Yesterday, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to kill a effort to put a statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 68-30. The Republicans attempted to discharge the bill from committee, but it was blocked from consideration. The House also blocked the move last year. Folks at Fairness West Virginia say they are confident the Senate will do the same in the coming days, but the right-wingers are planning a rally at the statehouse tomorrow, so everyone's staying alert. This follows the Iowa legislature defeating discharge petitions on the same issue two weeks ago and the New Hampshire House voting down efforts last week to put an amendment on the ballot and to repeal the state's duly-passed law. Sometimes these legislative victories don't get enough attention, but they're important.
This morning in Maryland, the Attorney General, Doug Gansler (D) has posted his long-awaited opinion on whether same-sex marriages performed out of state should be recognized in Maryland. Maryland currently limits marriages performed in the state to opposite-sex couples. The Maryland Court of Appeals is hearing a case on this issue. In it, he said:
...the Court of Appeals, when it ultimately rules on this question in a particular case, will likely apply the principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration is valid in Maryland. The opinion reaches this conclusion in light of the evolving state policy, reflected in anti-discrimination laws, domestic partner laws and other legislation, that respects and supports committed intimate same-sex relationships...
The Court of Appeals would start from the general principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration remains valid in Maryland. There is an exception to that rule if the particular marriage is contrary to a strong State public policy. A statute that limits marriage in Maryland to opposite-sex couples could be said to embody a policy against same-sex marriage. However, there are many restrictions in the State's marriage statutes and and the Court of Appeals has not construed the public policy exception to encompass all those restrictions. For example, it has recognized common law marriages from other states, although there is no common law marriage in Maryland, and has recognized a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece, although a statute prohibits marriage between an uncle and a niece in Maryland. Indeed, the public policy exception is a very limited one that the Court has seldom invoked.
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same-sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.
He also wrote that the General Assembly, Court of Appeals, or state agencies (when acting within their jurisdiction) could take steps to recognize such marriages. In DC, the City Council and Mayor enacted legislation recognizing same-sex marriages from out-of-state, while in New York, Gov. Paterson instructed state agencies to do the same, although Gansler wrote that that situation is not analogous because Paterson was complying with a state court decision, while there is no such decision in Maryland. We'll have to wait and see what happens in Maryland.
The entire opinion is posted here. The Attorney General's opinion is not legally binding, but advisory. I'll post more legal interpretation if it comes.
After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld one of the country's strictest voter ID laws in April, several states rushed to pass similar bills before the year's end. By December, more than 25 states introduced legislation to require voter ID at the polls. Though none of these bills were successful this year, lawmakers in several states are hoping to revive such restrictive requirements in 2009.
Since July of this year, at least seven states have pre-filed or carried over voter ID legislation for the 2009-2010 sessions, including Nevada, Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
Maryland's Sixth District is not simply the reddest Congressional district in the state; it's one of the reddest in the country. The district is large and rather oddly shaped -- it looks like a horizontal map of Chile. It covers the Western Maryland counties of Garrett, Allegany, Washington, and Frederick, as well as a tiny slice of Montgomery, all of Carroll, and good chunks northern of Baltimore (county) and Harford. And it's historically about as friendly to Democrats as Sean Hannity.
"...Too many people do not understand or exercise their voting rights, and as a result, entire segments of our population - and especially formerly incarcerated individuals - are being underrepresented at the polls on Election Day." - New Jersey Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Newark)
Donna Edwards will be seated in Congress, and her special election in on June 17. She does have a Republican opponent, Peter James, and he has been endorsed by Ron Paul:
Peter James is our Republican candidate in Maryland's 4th Congressional District. Peter faces a special election on June 17, which provides a unique opportunity for us to pick up this seat. There will likely be low voter turn out, so it is absolutely essential that Republicans, and liberty-loving independents and Democrats, go out to vote for Peter. Time is short and this election is rapidly approaching, please do what you can to help Peter today.
