This is the thirteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Indiana's 9th Congressional District, covering the southeastern and south-central portions of the state, and including Bloomington and the Indiana suburbs of Louisville, Kentucky. The district is heavily rural and agricultural, birthplace of singer John Mellancamp, famous for his song "Small Town." The district also includes larger, urban areas, with employers such as Indiana University, General Electric, Hoosier Energy and Otis Elevator. Since January 2007, the 9th Congressional District has been represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Democrat Baron Hill. This year, Hill is being challenged by Republican Todd Young, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and the Deputy Prosecutor in Orange County.
On clean energy and environmental issues, Rep. Hill has a strong record. In 2009, for instance, Hill received a solid, 86% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and a 93% rating from Environment America. Hill voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), an extraordinarily important piece of environmental legislation which the New York Times described as "the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change." At the time of his "aye" vote, Hill stated that he was "proud of both [his] support for and work done on the [legislation]." Hill added that he worked with "other like-minded Members...to get the electricity sector 90% of their allowances for free." Finally, Hill pointed out his efforts to ensure that "manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance with these new standards."
In sharp contrast, Todd Young pledges to "vote against cap and trade bills that will raise our energy bills." Young falsely attacks Rep. Hill, claiming that Hill "wants to raise your energy bill $1,800 a year." Young also wrongly claims that ACES would "dramatically raise the cost of electricity and gasoline for all Americans, kill jobs in Indiana and have no appreciable effect on climate change."
In fact, as an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded in June 2009, "the net economy-wide cost of the [greenhouse gases] cap-and-trade program would be about $22 billion-or about $175 per household." That's just one-tenth of the cost figure Todd Young is falsely putting out there. In addition, that $175 estimate doesn't even include "the potential benefits associated with any changes in the climate that would be avoided as a result of the legislation." Those benefits could end up being enormous, especially given the potential impact of more severe weather on American agriculture. Finally, as a study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California concluded, a bill with strong energy efficiency incentives would create a net of 1.9 million jobs. Those are the facts, contrary to whatever Todd Young is claiming.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Although the 2008 presidential election showed unprecedented increases in turnout from underrepresented citizens, their rates of voter registration and participation were still well behind the electorate in general. As we approach election season, this pattern may only continue. Instead of taking steps to improve the administration of elections to encourage and facilitate voter participation from eligible citizens, lawmakers and elected officials are back to raising barriers to voting by implementing strict voter ID laws, as illustrated through high profile court battles, ballot initiatives, and fast-moving legislation
An appeal to an Indiana's court's decision to shut down the state's notorious voter ID law as unconstitutional was heard last week in the state Supreme Court.
An update on the effort to replace Bayh on the ballot in Indiana. The Indiana Dem Party State Central Committee must meet to pick to pick a nominee. There are 32 voting members. According to a friend who is close to the process in the state, the vote technically doesn't have to happen until June, but they are expected to pick by next week- and if it's a House member, someone would have to start campaigning for that person's House seat. All that incentivizes a quick process, as the Dem Party Chairman commented to the Indy Star:
"The sooner the better," Indiana
Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said.
Here's the problem. Multiple sources, including the Star and TPM, are reporting that Rep. Brad Ellsworth is under consideration.
Ellsworth, as many of you know, is a Blue Dog who voted against the stimulus package, voted for Stupak, voted against federal funding for stem cell research three years ago, voted for the GOP motion to recommit on health care reform. Yes on FISA, Yes on the bailouts, Yes on the war supplemental, No on Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. As Taniel pointed out in Quick Hits this morning, he is as far to the right as you can get for a potential Senate Democrat. He's a virtual Parker Griffith, the right-wing Democrat who just switched parties.
Yet that's not all. Over at HuffPo, Bil Browning, a Hoosier based in Indianapolis who publishes The Bilerico Project, and whose partner, Jerame, is on the leadership of the Indiana Stonewall Democrats, has a piece this morning documenting how much Ellsworth has thrown LGBT people under the bus. He was one of just 15 Democrats to vote against the Matthew Shepard Act on hate crimes last year, and when asked by Bil about it later, he actually said he didn't want to stand up for equality because of how it would look to his district. Despite voting for ENDA on the floor several years ago, he voted for the Republican motion to recommit immediately prior that would have killed the bill. He's not a co-sponsor of the current version and has not announced his support. He has not announced a position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. He's not only against marriage equality, he voiced support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which was voted upon before he was elected. He's not publicly in favor of any other pro-LGBT legislation. In other words, not only are there Republicans in the House who are better than him, but according to HRC's scorecard, Republican Sen. Lugar doubles Ellsworth's 30% record with 60%- and Evan Bayh triples it at 90%. The "Indiana's too conservative" argument doesn't fly.
