Open Left - Nebraska

Small States With Big Power

Mike Lux — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:02:27 GMT

There is a lot of discussion right now about how Senators from small states hold too much power compared to the percent of population they represent. There's a lot of truth to this. Alex MacGillis of The Washington Post wrote in an analysis column in their Sunday Outlook section, and David Sirota and Nathan Newman have done good pieces on the topic as well. The simple facts are that the key gang of six negotiating health care in the Senate Finance Committee represent less than 3% of the nation's population; that the 10 largest states are home to over half the country's population but represent only 20% of the Senate; the 21 smallest states together have less total population than California does.

It's good that people are raising these issues, and pointing out this unfairness. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that absent a constitutional convention suddenly being held, there is no changing this particular injustice. It would take 2/3 of the Senate, after all, to pass a constitutional amendment to restructure the Senate, and virtually all of the Senators from small states would vote against it. So we are stuck for now.

What we ought to be focused on instead are strategies that might work.

More in the extended entry.
Some folks I know are for ending the filibuster entirely, or at least cutting the vote needed for cloture from 60 to 55. This doesn't address the small state issue, but would at least bring us closer to majority rule. Being for more democracy rather than less, I would tend to favor such a thing despite the downside of all the damage Republicans would do when they had the majority. Senators themselves, though, like the additional power they get from only having to get 40 of their colleagues to agree with them instead of 50, and liberals tend to be scared of an unencumbered right wing in control of the government would tend to oppose such a thing, so I'm thinking that will be tough to win.

There is one thing that the progressive movement can start to do today, though, that can help change the dynamics in the Senate, and that is to invest in a small state/rural strategy.

I have felt for years that I am one of the few people in national Democratic politics who is both a strong progressive and a strong advocate for aggressively reaching out to people in rural and small state America. When I was on the 1992 Clinton campaign, and in the Clinton White House, I was liaison to both the broad progressive community and to farmer/rancher/small town groups. Ever since, I have strongly advocated both strong progressive positions and a vigorous small town/rural strategy even as (a) my mostly east and west coast and urban progressive friends were suspicious that outreach to rural folks would water down progressive politics, and (b) my friends from small states and rural areas were convinced big city liberals could never relate to them.

Having grown up in conservative Nebraska, with my in-laws family farmers in (very) rural and (very) Republican Missouri, I don't underestimate the challenges of a progressive small state strategy, but I would offer the following items from recent history as evidence:

In the 1950s, in one of the most Republican states in the country, George McGovern went county by county in South Dakota and built an organization that not only elected him Senator three times, but has been electing Democrats ever since. McGovern and his colleague James Abourezk were among the most progressive Senators in the country, while modern day South Dakota Democrats Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson have been loyal and mainstream Democratic leaders, in spite of South Dakota's strong Republican nature.
Iowa for most of its history had been one of the most Republican states in the country. When I first starting talking to people about taking a job there with a new statewide progressive coalition (the Iowa Citizen Action Network (ICAN)) in 1982, the state had a Republican Governor, two Republican Senators, a Republican majority Congressional delegation, and both Houses of the legislature controlled by the Republicans. But a group of progressive Democrats came together to rebuild the state Democratic Party as well as progressive organizations like Iowa Citizen Action Network. In 1982, Democrats took control of both legislative chambers, and in 1984 populist progressive Tom Harkin won a Senate seat. In 1988, Mike Dukakis won in Iowa, the first Democrat to win the state's electoral votes since the LBJ landslide in 1964, a victory which started a trend: in five of the six elections from 1988 to 2008, the Democrats won, losing narrowly only in 2004. Although Democrats lost control of the legislature for a while in the 1990s and early 2000s, a Democratic Governor, Tom Vilsack, finally won in 1998, and Democratic infrastructure kept getting stronger. Today, Democrats have the entire Congressional delegation except for one seat, and both houses of the legislature firmly in their control. They still have the Governor's mansion, and Tom Harkin is still there.
Montana is another state which has been strongly Republican over the years. Governor Brian Schweitzer has made a name for himself as a leader of western populist progressives, and Jon Tester came out of nowhere to surprise an establishment Democratic primary front runner, and then edge right wing Republican Senator Conrad Burns. Max Baucus is giving all of us progressives heartburn on health care, but I suspect if he was facing an election rather than just being elected to another six year term last year, he would be approaching the issue quite differently. A progressive group in the state, Forward Montana, has been doing an incredible job building an organization there.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, there is a fascinating combination of libertarianism and populism in the small states of the west and Midwest, and while this combination can produce a negative politics at times, it can also produce people like Schweitzer, Harkin, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, and the beloved progressive icon Paul Wellstone.

For too many years, progressive organizations and leaders have paid far too little attention to the small states and small towns of the Midwest and west. It is not as easy to organize there, pick up new direct mail or online members. And there are big cultural barriers between big city coastal progressives and rural/small state folks. The pay off for a long term strategy of organization and party building in small states is immense, though. We need to be investing in both national organizations that work on rural organizing such as RuralVotes, and great statewide groups like Forward Montana and ICAN. There is simply no other path to passing progressive legislation through the Senate without going through the small states.

