struck by lightning and 3,500 times more likely to report a UFO encounter (!!!) than commit voter fraud, for some reason Mark Sherwood can't stop talking about this virtually nonexistent "CRISIS!!!" Is he planning to move to Area 51 soon?

Or is there another motivation? Across the country, Republican led state legislatures have passed restrictions on voting, such as voter ID laws and rollbacks of early voting opportunities. And funny enough, these restrictions hurt low-income voters, communities of color, and students the most. Conveniently for Republicans in these states, these voters tend to be the ones they struggle the most with. Coincidence?

The voter suppression bills that he and several other Republicans introduced last session also happened to match the "model legislation" proposed by ALEC, the increasingly controversial corporate funded radical right group that's been pushing "tea party" backed "model legislation" across the country. And yes, ALEC has "model legislation" for voter suppression. I wonder why?



Oh yes, and did I mention that "voter fraud" hardly ever happens? As always, here's Desert Beacon with the facts.

Conflating potential problems with actual incidences of voter fraud is misleading and serves to promote vote suppression without actually improving voting integrity. Indeed, an organization or party might seek to have the Prematurely Resurrected vote — but, that would require having someone assume the identity of the dearly departed, and then vote in the face of a possible $10,000 fine and 5 years in jail. Since, unlike shoplifting, prosecution is assured and the charges will always be for a major felony, voter impersonation is extremely rare.

How rarely voter fraud is attempted is demonstrated as follows: “A report by the public-integrity section of the Justice Department found that from October 2002 to September 2005, the department charged 95 people with “election fraud”; 55 were convicted. Among those, fewer than 20 people were convicted of casting fraudulent ballots.” [MJ]

A study from Barnard College came to similar conclusions: “The statistics bear me out. From 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once. That’s 26 criminal voters — voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident — the voters that Republicans warn about.”

Given the miniscule numbers of actual cases of voter fraud there is cause for concern about the willingness of courts to uphold vote-suppression statutues with insufficient attention to the actual evidence at hand. “The case for voter fraud—individuals impersonating others at the polls—is largely built on hype and the type of hearsay that should not be permitted in court for the purposes of denying individuals the right to vote. Unfortunately, in four cases so far the courts have been unwilling to police the evidence, take seriously the fundamental nature of voting rights, and protect franchise rights.“ [Schultz, HamlineU, pdf]

Got that? There is no "voter fraud" crisis. All the anti "voter fraud" bills seek to do is engage in voter suppression. And this isn't the first time Mark Sherwood has thrown a temper tantrum over this. Last year, Sherwood joined with Crescent Hardy to push a bill to end early voting in Nevada. Even though Jon Ralston may hate the concept of early voting, the fact of the matter is that it gives legal Nevada voters more opportunity to participate in "small d democracy". So obviously, the radical "tea party" right now hates it.

Even though Mark Sherwood may be on his way out, his dreams of voter suppression may still be "in the mix" in future legislative sessions. Let's hope they go exactly where last year's attacks on voting rights went. (Thankfully, nowhere.)

Standing on Bitter Ground

On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.

Thousands of demonstrators from across the country — chanting, praying and even fighting tears — protested a jury’s decision to clear neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager while the Justice Department considered whether to file criminal civil rights charges. [...]

The NAACP and protesters called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday in Martin’s February 2012 shooting death. The Justice Department said it is looking into the case to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. [...]

In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. “You can’t justify murder,” read one poster. Another read “Don’t worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans.” Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. “I was really devastated. It’s really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free,” she said. [...]

In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin’s name and “No justice, no peace!”

“We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men,” said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest’s organizers. “And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system.”

A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".

Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?

That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?

Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.

So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.

Fatal Denial

Last week, we discussed two terrible tragedies. In Sandord, Florida, and across the nation, people are still trying to make sense of the George Zimmerman verdict. And closer to home, many in Reno are asking why one of their police officers sold a gun to Jill Schaller's severely mentally ill son.