James is a crazy man who passes out monopoly money and talks about an international banking cartel, hint hint. Still, Paul's rationale makes sense, low turnout elections are opportunities for a small dedicated group to make an impact. I guess we'll see what kind of impact Ron Paul's movement will have. I'm not expecting much, but if you're in Maryland's fourth district, make sure to vote for Donna on June 17.
Over the next week and a half, we're going to be holding a fundraiser and asking for contributions to help us expand with the general election. We're looking specifically for 400 donors, whcih is aggressive, but we think we can get there. If you see value in what we do, you can give here. Otherwise, read on.
Our costs are going up, but our product quality will go up as well. We will be traveling this summer to several conventions, including a Media Reform Convention in Minneapolis, Netroots Nation, and the Democratic National Convention. To make the site run smoother, we are hiring an administrator. And to make our commentary more effective, we are hiring a researcher (hopefully soon, several) to look more deeply into some of the themes Chris has come up with and hold influentials - Democrats, pundits, conservatives, surrogates - accountable for what they say. The total of these costs is around $14,000.
Here's why it's worth it to chip in your $35. Very few groups self-identify as 'left', and there are many reasons for that, including a residual fear of ideology and partisanship. What we on this blog believe, though, is that in reorganizing the country around progressive principles we can't pretend we don't have left-wing values. We can't pretend we aren't liberal. At the same time, this is not a game for 'lefty purists'. It isn't solely about winning every election, but winning elections is important. And we are working, smartly and without litmus tests, to promote liberal values in the political system.
The Bush Dog campaign, the No Residual Troop campaign, and the Responsible Plan concepts have all borne real fruit. Earlier this year, I embedded myself in the campaign of Donna Edwards in Maryland's fourth, the first movement candidate who beat an incumbent in a primary and who will be seated in Congress. So far, 60 Democratic candidates have signed on to the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, whose signature messaging of 'no residual troops' came from Chris's series of posts comparing the different Presidential Iraq plans. What Chris did, and it sounds so simple, but no one else had done it, was to read each plan and compare them. And now there are 60 candidates running on that principle, several of whom are going to be in Congress next year (or even this year). That's a real shift in conversation around foreign policy.
Many progressive ideas come from the conversations started in the blogs or in activist circles. And all of us on this site - commenters and bloggers alike - have worked to start our fair share. Ultimately, if we want progressive media to work we have to pay for it. Traditional corporate media works by selling you - the audience - to the soap makers and defense contractors who pay to propagandize. We don't follow this model, either within the Democratic Party or within the culture at large. We have a different model, in which we work both with political institutions and for you. We make no bones about our affiliations and our agenda, and we work on campaigns that are directly in line with them.
We think we've done good work, work that is worth expanding, work that will get this country out of Iraq a bit faster and set us onto a more sustainable course as a country. Throw a few bucks if you can, even if it's not much. Obviously, please don't give if it's a choice between this and gas money or rent money, but do recognize that there are lots of places to get media for free. But ultimately, as we've seen, if you are the product being sold to Honeywell and Monsanto so they can lie about our country, free is actually quite expensive.
So it looks like Maryland will hold a special election to seat the next Congresswoman for the fourth district. There was a lot of confusion around Wynn's retirement, but the Governor is making a change to the law to allow the 4th to skip a special primary and move straight to seating the next Congressperson. Donna might even be in office in time to be a superdelegate for Obama, though I'm not sure right now.
Governor Martin O'Malley says he's exploring the possibility of holding an election to replace Congressman Albert Wynn, who's stepping down in June.
To make that possible, O'Malley says he's considering trying to change state law before the General Assembly adjourns next week.
He says current law requires him to order that a special primary take place before a special general election. By the time that process unfolded, O'Malley says whoever won would only have about three months in office.
The governor says that's why he's looking at the possibility of holding a special general election -- without an additional primary.