Kyle Michaelis -- Fake Nebraska Progressive Blogger

AdamGreen — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:30:00 GMT

I want to tell you about a Nebraska blogger named Kyle Michaelis who pretends to be "the state's premiere source of progressive online political commentary" but is actually an apologist for Ben Nelson.

But first, the background details, some of which Paul mentioned earlier...

On Friday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America launched a new TV ad in DC and Nebraska holding Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) accountable for stalling health care reform while taking millions from health and insurance interests.

The ad features a super-compelling Nebraskan small businessman. It's accompanied by an open letter now signed by over 30,000 people calling out Nelson and telling the full Senate to keep working until health care reform is passed.

Ben Nelson immediately responded. The full statement is here, but the two most relevant sentences were:

Nebraskans don't need outside special interest groups telling them what to think...

If this is an indication of the politics going into August, then health care reform may be dead by the end of August.

The first sentence is absurd because the ad features a Nebraskan telling his personal story and demanding his senator represent people like him. (It's also absurd because, as Public Campaign points out, 83% of Nelson's millions from health and insurance interests comes from out of state!)

The second sentence...well, these headlines sum up the outrageousness:

Talking Points Memo: Nelson: If Reformers Keep Attacking Me, Health Care May Be Dead By End Of August
Huffington Post: Ben Nelson On Ads Run Against Him: They Could Kill Health Care Reform

The insolance of office, as Shakepeare wrote.

In response, the PCCC and DFA will increase our ad buy. So long as regular folks keep chipping in, we'll keep running them.

But that's all lead-up to the main point of this post. Here's what Kyle Michaelis wrote at the state's "premiere" progressive blog, NewNebraska.net:

If [small businessman] Snider is looking for those who are truly "leading the charge to delay health care reform," he needs to look no further than his other Senator, Mike Johanns, or his Republican Congressman, Lee Terry. In fact, Snider should have seen Terry in action throughout the House Energy & Commerce Committee's mark-up of HR 3200, during which Terry cast vote after vote against the very sorts of reform he so desperately needs.
Look, I would love to see more genuine progressive leadership from Nelson on the issue of health care reform. But, at the same time, I appreciate that Nelson approaches this issue from a radically different place than most liberal Democrats. He doesn't perceive the same inherent competition between corporate interests and the needs of the people. His approach isn't quite "what's good for Blue Cross is good for Nebraska," but I can't say that's too far off the mark.
This isn't something new. This is who Ben Nelson is - and what the people of Nebraska voted for in their two-term Democratic Governor and U.S. Senator. As frustrating as that may be in the present case, it's a choice we've made as Democrats and as Nebraskans - one we certainly didn't regret when it meant taking the majority in the U.S. Senate after the 2006 election.
It's cheap and unfair to reduce Nelson's well-known philosophical difference with the left-wing of the Democratic Party to just some insidious instance of quid pro quo. That's what this ad does in its second half - accomplishing absolutely nothing but giving the Nebraska Republican Party the best gift it could have hoped for as it works to claim Nelson's seat in 2012.

...Most importantly, we know our Democratic Senator well enough not to tolerate his being reduced to some cartoonish slave to insurance industry money while he struggles to do what's best for the people of Nebraska. That's not the Ben Nelson we know nor the Ben Nelson we trust to continue working on behalf of every Nebraskan.

What?? This is the state's "premiere source of progressive online political commentary?" Sounds more like a bad DSCC fundraising pitch. "The Ben Nelson we trust to continue working on behalf of every Nebraskan." Pathetic.

Notice how Kyle completely excused Nelson's millions from out-of-state insurance companies. And notice how Kyle took a progressive position supported by 76% of Americans and tried to marginalize it as solely the "left-wing of the Democratic Party." Again, pathetic.

And saying Nelson actively working against his constituents and lying to them is "what the people of Nebraska voted for?" P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.

Actually, shameful. Kyle Michaelis is either a complete party hack or he was once a progressive who has now been co-opted by party hacks. But there's one thing he is not: the state's "premiere source of progressive online political commentary."

In fact, I can prove it. Here's some political commentary from Darwin, one of Kyle's Nebraska commenters:

Once again, Kyle...you have proven that you are not willing to hold Nelson accountable for anything. We all appreciate your finger wagging whenever Nelson does something that even you cannot abide, but for criticism to be meaningful it has to come with, at least, the threat of consequences.
There is nothing about this ad which is dishonest. There is nothing about this ad which constitutes a "cheap shot" at Nelson. Nothing in this ad reduces Nelson "to some cartoonish slave to insurance industry money."
...What the ad does is try to push Nelson in the right direction. Nelson has given the impression that he can be moved on this issue. But, it's only going to happen if we hold his feet to the fire. You, it seems, would rather anoint them with oils. Mary Magdalene would be proud.
As for why the ad is not directed at Johanns, Nelson is a player in this debate. Johanns is not. Criticizing Johanns for the delays in healthcare reform would be like criticizing a towel boy because his team didn't reach the Super Bowl.

Congratulations, Darwin. In one comment, you proved that there are indeed more premiere progressive voices in Nebraska than Kyle Michaelis.

And in one blog post, Kyle Michaelis has completely decimated his credibility as a progressive. In the once-in-a-lifetime fight where progressives most needed Kyle to step up and hold Ben Nelson accountable, he stabbed them in the back in favor of party hackdom.