In recent days, we've seen renewed discussion of gun violence and what we can do to curb it. Even President Obama felt compelled to say something about Trayvon Martin. As we see more and more horrific incidents of extreme gun violence, it's become next to impossible to avoid the subject.

Yet as of now, the G-O-TEA crew in Congress are still trying to avoid the subject. They act as if this isn't a problem. And once again, and they are trying to deny reality.

Yesterday, a few OFA Nevada activists met at "Super Activist" Teresa's house to urge more Nevadans to call our members of Congress.







Senator Dean Heller and Reps. Joe Heck & Mark Amodei can try all they want to deny reality, but reality will soon bite them where it hurts. As we’ve discussed here many times before, the overwhelming majority of Nevadans support expanding background checks for gun gun purchases. This is really the least Congress can do.

Yesterday, the activists at Teresa's house were also asking themselves and each other who may be future "Stand Your Ground" victims. Since the NRA & ALEC successfully made "Stand Your Ground" Florida law, they and their "Tea Party, Inc." allies have been spreading this to other states. Even Nevada now has a limited version of the statute.

Again, the gun lobby and their favorite "TEA" fueled politicians have been trying to deny the frightening reality of rising vigilantism and innocent people being shot dead due to prejudice wrong assumptions "suspicious behavior". How much more of this can we take? Are the extra gun sales truly worth all this unnecessary bloodshed? Has anyone (other than gun manufacturers) actually benefited from the gun lobby calling the shots on state and federal gun laws?

Can Congress afford to deny reality any longer? Can state lawmakers? Can we?

Standing on Dangerous Ground

Today marks a tragic anniversary. Today marks the second anniversary of the untimely death of Trayvon Martin. Two years ago, George Zimmerman decided to try, convict, and execute Martin for the "crime" of walking outside while black... And Zimmerman then literally got away with murder.



He was able to do so thanks to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute. This statute came into being thanks to the aggressive lobbying of the NRA, the (rest of the) gun industry, and their shady "TEA Party, Inc." allies. And they've managed to spread "Stand Your Ground" beyond Florida.

Believe it or not, even Nevada has a somewhat milder version of "Stand Your Ground" on the books thanks to the stranglehold the NRA and its "TEA" powered allies have over Carson City. Just like the "license to discriminate" legislative franchise, "Stand Your Ground" was cooked up in the back rooms of "TEA Party, Inc.", then quickly exported across the nation.

Yet unlike the "license to discriminate" bills sweeping across the nation, the "Stand Your Ground" bills have already been becoming law. And they've already been claiming lives. We're now quite familiar with the horrifying death of Trayvon Martin. More recently, we've witnessed the aftermath of Jordan Davis' untimely passing. And just last month, we learned about the slaying of Chad Oulson... Over texts to his 3 year old daughter's babysitter before a movie. All of these deaths were untimely and unnecessary, yet they all occurred because the respective perpetrators claimed "Stand Your Ground" as a legal defense.

Sadly, this is what happens when we allow a handful of well heeled corporate interests to hijack our legislative system and turn it into their own policy laboratory. We're now uncovering the dangerous consequences of this practice. And as long as the likes of the NRA, ALEC, & other shadowy "TEA" fueled groups continue to call the shots in the halls of power, we will only see more lives lost over this nonsense.

When Florida legislators got the ball rolling on "Stand Your Ground", they thought they were just "helping those who are trying to defend themselves". We're sure Nevada legislators felt the same way when they passed the Nevada version of "Stand Your Ground". What they failed to realize is that they didn't actually do that. Rather, they opened a "Pandora's Box" full of danger. It remains to be seen how many more lives must be lost before we can retreat from this dangerous ground we stand on.

One Step Forward, Three Steps Back?

Well, at least I have some good news to give today. At long last, the Nevada Senate passed what's now SB 139. And not only that, but the bill passed 20-1! Only Senator Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City) voted against it, while all the other Senate Republicans joined all the Senate Democrats to vote to include transgender people in Nevada's hate crimes laws. This was long overdue.