If a law like this gets passed and signed, it will save a lot of money for the state and it could put Donna in office in around 36-46 days or so from the date the law takes effect. If Wynn can be encouraged to step down earlier, Donna could be an Obama superdelegate at the convention.
Well that didn't take long. Here's Donna Edwards on Hardball (via Crooks and Liars) going after the embargo and making a coherent case that a different approach is important. Cuba policy happens to be one of Donna's passions, so she knows a good deal about it.
One constant argument I hear about elections is that a voting record is enough to justify not challenging someone. I feel this misses one of the essential characteristics of how politics works. Voting records are important, but there is a huge difference between a good voting record and taking leadership with energy and vigor to get something done. Al Wynn actually had a great record on the embargo, but he was not a leader on the issue. You can already see that Donna Edwards is pushing the ball down the field.
In other words, it's good to have progressives in Congress, but it's much better to have progressive leaders in Congress.
Donna Edwards is over at FDL right now, and she'll be here answering questions at 3:30 or so. There are some questions in this thread, but if you have anything else to ask, leave it here.
And here are some good questions from the last thread.
1) On what committees would Donna Edwards like to sit in the House?
2) Congress MUST pass 13 appropriations bills each year. Rarely do they pass all of them as individual bills. Instead Congress passes massive bundled omnibus bills with little transparency and less debate on the component items of these bills. What can an individual Congressperson do to change this and pass the 13 required appropriations as separate, coherent, transparent bills?
3) Donna Edwards. Great victory or greatest victory ever?
1) What would you say is the smartest strategic move you made in this election? What is one thing you know now that you could tell people starting out in a primary campaign?
Dear Donna, You are a rock star right now. You have the opportunity to use the huge interlude between now and November to travel extensively and help progressive candidates and people movements throughout the US. Have you considered such a strategy?
I can tell you one thing, on Capitol Hill following the Maryland primary, the elected officials and their staff members that I spoke with spent more time talking about Wynn and Gilchrist, than they did about Obama and McCain.
Donna's going to be around tomorrow afternoon from 2-5pm on various blogs (including this one) to chat, so get your questions ready.
So I sent a Blogpac email out on Donna Edwards with a couple key points. One, no sitting Congressperson, no one from the 'progressive caucus', or anyone else endorsed Donna, but Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi among others went with Wynn. And two, we won this without their help, and their legitimacy is now somewhat in question because of the magnitude of the shellacking.
Some people wrote back and asked a very interesting question. What was the difference between Donna Edwards and Mark Pera? Pera lost badly, and Donna won with a rougly similar margin.
What do you think? And I'd especially appreciate people from the various districts and with political experience chiming in, but feel free to chime if you have neither. There were some weird local dynamics to each of these races, but in trying to systematize primary challenges we should start to tease out the differences.
Donna gives a shout-out to us over here at the vast left-wing conspiracy.
And in case you're wondering what her policy agenda will be, here's Donna talking about getting us off fossil fuels entirely. She ran a race against the oil and telecom companies, so she has the credibility to make these kinds of aggressive and visionary statements. Polluting industries in Congress watched this race very closely, and will shift their lobbying stances towards a recognition that a more progressive economic system is coming.
I'll have a lot more tomorrow on this race, its implications, and why we won. There was a lot of innovation around independent groups, blogging, and progressive movement building, and hopefully a good amount of it can be documented. But for now, I must avoid pneumonia (five hours in freezing rain and no sleep will do that to you), so here are some pictures to tide you over.
This is Adrienne Christian, campaign manager for Donna, and deputy campaign manager for Jim Webb in 2006. She made this shirt after Wynn accused us of a vast left-wing conspiracy.
And here's a taste of the weather on election day, a mix of freezing rain, regular rain, and clouds coming out the sky to periodically punch me in the face.
This is Donna just after she took to the podium to give her victory speech.