Feel free to tell Kyle your thoughts in the comments of his blog.

Nebraskans Greet Sen. Johanns, Staff Calls Cops

Raf Noboa — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:15:19 GMT

full disclosure - I work for SEIU as a regional new media specialist

One day before we celebrate the birth of our nation, Nebraskans gathered at a scheduled healthcare roundtable to call on Senator Johanns to support an American solution to our healthcare crisis.

Instead of greeting the teachers from NSEA, veterans, and SEIU workers Senator Johanns' staff called the police, ordering the Nebraskans to leave the Medical Center grounds.
"Johanns' voters-- teachers, members of the armed forces, and SEIU members-- set up a table with apple pie and signs welcoming the Senator and urging him to support a uniquely American solution to healthcare reform," explained Jane Kleeb, SEIU State Director. "Instead of coming by and saying hello, the Senator walked right by us as we were surrounded by police, and the Senator said 'good luck with that.'"

SEIU received advanced permission from the Nebraska Medical Center to greet the Senator as he started his day of roundtables on healthcare reform. Instead of greeting the healthcare reform advocates at the table, the Senator's staff called the police.

Just as our founders realized the time for hard decisions was upon them, SEIU and our partners know we can not afford to wait any longer to reform our broken healthcare system.

Nebraskans need policies that will make healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone. With our families and businesses struggling, the future of our nation depends on the solutions being debated in DC. It is not a time to slowdown, it is a time to act.
____________________

For more pictures of today's event, visit Nebraska's Change that Works Facebook album. To learn more about what we do, visit our website.

Rolling Through the Heartland

Mike Lux — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:43:05 GMT

I just got back from my longest trip yet on my book tour promoting The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be. Outside of a quick trip to a Netroots Nation regional meeting in Denver, all of my book travel up until now has been to heavily Democratic cities on the east and west coasts, but this trip was right in the heart of the heartland: Missouri (a swing state leaning red), Kansas and Nebraska (2 thoroughly red states), Iowa (a swing state leaning blue), and the most thoroughly blue Midwestern state there is, Illinois.

Adam took some photos from the trip you can check out on our Flickr set here.

After this all-American, politically diverse, trip, I have certain things I can feel confident in reporting on:

• I continue to be heartened by the great response to the book's message - really good crowds, really responsive people, great questions, incredible passion about changing the country. There really is a movement building everywhere - yes, even in the red states - for big progressive change.

• The populist feelings about the banks are very strong. My biggest applause line every place I spoke was "If you are too big to fail, you are too big to exist." Even though I was speaking to strongly pro-Obama audiences, people were very troubled by his banking policies.

• In spite of the economy, people are still fired up enough to be coming to fundraisers. I was a speaker at three different fundraising events - for the Nebraska Democratic Party in Lincoln, the Iowa Citizen Action Network in Des Moines, and Citizen Action Illinois/USAction in Chicago. All of them were successes, with a combined crowd of over 400 people.

• People very much want to be involved in changing America. There was no sense at all that folks are passively waiting for President Obama to take care of things. Every single event I went to - every single one - someone asked a version of the question "What can we do to help change things?"

It was a great trip, and now I'm back in D.C. for a couple of weeks before heading out again. I look forward to continuing to spread the message about the history, and future, of the progressive cause in America.

Sour Grapes In Nebraska

Daniel De Groot — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:00:00 GMT

So imagine you're a state that has given its electoral college votes to Republican candidates in every election except for the very biggest Democratic landslides, and has done so for 11 straight elections. But you have this very cute provision, whereby some of your state's electoral college votes can be peeled off, if the other party manages to win in any of the state's federal congressional districts. Now of course, this has never happened since the rule was put in place, so it was just a bit of cute trivia for election geeks to blather about, but no one expected it to actually happen.

Then one election, it actually does. Now you're the State's dominant party, the Republican party. What do you do?

Why, end the system and go back to a winner-take-all, of course.

Nebraska GOP chairman Mark Quandahl said the Republican Party wants to "put Nebraska in line with the 48 other states in the union that are allocating their electoral votes the correct way."
He said they'll urge a state senator to introduce a bill to repeal the unusual arrangement next year, but he objects to suggestions his party is being a bad sport.
"Pshaw. That isn't true," Quandahl said.

Strong rebuttal there, Mr Quandahl.

David Kramer with the Republican Party says it has nothing to do with the increased number of registered democrats. "I think it's a question of fairness." Kramer says the system only works for the democrats. Kramer says, "If it's good for us here than it ought to be good for us in California, in New York and those places where democrats would fight tooth and nail to make sure this kind of proposal never ever got passed." 80-year-old Helen Houston, who lives next door to De Mott, agrees.
Registered republican, Helen Houston says, "I think it has sparked a lot of energy but I still feel we need to be the same as the rest of the country." Republicans have tried to change the system in the past in 19-95 and 97, both times former Democratic Governor Ben Nelson vetoed it.
The chances the voter system will change next year depend on Nebraska's legislature. With new senators coming in, it depends which party gets the majority of the seats.

The Obama campaign mounted an unprecedented field operation in Omaha, registering new voters and prompting a record outpouring of early voters.