So why am I not too excited today? Well, that's because SB 192 still lurks behind the scenes. If enacted, SB 192 can effectively render null & void SB 139 and all other anti-discrimination laws under the guise of "religious freedom". Ironically enough, Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) voted for SB 139 today, yet she brought SB 192 from the back rooms of ALEC to the Nevada Legislature.

Remember that SB 192 is exactly the same as the "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" introduced in Kansas last year and Colorado earlier this year. So pay close attention to the University of Miami School of Law's Caroline Mala Corbin as she explains the true nefarious purpose of this "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act".

A closer inspection, however, reveals that the impetus behind the Kansas act is not protecting religious rights across the board, but protecting the right of certain religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In particular, the Kansas act creates a defense to municipal anti-discrimination ordinances. Sparking the Kansas act was the city of Lawrence's expansive anti-discrimination protection: in Lawrence, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment and places of public accommodation is illegal. According to its sponsor in the state House of Representatives, the Kansas act would, for example, provide a legal defense to a religious landlord who refused to rent to a same-sex couple. [...]

Because only substantial burdens on religion trigger heightened protection, the first question under the Kansas act is whether an anti-discrimination ordinance requiring a landlord to rent to a same-sex couple imposes a substantial burden on a landlord whose religion condemns homosexuality. The housing ordinance does not require the landlord to engage in homosexual conduct. Nor does the housing ordinance require any landlord to live with someone who does. It does not even demand financial support for the religiously condemned behavior. At most, the landlord may be said to facilitate religiously proscribed conduct by providing same-sex couples with a place to live, and presumably, sin. But does this mean a landlord's religious rights are substantially infringed any time his company rents property to people who act contrary to his church's teachings? If a landlord's religion opposes contraception, does that mean his company can refuse to rent property to women who use it?

In addition, if "facilitating" religiously proscribed conduct amounts to a substantial burden under the law, then a large swath of discriminatory actions could be deemed legal. If providing shelter facilitates homosexual conduct, then arguably so does providing food and health care. Does this mean that restaurants and hospitals can refuse to serve gay and lesbian Kansans? May a storeowner or salesperson refuse to sell beds or bed linen to gay and lesbian customers because, well, wouldn't that be facilitating their sinful conduct? The willingness to describe attenuated impositions as a substantial burden on someone's free exercise of religion ought to raise questions about whether the law is really about protecting religious rights, or about animus towards an unpopular group of people. As numerous Supreme Court cases have held —including Romer v. Evans, which held unconstitutional an attempt to forbid any state action meant to shield people from sexual orientation discrimination — the latter is not a legitimate state interest.

In their legendary 6-3 ruling in Romer v. Evans in 1996, the US Supreme Court invalidated Colorado's law prohibiting LGBTQ inclusive anti-discrimination ordinances because the state has no business subjecting certain people to otherwise wrongful discrimination just due to who they are. This may ultimately compel Kansas to change its version of what we call SB 192. Federal courts have already said no to states green-lighting this kind of discrimination. Why should Nevada play with this fire?

Perhaps because of Colorado's history on this matter, its version of this bill received heightened scrutiny when it was presented to the Colorado Legislature earlier this year. And that's ultimately why the bill died in the Colorado House. Again, why green-light wrongful discrimination and invite otherwise unnecessary expensive litigation?

Funny enough, it's always "tea party" approved conservatives like Barbara Cegavske who complain about "frivolous law suits". Yet they keep introducting legislation that encourages just that. Ah, the irony of the radical right's "CUL'CHUR WARZZZ!!!!!"

Today, the Nevada Legislature took a major step toward providing equal protection under the law for LGBTQ Nevadans. They should keep progressing. We don't need ridiculous and unnecessary regression. Legislators need to do more research and uncover what's actually in SB 192.

Scary Sequester

Last week, we were reminded of what happens when a fragile economy is given too much austerity. Today on Capitol Hill, we have another reminder. Take it away, CBO (Congressional Budget Office)!