On a personal level, I have been working on this for three years. I spent a lot of time at the campaign volunteering and working with them, pretty much camping out there for stretches of time. So this is very gratifying. In this particular race, the money you donated was extremely high leverage, and the time you gave, particularly towards the end, really mattered. Blogpac actually gave $1000 to Donna's campaign, the first candidate donation we've ever made.
I'll have more soon on the different progressive groups coming together and what it meant. This was a huge victory for new labor, environmentalists, bloggers, Moveon, and progressives in general. Energy and telecom lobbyists got smacked. Incumbents should take note that Donna has an aggressive and progressive agenda and she's going to pursue it, and that agenda is backed by organized groups and fundamentally, the voters.
Update 2--Edwards Wins MD-04: The Washington Post has projected Donna Edwards as the winner in the Democratic primary for Maryland's 4th congressional district! Yes, yes, yes! I'm going to sign off for the night now, and provide updated pledged delegate and popular vote totals in the morning. Congratulations to everyone!
Update--Huge night for progressive movement: With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority. We finally have the organization, and the voters, and the whole ball of wax. The movement has thoroughly come of age.
Update 7--New Obama Voters Breaking For Donna Edwards: Here is an exciting thought for progressives: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in a progressive defeat of an incumbent member of Congress in a primary. Al Wynn's numbers are stagnant from 2006, while Donna's have skyrocketed. There is massive movement building potential here.
Update 6--Donna continues domination: More precincts. PG-13-06: in 2006 it was 463-265 Wynn, and in 2008 it went 568-513 for Edwards. PG-13-04 went 260-250 Wynn in 2006, but in 2008 it went 469-299 for Edwards. Turning into a rout. Brutal but awesome. Matt is experiencing something he feels unfamiliar with--winning. It took him a while to identify the feeling. It was vaguely reminiscent of August 8th, 2006. The Connecticut for Lieberman Party has not yet endorsed Al Wynn.
Update 5--Edwards dominating early returns in MD-04: Donna Edwards is up 55-41 in early returns for MD-04 (6% in). Every precinct coming in is showing at least 10% for improvement for Edwards from 2006. This is looking very, very good. Both an Obama and an Edwards winning--who would have thunk it?
Update 4--Obama takes clear popular lead: I can now project that after tonight, Barack Obama will be ahead of Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates even with Florida and Michigan included, and even with Obama receiving zero delegates from Michigan. He will also probably pass Clinton even in the popular vote count most favorable to her. Obama is now clearly the new leader in the nomination campaign, but Wisconsin looms nest week.
Update 2--Obama wins Maryland: CNN and MSNBC both project Maryland for Obama. At first look, the exit poll shows a margin of about 62%-36%, but that always changes. Similar voting patterns to Virginia in terms of religious service attendance and education, but neither of those crosstabs are further divided along ethnic lines. Don't know when we should start expecting Maryland 4th results, but along with delegate counts that is the only drama left tonight.
Update: Commenter mattw has a cool chart that projects a 54-29 delegate count from Virginia as of 9:05 p.m. eastern. the number 62.5% is particularly crucial in most congressional districts, but 70% is crucial in CDs 4, 7 and 10. Use this chart for further reference on how delegates are apportioned by at the congressional district level.
Update 8: Obama takes the lead in CNN's delegate count, 1,170 to 1,168. That lead will increase throughout the evening.
Update 7--McCain wins Virginia: Darn. Still, it is clear he does not have the support of a large portion of Republicans, from Paul supporters to Dobson / Huckabee supporters to Rush Limbaugh. A fractured Republican base will be a serious problem for him.I feel confident that Democrats will start to exert significant polling leads on McCain. Also, I will stop updating the Republican results in Virginia.
The official winner of the Athens primary won't be made public until later this week, but unofficially I heard that Obama won by a comfortable margin. The global tally of expatriate Democrats in 33 countries will be announced on Feb. 21.