Last one:

Obama ignored Nebraska's history this year, sending 16 paid staffers into the 2nd District and opening three offices in Omaha.

It seems perfectly clear the law accomplished its intended purpose. A major party candidate invested time and resources into your state, and managed to swipe an electoral college vote, making it even more likely both parties would invest in Nebraska in 2012.

I guess in the NE GOP's defence, they have been trying to get rid of this law for some time. Though the current Republican governor has been in office since 2005, and the "non-partisan" (ha!) State unicameral state legislature sat at 31R-15D-3I before the election, so I'm not sure what was stopping them.

Speaking of the state leg, it appears that the Democrats have gained a couple, bringing them to 17 seats with 2 still undecided. According to the legislative rules, 1/3 of the legislature can block cloture on bills (the unicameral legislature was originally the Senate so it kept senate-like rules). A caveat though from that New Nebraska Network link:

On many state and local issues, the "D" or "R" next to a legislators' name does not and should not have a damn thing to do with how they vote and represent their constituents' best interests. Recognizing that, 17 Democratic votes wouldn't mean a whole lot because there is bound to be too wide a range of interests within such a group - especially on issues that divide urban and rural Nebraska.

So I gather there are a few mini-Nelsons within the NE leg Dems, who will regularly vote with the GOP.

Anyway, looks like Nebraska will return to national electoral irrelevance in time to prevent 2012's Republican candidate from having to invest any effort into the state.

At a National Level, this is an opening to talk about real electoral college reform via the National Popular Vote project. If Republicans want to whine that California wasn't willing to go first in surrendering a massive electoral Democratic advantage, then they should get on board. Nebraska doesn't even have a legislator willing to introduce a PV bill. It polls really well even in red states and leaves Republicans in the uncomfortable position of fighting against democracy. Seems like a winner, NE-Dems.

Different Than My Small-Town Values

Mike Lux — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:38:24 GMT

Cross-posted at Huffington Post

I was born and raised in Nebraska, and my wife grew up on a farm her brother and father still live on. It's four miles away from Westboro, MO, a town whose population has sunk below 200 many years ago. Before being pulled to the Washington, D.C. area because of my work a few years back, my wife and I had never lived in a town over the size of 200,000, and we're still most at home when hanging out with the family and friends back home at small-town cafes and restaurants that were favorite haunts as we were growing up. My brother is a Methodist minister serving a church in Lincoln now, but I miss the days when we could drive out to visit him in churches in places like Mullen, North Platte and Broken Bow, Nebraska.

I go through all this biographical background as a way of getting to this point: while I appreciated Sarah Palin's tribute to small-town values at one point in her speech, the values she exhibited in the rest of the speech were not the ones I recognized from the small towns I know. Her sarcasm, even downright nastiness at times, is not representative of the people I grew up with and still love.

More in the extended entry.
My wife, although she loves her small-town roots as I do, always reminds me not to romanticize small-town America. It is true, people sometimes gossip too much about each other there, and I've known some cruel and close-minded folks who live in small towns, just like there are cruel and close-minded folks everywhere you go. But I grew up in a family, church, and community where we were taught to look out for each other, to be kind to one another, to help out the families in our community who were down on their luck. The Sarah Palin I saw last night had a mean streak a mile wide. If me or my brothers and sisters would have been as sarcastic and demeaning to someone as Sarah Palin was last night, my mom would have sent us to our room. I know that Palin was just trying to be funny when she compared herself to a pit bull, but she was just about as nasty as one, and in the dog-loving families I know from small-town America, people generally prefer dogs that will play well with kids and neighbors. And the community organizers that Palin made so much fun of the folks who organized the potluck suppers at church and the Lions Club charities, the ones who really made those small towns go.

Many of my family and friends in small-town America are Republicans, but they're generally not this kind of mean Republican. The modern Republican party likes to call itself the party of Reagan, and Reagan did remind me of a lot of those small-town folks I know and liked- I disagreed with their politics, but they had a friendliness and warmth that I appreciated. Palin and the modern Republican party reminds me a lot more of Nixon, with that dark, resentful streak, more likely to stick a knife in their neighbor's back than give them a helping hand.

I feel like this election is coming down to a choice between candidates who wants to lift the country up and have them look to the future with hope and optimism, and a party that wants to drag us back to the resentments and fears of the past.

The Sarah Palin of last night, who claims to be the ultimate representative of small-town America, is anything but, because the small-town folks I know actually look out for each other.

The Heartland

Matt Stoller — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:13:03 GMT

Lincoln, NE, is AWESOME. The best moment was at the state fair watching a beauty contest where one of the speakers talked about her platform as 'eating right and being healthy' right next to booths like the one above.

This is what labor day looks like for lots of people here.

I've been asking around about why Nebraska is Republican. The most common response is 'tradition', and while there is a strong religious element, this is not a state where Huckabee was strong or Ron Paul had resonance. Nebraska has remarkable wind resources, and unlike Oklahoma, very little oil, so it's a net energy consumer. With high energy costs, this is killing the bedroom communities of 800 sprinkled throughout the state, and causing people to move into more urban areas. My guess is that 'tradition' has a lot to do with a heavily subsidized rural and military economy undergirded by historically cheap energy.