“[E]conomic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent,” according to CBO’s projections. “That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur-including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects.”

In other words, intentional efforts to reduce annual deficits and stabilize the debt are working. But if you retrain your gaze from the government’s balance sheet to the real economy, you’ll see the impact of that austerity is fewer people working and slower growth. According to CBO, the recovery won’t really pick up steam until next year, and the economy won’t have recovered until the end of 2017, when it will reach its output potential, and unemployment will fall to 5.5 percent.

On one hand, we're doing a great job at deficit reduction. But when it comes to putting more Americans back to work, we've been harming our own economic recovery by fixating on all this austerity. Earlier today, Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips specified just how dangerous (even more) austerity can be.

“Sequestration, spending caps, and reduced war spending will together reduce real federal consumption and gross investment by 11% over the next two years,” writes Phillips. Ouch. That’s a very big drop in a very weak economy.

“This is a large decline in historical context, but it is not without precedent,” Phillips continues. “This would mark the third decline in the last 50 years; the first occurred around 1970, after Vietnam War spending had peaked, followed by another around 1990 as military spending declined following the end of the Cold War and multiple rounds of spending caps were enacted.”

Even if there’s precedent for this kind of a drop, there are at least three reasons to be particularly concerned about it happening now. First, the previous periods of austerity that Phillips mentions were primarily driven by the end of major wars. That meant that a lot of that spending was not directly raising living standards in the United States, and so its absence didn’t have the kinds of consequences of, say, the sequester. Second, this graph misses the significant tax-side austerity we’re engaged in, with the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the high-income tax increases from the fiscal cliff deal serving as an additional drag on growth. And third, the economy remains unusually weak by historical standards, and this kind of fiscal drag is going to make it that much harder to recover.

Remember this: When we divest from our economy, economic activity falls. And when too much of that happens and the private sector can't make up for that level of lost investment, the economy contracts. That's the result of austerity. And that's why there's this constant threat of a "double dip recession".

While balancing the budget is typically a laudable goal, it shouldn't be a priority when an economy is barely emerging from a deep recession and too many people are still out of work. Again, pulling money out of the economy is the last thing we should be talking about. Yet Congressional Republicans keep demanding this nonsense in order to placate their crazed "tea party" base.

Because President Obama is worried about the harmful economic effects of "The Sequester" (aka "The Fiscal Cliff" redux), he wants to replace it with a more sensible budget that won't throw our economy back into recession. And while some Republicans have recently declared their love for "The Sequester", others are particularly worried about the heavy military cuts that will occur under "Sequestration". That's why some Capitol Hill watchers think there's at least a chance another fiscal deal can be reached.

So far, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been quite skillful in averting complete economic disaster as they've diffused Congress' manufactured crises. Nonetheless, Main Street has had a more difficult (than necessary) recovery as a result of the austerity that's been allowed to happen. And at this point, Wall Street may not want to see any more austerity implemented.

So there's pressure on Congress and the President to reach another fiscal deal. Can it be done? Harry Reid thinks so.

Asserting that “the American people” are on his side, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told me during an exclusive interview for “This Week” that any that deal reached between Republicans and Democrats to avoid the looming sequester must — “without any question” – include revenue.

“The American people are on our side. The American people don’t believe in these austere things. We believe that the rich should contribute. We believe we should fill those tax loopholes — get rid of them, I should say. And that’s where we need to go,” Reid said. “And I’ve got a pretty good fan base for that: the American people. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.”

Reid confirmed his position on revenue would apply to any deal put into place to avert a government shutdown or lift the debt ceiling as well. This puts him directly at odds with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, who said earlier this month on “This Week” that the ”tax issue is finished,”But Reid — invoking the GOP’s 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney —suggested a deal could include such things as the elimination of oil and gas subsidies, or what he called “low hanging fruit.” The Nevada senator also pushed back when I asked if he was sidelined during the so called “fiscal cliff” negotiations, telling me he played the “bad cop” during that period.