Lots of delays tonight, apparently.
Update 5--Virginia GOP pulling a Washington GOP? Well, it seems that the counting has stopped in the Virginia Republican primary for about 30 minutes now. Did they find it necessary to fix this one for McCain, too?
Update 4--Obama Wins D.C.: To no one's surprise, Obama is projected as the winner of the D.C. primary by MSNBC. Without an exit poll, CNN cannot project.
Update 2--Huckabee to win Virginia?: The exit polls are beginning to shift, as per usual. The biggest change is that the Republican exit polls now project Huckabee ahead by about 1%. Hahahahahahaha. I also find it interesting that the more likely someone is to attend religious services, the more likely that person is to vote for Obama. Overall, the non-Christian vote is split, as Obama seems to do well among "others" while Clinton does well among seculars. Also, there does not appear to be an education gap in Virginia, as we have seen in other states.
Update--Obama Wins Virginia: CNN and MSNBC call Virginia for Obama. Wait for delegate counts, of course. The exit poll indicates something like 61%-39% for Obama. No call in the Republican race, but the exit poll looks pretty good for McCain.
Exit polls are supposedly showing blowouts in the Democratic contests. There could be immediate calls when the polls close.
Democratic Presidential Results
State
Reporting
Obama %
Clinton %
Delegates
Obama Del
Clinton Del
Virginia
77.8%
63.3%
35.5%
83
47
27
D.C.
0%
0%
0%
15
0
0
Maryland
9:30 p.m.
--
--
70
0
0
Maryland 4th Results 0% Reporting polls close at 8 p.m. 9:30 pm. eastern
Edwards: --
Wynn: --
All polls were conducted starting on January 23rd or later after John Edwards left the campaign:
Democratic Nomination At A Glance
State
Date
Polls
Obama
Clinton
P. Delegates
P. Delegates
Jun 7
32
1,019
937
3,253 / 3,566
Democrats Abroad
Feb 12
0
--
--
7
D.C.
Feb 12
1
63.0%
27.0%
15
Maryland
Feb 12
6
54.2%
34.0%
70
Virginia
Feb 12
6
54.5%
36.8%
83
Hawaii
Feb 19
0
--
--
20
Wisconsin
Feb 19
2
45.5%
44.5%
74
Ohio
Mar 04
1
39.0%
56.0%
141
Rhode Island
Mar 04
1
28.0%
36.0%
21
Texas
Mar 04
1
38.0%
48.0%
193
Vermont
Mar 04
0
--
--
15
The strategy for Clinton here seems obvious: use Wisconsin to set up March 4th. The problem, just as obviously, is that Obama's wins over the weekend and (probably) tonight could flip Wisconsin, and then flip March 4th. If that happens, the campaign might end before the Pennsylvania Interval. If not, then the fights over super delegates and Michigan / Florida will continue, and we definitely slog on to Pennsylvania on April 22nd (with stops in Wyoming on March 8th and Mississippi on March 11th, both very solid Obama states).
Also, I should not that I am seeing conflicting reports on the projected pledged delegate totals from Florida, a delegation that I believe the DNC credentials committee should, and will, seat. An earlier projection from wikipedia showed Clinton 95, Obama 63, and Edwards 27. A new projection shows Clinton 105, Obama 67, Edwards 13. I honestly don't know which one is correct. Any help on this matter would be appreciated in the comments.
The final lit, radio, and robocalls are in view. These are the last pieces of information voters will see before making their choices. All over the blogs, including in the comments here at OpenLeft, there are reports of massive Wynn robocalls and live calls into the district making accusations about Donna. I don't have a copy of Donna's final lit piece, but it has the Washington Post endorsement on the back and some comparison votes of relevant legislation between her and Wynn.
Wynn is passing two pieces out, one a negative low rent flyer about Donna's personal finances and the other an Obama-Wynn ticket sample ballot. Nothing is sourced.