Obama is going to run much stronger here than Kerry did, and since Nebraska splits its electoral votes, he may come out and take one or two votes here. If the campaign chooses to organize here, Scott Kleeb could really benefit.

A Hot Beef Sunday in Lincoln, Nebraska

Matt Stoller — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:01:31 GMT

I'm heading over to Scott Kleeb's tailgate before the opening game of the season for the University of Nebraska Cornhusker's football team. I spent a bunch of time at the state fair, and there are more pictures coming, including the state's largest pig and some conversations and interviews about renewable energy. I'm driving through Lincoln on the way to Minneapolis for the RNC Convention.

Here's what you're missing.

And here's a description.

Finally, here's beefman.

I'm staying with Marvin Ammori, the lawyer behind the Comcast decision at the FCC and a law professor as of a week ago in Lincoln, NE. If you're in town, let him know.

Saving People Liberally

Living Liberally — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:07:02 GMT

Drinking Liberally Shot of Truth
by Seth Pearce

Today, we here at Living Liberally are both extremely proud and slightly saddened. We're saddened because we are losing our two Lincoln, NE chapter leaders for the next month.

However, our sadness is quickly overcome by how proud we are of what Paul McFarland and Troy Johnson are doing for the next couple weeks.

Early this morning, Troy and Paul left for California, to serve as Helicopter Flight Engineers fighting the California wild fires. As Paul related to us in an email last night, they're going as part of a group of trained Nebraskan aircrews eager to assist the Californian firefighters who are unfortunately running out of resources, dealing with all the fires out there.

As liberals, we know it is a proud day when we see our friends, who've talked about politics and the issues that face our country at their local Drinking Liberally chapter, turn their words into action. They put their daily lives aside and went all the way to California to help out their fellow Americans in need.

Sacrificing to help those who are suffering is key part of being a liberal, whether it means fighting wild fires like Troy and Paul, helping out good people like Darcy Burner when tragedy strikes, or voting for progressive candidates who will work for better healthcare for poor families, getting our troops out of Iraq and fighting global warming, (or else Troy an Paul will have to go out and do natural disaster rescue work every month).

Troy and Paul, you guys are true patriots and are most definitely Living Liberally.

Who Gets To Vote? States Battle Over Voter ID and Election Day Registration

project vote — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:25:04 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold Indiana's voter ID law, the state-by-state battle to pass similar legislation has escalated with politicians seeking partisan gain furiously pushing laws that hinder access to the ballot. However, lawmakers seeking to dismantle barriers to electoral participation are just as committed to election integrity and protecting the voting rights of potentially millions of voters by calling out voter ID laws as "sheer political posturing." Meanwhile, positive measures to increase participation through Election Day Registration (EDR) are gaining ground in several states even as Iowa prepares to test-drive its new EDR law in the June 3 primary.
Voter ID

Last week, two states introduced new voter ID bills, including Mississippi. The state - which convened for a "costly special session" - introduced two new voter ID bills after seven failed at the end of the 2008 regular session in April. One bill, S 2004a passed, but is expected to die in the House, according to Jackson, Miss. publication, The Clarion Ledger. The other state, North Carolina introduced voter ID bill, H 2284, explicitly citing the Supreme Court's Indiana decision and the state's unspecified "voter fraud history" as reason to enforce voter ID.

This week, stubborn Illinois politicians extended the deadline to pass voter ID bill, H 4403 for the third time since the bill was introduced in January. The state is projected to adjourn on May 29. Illinois' openness to continued efforts to pass a voter ID bill was not mimicked in Massachusetts on Tuesday when lawmakers blocked an effort to allow voter ID legislation in the city of Lawrence, according to The Eagle Tribune.

The Lawrence bill passed the city council in February in hopes of silencing "frequent rumors of electoral fraud and voter mischief," the mayor, Michael Sullivan, said. In another interview, Sullivan admitted he was not aware of actual voter fraud in the state, the Eagle Tribune reported. Even on the national level, voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Between 2002 and 2005, the federal government was able to secure just 24 voter fraud convictions out of 214 million ballots cast in federal elections during the same period, according to Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud.

Despite nine pending voter ID bills, such legislation is unwelcome in Mass., having a "powerful enemy" in chief election officer and Secretary of State William Galvin and organizations such as MassVote and the state ACLU, which "contended requiring voter ID was an unreasonable burden on voter access."

While the Mass. legislature blocked the bill to avoid setting "a precedent of allowing individual communities to have different election laws," Delaware politicians were less concerned with confusion and disenfranchisement. State legislators enacted a law permitting Milton city councilors to pass an ordinance requiring both proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID to cast a ballot.

This legislative session, Project Vote has monitored 25 states that introduced numerous voter ID bills. Currently, six states are still considering such legislation. To track some of these bills, visit ElectionLegislation.org (registration required).

Election Day Registration

On the positive side of election reform, several states are considering or preparing to implement a measure that "significantly increases the opportunity to cast a vote and participate in American democracy."

Iowa will "test" a new law allowing citizens to both register and vote on Election Day during the June 3 primary, according to the Associated Press. "It will be a good test for the county commissioners, because in November there will be a flood of people," said Secretary of State Michael Mauro.