Again, the current makeup of "The Sequester" is just way too much austerity unleashed all at once. Congress needs to craft an alternative deficit reduction plan that won't overly harm economic recovery. We'll have to wait & see if Reid & Obama can overcome this next fiscal hurdle.

Still Standing on Troubled Ground

(This series has pretty much become our default 5 year anniversary commemoration. And in light of the latest Zimmerman family news gracing all the nation's finest tabloid outlets [along with more reputable outlets], we want to remind everyone of why we must endure this nonsense. So let's step back to July 2013 and remember why George Zimmerman is allowed to embarrass himself in front of the media cameras while the Martin family still mourn over justice denied.)

On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.

Thousands of demonstrators from across the country — chanting, praying and even fighting tears — protested a jury’s decision to clear neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager while the Justice Department considered whether to file criminal civil rights charges. [...]

The NAACP and protesters called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday in Martin’s February 2012 shooting death. The Justice Department said it is looking into the case to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. [...]

In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. “You can’t justify murder,” read one poster. Another read “Don’t worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans.” Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. “I was really devastated. It’s really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free,” she said. [...]

In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin’s name and “No justice, no peace!”

“We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men,” said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest’s organizers. “And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system.”

A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".

Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?

That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?

Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.

So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.

Bloody FAIL

Yesterday, we uncovered the horrific discovery Jill Schaller made when she learned that a Reno police officer sold a gun to her severely mentally ill son. This was illegal. But because the officer failed to perform a background check on Schaller's son, we're only learning of this now.

This harrowing tale seems to be reviving talk of Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-NRA) veto of the SB 221 state background checks bill last month, and of US Senator Dean Heller's (R-NRA) decision to join the G-O-TEA veto of an even more modest federal background checks bill. This is forcing Nevadans to revisit the frightening reality of the easy path to gun violence here and nationally. The RGJ's Ray Hagar posted a story earlier today on the renewed talk of gun safety in light of the Reno police scandal.

“This incident shows exactly why Gov. Sandoval made a dangerous and life-threatening mistake to veto SB221,” said activist Teresa Crawford of ProgressNow Nevada. “This is exactly why we need legislation like this here in Nevada to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I hope now he understands why we need this legislation.” [...]

“The background check provision is really important,” [State Senator Justin] Jones [D-Enterprise] said. “In this case, it is clear that if the seller had engaged in a background check and the records had been properly transferred to the Washoe Court, then the transfer would have not gone forward.

Jones noted his bill would require that those records be transferred in five days.

“We have a great need to make sure our records are transmitted from our courts quicker to our Department of Public Safety,” Jones said.

But instead, Governor Sandoval vetoed SB 221. And Senator Heller filibustered the Manchin-Toomey bill. And Reps. Joe Heck (R-?!) and Mark Amodei (R-Where This Occurred) continue their pitch perfect silence on the whole matter.

OK, so Nevada Republicans want to pretend that gun violence is not a big deal. Try explaining that to the families of children murdered with guns.

“We’ve demonstrated that we’ve made a lot of progress in reducing youth violence, but the study also points out that this progress is slowing and homicide is still a leading cause of death,” Corinne David-Ferdon, a behavioral scientist in the CDC’s Violence Prevention and Injury Center, told Reuters. “It’s important we get these programs in place early in young people’s lives to help disrupt the development of violent attitudes and behavior in early childhood and middle childhood.”

In the past several months, particularly after a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary killed 20 young students and seven adults, there has been a renewed push to protect children’s health by preventing gun violence. Thousands of Americanshave gone onto be killed by guns after the Sandy Hook tragedy, including many very young children accidentally shot by firearms kept in their homes.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) — the nation’s largest group of pediatricians, representing over 600,000 doctors across the country — has pressured Congress to enact stricter policies to combat gun violence, pointing out that guns are the leading cause of death among minors. But the NRA isn’t particularly interested in efforts to frame gun safety as a public health issue. The powerful lobbying group actively works to discredit the AAP’s work around gun control, and has blocked scientific research into the health effects of gun violence for years.