Now, Parker, the Chairman, says he wants a consensus nominee:
Still, he said he wanted the party to
coalesce around one candidate before he
calls a meeting of the central committee.
"Whoever this nominee is," he said, "they
need to have the entire party behind
them."
Great. If that's the case, then Ellsworth cannot be the candidate. In fact, several of the rumored candidates are anti-equality, and we need a pro-equality candidate. Indiana Stonewall Democrats have a seat on the State Central Committee. No anti-equality nominee could ever have the entire party behind him. Stonewall Democrats has a petition to Parker on this. Please sign and share with your friends. Remember you can use our new shareable links to do so on Facebook, Twitter and other sites, as well, with just a click.
Side note: One question raised is "wouldn't all Dems within the realm of possibility be virtual Republicans?" Not quite. Baron Hill scores better on LGBT issues, and is somewhat better on a wider range of issues as well, as Taniel demonstrates. I'm also told former Sec of State Joe Hogsett, who is also rumored to be in the mix, would be better on LGBT issues at least. Bottom line is that Ellsworth is the worst.
When an appellate court shut down Indiana's unequal mandate for polling-place voter ID, it sent a clear signal that-partisan politics aside-election laws should be assessed on whether or not all voters are given equal access to the democratic process. Yet, despite violations of law and the fact that absentee voting is more susceptible to voter fraud activity than in-person voting, other states continue to emulate what was one of the country's toughest voter ID laws.
One of the country's most contentious voting rights issues came back into the spotlight last Thursday when an Indiana court struck down the state's strict photo voter ID law as unconstitutional. The law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, was found be in violation of the Indiana Constitution because it treated voters unequally.
I wrote a post a few days ago outlining some thoughts on a discussion around state strategy vs. federal strategy to winning LGBT equality. A few follow-up thoughts came from that, and I want to take a minute to outline them here.
In the post, I discussed how winning victories at the state level is necessary to winning at the federal level, and how multiple victories have been obtained at the state level. I want to give a little time to the argument that those who live in very anti-LGBT states with little or no investment in infrastructure can only find equality through the federal path, and are actually hurt by some state-focused efforts.
My friend and colleague Bil Browning, who lives in Indiana, argued here that (a) winning marriage in places like Massachusetts has actually hurt in Indiana, losing an opportunity for hate crimes and employment protections, and forcing all resources towards fighting off an amendment (b) Indiana will never get rights/protections anytime soon except through the federal path.
I don't quarrel with much of that. On the other hand, passing marriage equality in Maine, while it may renew the haters' fight in Indiana for a constitutional amendment, also energizes advocates elsewhere and sends important signals across the country. Call it conventional wisdom, but I believe a big reason New Hampshire and Maine (very narrowly) legalized marriage equality through legislation is because the Iowa Supreme Court did so unanimously on April 3. The first vote in the NH Senate on April 29 was just 13-11. A publicly hand-wringing Gov. Lynch finally signed the bill after sending it back to the legislature. On April 30th, the vote in the Maine Senate was 20-15. Gov. Baldacci went through his own period of refusing to state his position until finally signing the bill. I can't prove it, but I suspect there are legislators who, like many of my straight friends and colleagues said to me, said "well, if a place like Iowa can...". I think what happened in Iowa barely nudged the other states across the finish line.
Movement in various states, can and will eventually bring equality to other states. To their credit, Bil and the team at The Bilerico Project are even on their way to raising $5,000 for the Maine fight, even though a win may set back efforts in Indiana. One good reason for doing so is, like I argued in my previous post, that it's essential for many states to enact pro-equality measures before we have the votes at the federal level. The best measure for whether a member of Congress will vote for something like employment protections is to look at their own state. That means investing in Maine, even if it will hurt you in Indiana, is a necessary evil, especially since your path to equality is via Congress.
Marriage equality, like other issues in our movement, is a mixed bag that can vastly advance equality for many and cause a backlash for others, like Bil says it did in Indiana. The same is true of many issues the first time they hit the papers. The Dade County, FL ordinance that banned discrimination against gays and lesbians led to Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign, the success of which prompted the Briggs Initiative in California. Backlashes will happen regardless. It doesn't mean Dade County legislators never should have done the right thing. On the whole, our movement needs to advance equality in as many places as possible, not be worried about the backlash from fighting battles that need to be won. Investing in state-based approaches yields real fruit that can bring equality to other states- as Iowa did- as well as lay the groundwork for Congress to take action.
Access to voter registration continues to be an issue in the U.S. where only 71 percent of the voting eligible population is registered to vote. With young, low income, and minority citizens lagging behind in voter registration and participation, this fraction of registered voters only represents a skewed picture of the American people.