The AP noted fears of voter fraud as a result of convenient registration procedures like EDR.

However, "administered effectively, Election Day Registration may actually provide more security for the ballot, not less," according to Demos, a research and advocacy organization. "As the secretary of state of Minnesota [Mark Ritchie] recently put it, 'EDR is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you-not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.'"

Election Day Registration helps enfranchise historically underrepresented communities, including minorities and young people. Currently, eight states allow same day registration, most of which boast a turnout rate 10-12 percent above the national average, Demos reports.

Last week, Ohio joined the ranks of seven other states that are currently considering EDR. The state introduced House Joint Resolution 6 to provide for same day registration. It is currently in the House committee on State Government and Elections. Same day registration is also being considered by Congress. Earlier this month, Sen. Russell Feingold introduced an EDR bill, S 2959. The bill is currently in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. To monitor Election Day Registration bills, visit ElectionLegislation.org or Demos.org.

Quick Links:
Voter ID:
Bills and Contact:
Miss. Senate Bill 2004a
Sponsor: Sen. Terry Burton (R-31)
Resources:
BLOG: Counter framing Voter ID: Voting is a Right, Not a Privilege. Voting Matters Blog.
Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans' Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
EDR:
Bills and Contact:
Mass. S 2514
Sponsor: Joint Committee on Election Laws
Mich. H 410
Sponsor: Rep. Bettie Scott (D-3)
Neb. L 803
Sponsor: Sen. Ray Aguilar (NP-35)
N.J. S 141
Sponsor: Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-20)
N.Y. A 4488
Sponsor: Asm. Michael N. Gianaris (D-36)
N.Y. S 581
Sponsor: Senate Rules Committee
Ohio HJR 6
Sponsor: Rep. Tyrone K. Yates (D-33)
Okla H 3035
Sponsor: Rep. Ryan McMullen (D-55)
Resources:
www.Demos.org

In Other News:

The Vote Fraud Bogeyman: Evidence suggests that rampant voter fraud is a myth, and voter-ID laws may suppress votes rather than protect them - Newsweek
Just as a sizable fraction of American children firmly believe in a bogeyman in the closet, many American adults are gripped by the paranoid fear that the opposing political party regularly steals votes-Democrats allegedly do this through vote fraud (i.e., casting ballots for dead people) and Republicans apparently do so through vote suppression (i.e., preventing voting through intimidation or misinformation).

Arizona to seek dismissal of challenge to voter ID law - Associated Press
State officials say a challenge to Arizona requirements for voter identification and proof of citizenship should be thrown out in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Saturday Election Results Thread

Chris Bowers — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:26:30 GMT

I am unavailable to blog this evening, but voting has begun in the Washington caucuses. I imagine that results will be coming in almost any minute now. Any major news website should suffice.

The Nebraska caucuses have already begun. The Nebraska Democratic Party will be posting results at 8:15 p.m. eastern. Early indications are of another Obama caucus blowout.

Polls in Louisiana close at 9pm eastern. I imagine any major news website will have results.

Also, the US Virgin Islands held a party convention today.

Today's Order Of Events

Chris Bowers — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:45:22 GMT

On deck for today:

Washington caucuses, 78 pledged delegates. Starts at 4 p.m. eastern.
Nebraska caucuses. 24 pledged delegates. Starts at 11:00 a.m. eastern, ends at 9:30 p.m eastern. Results will trickle in throughout the day.
Louisiana primary, 56 pledged delegates. Polls close at 9 p.m. eastern.
Virgin Islands party convention, 3 pledged delegates. Not sure when we will have results

I'll be on the road for a bit, but I will also be around to post occasional updates on results later tonight. Personally, I am hoping for decisive results in all of today's events. More information on these contests can be found here.

The Upcoming Contests: Polls, Delegates, Formats and More

Chris Bowers — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:10:49 GMT

Are we getting ready to vote again already? Really? Man, this never ends. Super Tuesday counting is expected to end today, so I guess we will be receiving new delegate totals every day from now through Wednesday, inclusive.

There has been very little polling for the numerous contests to take place over the next five days, but here is what little post-Iowa information we have:

Washington caucuses, February 9th. Starts at 4 p.m. eastern: Obama 53%--40% Clinton. Survey USA, 2.2-2/3. 78 pledged delegates are up for grabs, and both candidates are on the air and campaigning on the ground in Washington. With a caucus and a double-digit lead in the polls, Obama is heavily favored here.
Louisiana primary, February 9th. Polls close at 9 p.m. eastern: No polls to report, ever. What polls there are wouldn't be of any use anyway, as we saw in the primary challenge against William Jefferson in late 2006. I can report that there are 56 pledged delegates at stake, and that Jesse Jackson won here in 1988. Both candidates are campaigning on the ground and over the airwaves. Obama is once again favored. Polls close at 9 p.m. eastern.
Nebraska caucuses, February 9th, ends at 9:30 p.m.: Once again, no polls to report, ever. We will probably see results trickling in from Nebraska all day tomorrow, since the caucuses start as early as 11:00 a.m. eastern in some places, and end as late as 9:30 p.m. in others. Obama has dominated caucuses in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota. He also won a little caucus that was held in Iowa five weeks ago. This is big time Obama territory, and Clinton is not even visiting the state. I expect another 2-1 Obama victory in pledged caucus delegates from here.
Virgin Islands, convention, February 9th: Beats me how the three pledged delegates will break. Expect either 2-1 Obama or 2-1 Clinton. Then again, as telephasic points out in the comments, it will probably go 2-1 Obama, given that the island is 76% African-American.
Maine caucuses, February 10th, starts as early as 1 p.m. eastern: There hasn't poll a from here since April, when Clinton led 39%-22%. Of course, Clinton led everywhere back then, so who knows. No clear favorite, with 24 pledged delegates at stake. This is probably Clinton's best chance for a win this week.
Democrats Abroad, February 12th, already underway: The balloting for Democrats Abroad ends on February 12th, and we should know the results before any other polls close on Tuesday. Again, I wouldn't presume to guess how the seven pledged delegates at stake will divide up.
Maryland primary, February 12th: The only recent poll from Maryland, taken January 6th through January 9th, showed Obama well ahead, 39%-26%. 70 pledged delegates are at stake here, and Obama is favored.
D.C. primary, February 12th: No polls from D.C., but Obama did win the caucuses 519 to 271. I'll take that as a sign that Obama is heavily favored in this contest where 15 pledged delegates are at stake.
Virginia primary, February 12th: This is starting to sound like a broken record, but Obama is also heavily favored in Virginia. A newly released poll from Insider Advantage shows Obama ahead 52%-37%, and a Survey USA poll from January showed Obama ahead 59%--37%. Clinton is campaigning here, but this certainly looks like all Obama. 83 pledged delegates are at stake

Obviously, Obama looks really good over the next five days, where 360 pledged delegates are at stake, total. The goal for Clinton, I think, is to limit the damage by winning a state or two (possibly Maine or Virginia?), and keeping Obama's pledged delegate lead under 100, thus giving her the perception of an "overall" delegate lead. Currently, my latest pledged delegate count is Obama 896, Clinton 878, with 18 delegates still outstanding form Super Tuesday. In order to take a pledged delegate lead of 100 or more, Obama needs 230 of the 378 pledged delegates floating around between now and Tuesday. Unless he scores a 2-1 blowout in Washington, I doubt he will win quite that many. Still, when Obama's delegate total, even with super delegates included, becomes higher than Clinton's after February 19th, I wonder if news outlets will start to pay attention to the super delegate issue.

Kerrey: "I'll kick the shit out of any liberal who tries that."

Matt Stoller — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:59:35 GMT

That was Bob Kerrey, on Democrats that wanted to defend Social Security from privatization. Jonathan Singer has a comment, echoed somewhat heatedly by Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine on Mark Warner.

I think this ties in well with a broader conversation going on within the netroots and progressive circles about whether it is better to exclusively support candidates who are with us on most every issue and who speak and act in ways that forward the movement, or to support candidates who may not be with all of the time and/or who may speak and act in ways that don't always forward the movement if the election of those candidates would help the Democrats get closer to 60 votes in the United States Senate. This debate pertains also to Nebraska, where it appears that Bob Kerrey, who is hawkish on the war and has shown a willingness in the past to to deviate from the progressive line, is eyeing a return to the United States Senate. To a lesser extent it also applies to Democratic primaries in states like Oregon and New Hampshire, where the establishment pick is not by any means bad (in fact in both cases fairly progressive) but where there is also a strong grassroots candidate in the mix.

We approach this problem from different roles. Singer and Feld have been consultants for candidates, I have been primarily a consultant for causes. So it makes sense that they are aggressive about rejecting criticism of Democrats, whereas I am not.

That said, I have to say that I find this conversation curious and frustrating. No one is putting forward the notion that Mark Warner or Jean Shaheen should lose their race to a Republican, though somehow that always seems to be the straw man that is often used to discredit so-called intolerant progressives. Shaheen and Warner both have progressive tendencies on some issues, and it's not clear there's a real alternative in either case. But you can't just say that Bob Kerrey disagrees with progressives on some issues some of the time and that he'll be a good reliable vote getting to 60 the rest of the time. It's not just that the Senate doesn't work like that, it's also that Social Security and Iraq are core bedrock progressive tenets of society. Before Social Security, a third of the elderly lived in poverty, and the Iraq war has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will end up killing millions more. This is not like disagreeing on gun control.

There's also a real strategic disagreement about what makes a strong party. I don't think there's much leverage in boosting team Democrat at all times, since that strikes me as mindless cheerleading, though from 2002-2006 this was an essential task. At this point, there's a lot more leverage for social change in working to improve the Democratic Party and doing so against the tide of insiders who don't want reform and competition. If this party doesn't change, the calcified culture will lose to Republicans in 2010, or 2012. And it's well-known in branding that you have to stand for something; Bob Kerrey, like Lieberman, will ruin our ability to brand our party as the party of common sense and of the people.

At heart, what really is going on here is that Feld and Singer believe that criticism of these Democrats is harmful to the party, and I believe that criticism of these Democrats is helpful to the party. Both are reasonable views, though starkly different in their moral assumptions. My read is that fighting for better parking spots for Democrats is both fruitless and worthless, but that a democratic process works to create a good and moral society, that more speech is better, and that power ought to be treated with tremendous skepticism.