For all the rhetoric from the NRA and its favorite politicians of "protecting Constitutional rights", they seem to care nothing about the right of America's kids to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The families of Trayvon Martin, Janay Mcfarlane, Christina Green, and Newtown, Connecticut, know this all too well. So why do we continually allow the likes of the NRA and ALEC call the shots on gun safety laws?

Something must change. Our children continue to pay the price of inaction. This is just one EPIC FAIL that can't be ignored.

Justice Denied... No More?

Yesterday, legal observers across the nation were stunned. This was far from expected.

In a Florida courtroom, Michael Dunn was found guilty of the first degree murder of Jordan Davis. The jury had deadlocked on this charge during the original trial, though they ultimately agreed to convict Dunn of attempting to murder the other passengers in the car Dunn had shot into due to a dispute over "loud music". But this time, the jury only took 6 hours to reach a verdict.



Like George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn used Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute as his legal defense. Ever since the NRA and ALEC began promoting "'Stand Your Ground' model legislation" across the nation, more of these cases have popped up in the states that have adopted this "model legislation". We even have a "Stand Your Ground" case right here in Nevada, as Wayne Burgarello is using AB 321 as his legal defense in his murder trial in Reno.

Wayne Burgarello's next court date is set for October 15. He's been released on $150,000 bail. And he's plead not guilty in the murder of Cody Devine and the attempted murder of another woman at Burgarello's abandoned duplex. Burgarello claims he "stood his ground against trespassers", but Devine's family members say Cody didn't even know the duplex he & his female friend were staying in was Burgarello's.

Many have been wondering how difficult it may be for the Washoe County District Attorney's Office to convict Burgarello, especially considering the "ace in the hole" he has in AB 321. But now that a Florida jury has convicted Michael Dunn for murdering Jordan Davis despite "Stand Your Ground", perhaps there's reason for Cody Devine's family to continue hoping for justice here in Nevada.



Still, it's concerning to realize how difficult it is to prosecute murder cases in Florida, in Nevada, and in other "Stand Your Ground" states. It's hard for us to understand how George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, or Wayne Burgarello to claim "self defense" in any other capacity. Perhaps the outcome of the Burgarello trial will be more like Dunn's and less like Zimmerman's. Or perhaps, the reverse will be true.

Regardless, we will likely see more AB 321/"Stand Your Ground" cases as time marches on. And going forward, the question for Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NRA) and the Nevada Legislature will be: "Did you agree to 'model legislation' that just let someone get away with murder"?

License to Discriminate, Brought to You by Koch

What on earth is going on? The Nevada Legislature is not even in session this year. So why is it grabbing headlines this week?

We can thank SB 192 for this. Even though SB 192 itself died in Carson City last spring, its legacy has quickly been resurrected. And now, it's striking fear in the hearts of civil rights advocates across the nation.

So far this year, various reincarnations of SB 192 are bubbling up through several state legislatures. The most notorious one yet has emerged in Arizona in the form of SB 1062. Meanwhile in Georgia and Missouri, similar "license to discriminate" bills have been introduced.



Clearly, these bills are making waves across the nation... But where did these waves come from? Where did this all begin? The answer may surprise you.

We suspect few people have previously known about the Ethics and Public Policy Center. However, we're sure you've already heard of the Kochs and their burgeoning political empire. And believe it or not, the Kochs' well heeled tentacles reach into the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Oh, and it's also funded by the same "TEA Party, Inc." aligned billionaires' club who are behind such infamous TEA fueled entities as Donors Trust and ALEC.

It turns out that the Ethics and Public Policy Center has an "American Religious Freedom Program". And it turns out that "American Religious Freedom Program" gave birth to the "religious freedom"/"license to discriminate" bills that are now emerging in state legislatures across the nation. So finally, the mystery of the origin of these "license to discriminate" bills has been solved.