Enfranchising America's least represented citizens is as simple as following the law: that's the message Project Vote and a coalition of voting rights groups sent today as they filed lawsuits against Indiana and New Mexico for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Although there are other election reforms - good and bad - that deserve the spotlight, voter ID remains a hot button issue for legislators and the media, primarily in Southern states. These battles are drawing as much attention for their political divisiveness as for the unfair burden they put on voters.
A house in Martinsville, Indiana, from The Politico, October 29, 2008:
Confederate battle flag, Obama yard sign
This is a followup on my recent writing about racism and the South (American Amnesia: The Cost of Accommodating The South). For some reason anytime I write about racism and the South, some folks feel it necessary to remind one and all that there is racism in the North as well. As if somehow we'd all been on Mars for the last thousand years.
Well, I've also written about racism in the North. On the flip, I start off with my review of Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by James W. Loewen, a book about the history of all-white communities, overwhelmingly in the North. Turns out, the picture above comes from a well-known sundown town itself.
National Popular Vote (122M votes in): Obama 52%-47% McCain
Electoral College
Obama 364, McCain 162, Too Close to Call 12
Swing State Returns All times eastern. First poll closing time listed.
State
Reporting
Obama%
McCain%
EVs
Missouri
99%
49%
50%
11
NE-02
100%
49%
50%
1
Update 4: McCain narrowly leads in NE-02 with 100% reporting, but it finishes close enough for a recount. Will the Obama campaign seek one? I'll keep in undecided until we hear final word.
Update 3: I'm calling Montana for McCain, based on exit polls showing him ahead and the counties with 0% reporting. This is the final presidential update for the night. Your total: Obama 364, McCain 163, recount 11 (Missouri).
Update 2: Missouri will be listed as too close to call for the rest of the night. We shall see where it is in the morning.
Update: Obama wins Indiana. The source on the projection is me, myself and I. The remaining precincts in Indiana are not enough for McCain to pull it off. This will cost me a Mac Book over at Daily Kos (I was perfect up till now, because last night when I entered I still had NC for Obama), but that's OK. A Mac Book is nothing compared to the work of the Indiana volunteers.
Drametra Brown grew up in Indianapolis, attended Broad Ripple High School, and spent most of her life in the city. Now 37 and a certified nursing assistant, Drametra works with senior citizens at Alpha Home, an Indianapolis nursing home. Drametra had never voted before, but this year was different, and when a fellow staff member and good Samaritan Lisa Hamilton, Alpha Home's Admissions Director, handed out blank registration forms she had in her office to sign up elderly residents in late September, Drametra and other employees signed up as well.
There is a new poll out today that shows Obama ahead by 5% in Alaska, 45%-40%. It is from a Democratic firm, and outlies a bit from other recent polls in the state. Despite those negatives against the poll, it does at least confirm that Alaska is indeed a swing state in this election. The most recent poll from the four polling organizations to survey Alaska in the past month now show an average of McCain 46.5%--43.0% Obama.
This got me to thinking--what about the other red states that Bush won by about 20% in 2004, but that seem competitive in 2008? These states include Georgia, Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The Obama campaign is targeting all of these states with paid media and staff, so they feel it might be competitive, too.
To answer this question, follow me to the extended entry for a quick round of mapchanging fact and fiction, deep red state edition.
(I've written about the need to unstack the deck, but don't forget that Republicans are working even harder to stack it even further. See the list below of vote suppression legislation - every single bill sponsored by a Republican. - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
Requiring proof-of-citizenship in order to register to vote is the latest addition to voter suppression arsenal. Spurred by Arizona's 2004 implementation of proof of citizenship requirements and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's strict voter ID law, proof of citizenship bills - often coupled with voter ID - are gaining traction across the country. With more than 13 million Americans lacking ready access to citizenship documentation and scant evidence of voter registration fraud by non-citizens (or any voter for that matter) leading to illegal votes, proof of citizenship requirements could have a significant impact on the electorate. Wasting no time after the high court's decision, the neighboring states of Kansas and Missouri have swiftly moved forward with efforts to pass such legislation that could take effect in the November election.
(More poisoned fruit of that terrible SC decision - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
Missouri lawmakers this week are working to rush legislation that would prevent up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed legislation would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible citizens who want to vote by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, these changes could be in place by the November general election.
Joint Resolution 48 passed the Missouri House yesterday on a party-line 88-69 vote and now awaits action in the Senate. If passed, it would place a referendum before the voters in August which, if approved, would go into effect for the November 2008 election.
This resolution is superfluous for Missouri, where proponents have yet to show a single case of voter impersonation from recent elections, yet imposes high burdens on eligible voters to comply, as noted by Denise Lieberman, a lawyer and voter protection advocate with Advancement Project in Missouri.
STATE BLOGS