And surprise (/snark), these bills come from the same source as the rest of the G-O-TEA legislative agenda. Once again, "TEA Party, Inc." is hiding behind shadowy front groups to push Orwellian legislation to further it's extreme ideology. And this is why we shouldn't be surprised that other G-O-TEA front groups are rushing to back the "license to discriminate" movement.

Victims, Guilt, & Guns

A manhunt is now underway for Ammar Harris, the lead suspect for the Las Vegas Strip shooting last week. Another person of interest is also being sought. The search for Harris is now nationwide.



Police believe an altercation at Aria led to the shooting. Yet despite this, there's been media speculation about victim Kenneth Cherry and his personal life. "Oh, he was a pimp! It was all just a pimp war." (Never mind that Cherry was never arrested for any crime, and that he's one of the slain victims in this crime.)

It's not as if this hasn't happened before. Still, it's disturbing to see certain victims of gun violence villainized in some corners of the media and treated like perpetrators. Why go there?

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin near Orlando, Florida. Even though he was the slain victim, some in the media were ready to villainize Trayvon. Why? He was wearing a hoodie!



The NRA pushed hard for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, the statute that George Zimmerman now uses to justify the murder of Trayvon. The NRA & ALEC then pushed more states to pass similar "Stand Your Ground" law. Even Nevada now has a modified version of it.

For decades, the NRA has (mis)used its juice in Carson City and Washington to weaken gun safety standards. They've essentially bribed lawmakers in the not-so-distant past with campaign contributions and prestigious "A" ratings. Meanwhile, victims of gun violence were all too often marginalized, forgotten... And in some cases, even treated like criminals.

Last night in Illinois, we saw a groundbreaking development. As mentioned above, the NRA has enjoyed immense political clout. But now, that's being called into question as former Illinois state legislator Robin Kelly won the Democratic Primary for the 2nd Congressional District spreading from Chicago's South Side to exurban Kankakee County.

Kelly ran against Debbie Halvorson, herself a former Member of Congress who lost her old seat in 2010. Because she had some name recognition from that and challenging Jesse Jackson, Jr., in this seat before he resigned, she was considered the early frontrunner. But in the wake of Newtown and increased gun violence right in Chicago, this special election to replace Jackson became a referendum on the NRA. And the gun lobby hasn't been used to taking criticism on the campaign trail.

To be sure, this is a heavily Democratic district, and messages that resonated in Illinois' 2nd district may not be equally as effective elsewhere. But that doesn't negate the fact that this was the first race in recent memory in which a major party's candidates felt the need to distance themselves from the NRA. The far-right lobbying group's "A" ratings for some of the candidates practically became "a scarlet letter," forcing some Democrats who'd previously bragged about NRA support to scramble in the other direction.

Even in reliably "blue" districts, that just hasn't happened in recent years. Democrats, at nearly every level, had been led to believe that supporting gun control was a recipe for electoral failure, so they reflexively avoided the issue. This race set out to challenge those assumptions, and the results were unambiguous.

Indeed, Kelly was only too pleased to tout her "F" rating from the organization, which in turn led to support from Bloomberg and progressive groups like the CREDO super PAC. It helped separate her from the pack and positioned her to become a member of Congress in April.

And because of this, Capitol Hill must rethink its relationship with the gun lobby. And in fact, it will have a chance to do so today as the Senate Judiciary Committee finally gives the Assault Weapons Ban a hearing. The gun lobby has attempted to blithely dismiss calls for gun safety reform as "The Connecticut Effect", but that strategy may not be so effective any more.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We've just seen too many untimely, unnecessary, and uncivilized deaths across the country. From Tucson to Sanford, and from Newtown to Las Vegas, the shootings have piled up. And the gun lobby's excuses are wearing thin.


Driving down Las Vegas Boulevard is not a crime. Wearing a hoodie outside is not a crime. And for goodness sake, going to school is not a crime. But you know what? Murder is. And while protecting criminals' right to murder, it can be just as dangerous and dastardly.