If Singer or Feld want to defend Bob Kerrey, they can and should go right ahead, but they will be defending a Senator who attacks Democrats and liberals with the same ferocity as Joe Lieberman. If they want to set 60 votes as the only goal, then they must also defend the House majority that passed the warrantless wiretapping bill. And they have to defend the fact that Bush needed, desperately, a Democratic Senator to cosponsor his privatization scheme in 2005, and couldn't find one. Kerrey would have been Bush's person, and Social Security would be gone, and millions on their route to elderly destitution.

Now, I'm not making the case that Kerrey should be opposed by progressives. I haven't made up my mind on that. What I do know is that the downsides of a Kerrey in the Senate are large, and real, and that the 60 vote magic number should not be an excuse not to deal with them.

Voter Disenfranchisement: Politicization at the DOJ Leads To Questionable Voter Purge Attempts

project vote — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:54:43 GMT

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

This an entry in a series of blogs to keep people informed on current election reform and voting rights issues in the news.

Featured Story of the Week:

Voter Purging: A Legal Way for Republicans to Swing Elections? - AlterNet
Justice Department wants court hearing on Alabama voting system - Associated Press, WAFF.com

"To me, it's a very clear view of the Republican agenda, said former [Department of Justice Civil Rights Division] Voting Section Chief, Joe Rich. "The GOP agenda is to make it harder to vote. You purge voters. You don't register voters. This is ripe for partisan decision making. You pick the states where you go after Democrats."
"They want more people showing up on Election Day and not finding their names. They want people not voting,"said David Becker, People for the American Way Foundation's senior voting rights counsel and former Voting Section attorney. "This stuff disenfranchises voters."

These strong quotes were reported by Alternet Senior Fellow Steven Rosenfeld in his story regarding pressure from the Justice Department on 10 states to purge their voter rolls in advance of the 2008 elections. In the name of combating so-called "voter fraud" (see here for a Project Vote report on its non-existence) and possibly affecting thousands of voters, "Alternet found that some states facing Justice Department pressure to purge voters have long been targeted by GOP 'vote fraud' activists, especially where concentrations of minority voters have historically elected Democrats..."

"Looking toward the 2008 election, it appears the purges could be a new and legal way to accomplish a controversial longstanding Republican Party electoral tactic - thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close race," Rosenfeld wrote.

In accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, states are required to periodically remove ineligible voters from the statewide official voter list. States are responsible for developing specific standards for implementing a list maintenance program that is transparent, consistent and non-discriminatory.

Earlier this year, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent "identical letters" to the Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Vermont, notifying them that 10% or more of their election jurisdictions have more registered voters than citizen voting age population. The letter then requested that states report "'the subsequent removal from rolls of persons no longer eligible to vote.'" For further information on one state's handling of Tanner's request, see this June Project Vote blog, including a link to Tanner's letter to the NC State Board of Elections and executive director Gary Bartlett's response to the Justice Dept.

The Justice Dept. assessed state voter rolls based on a 2004 report on NVRA by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an analysis that former Voting Section attorneys and experts consider flawed.

"You are basically seeing them grasping at whatever straws are possible to make their point," said Kim Brace, a consultant who helped the EAC prepare the 2004 NVRA report cited by the Voting Section letter. "The 'total voter registration numbers' in Tanner's letter combined active and inactive registrations, Brace said, creating an inflated number for total registrations. In contrast, he said the 'citizen voting-age population' was a mid-decade census estimate and a smaller measure.'"

Using the same methodology "cited in Tanner's letters," AlterNet attempted to identify states with "swollen voter rolls" that needed to be purged. Eighteen states were found to allegedly have at least 10% of their jurisdictions claiming more registered voters than eligible, voting-age citizens. AlterNet noted that many states had outdated rolls, especially in rural counties where registered voters have moved, died, or felony convictions and needed to be removed under federal law. "However, AlterNet found that some states facing Justice Department pressure to purge voters have long been targeted by GOP 'vote fraud' activists, especially where concentrations of minority voters have historically elected democrats." The provocateur includes prominent Republican voter fraud activist, Hans Von Spakovsky, who "started the department's purge effort in January 2005 when he was a political appointee overseeing the Voting Section's legal agenda."

"Unlike most of the 'voter fraud' cases cited by GOP activists, where a handful of registrations - usually in the single digits - from big voter registration drives are found to be erroneous, purges can affect thousands of voters," and thus, determine close elections, Rosenfeld wrote. "In Florida and Missouri in 2000, a total of 100,000 legal voters were incorrectly removed, according to academics and local election officials."

Experts estimate that 1/4 to 1/2 of inactive voters still have valid registrations and have either not received or responded to the mailing from elections offices, verifying their status as voters. Reasons for non-response range from clerical errors in names and addresses to improperly delivered mail. "Moreover, low-income people often are transient and hard to reach," Rosenfeld wrote. Low income mobility rates are greater than that of the affluent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 37% of people earning less than $15,000 per year moved between 2000 and 2005, compared to about 35% of those earning $100,000 or more. An even greater mobility rate exists among people of color, who are over-represented in low income populations and thus, are more likely to be removed from the rolls than whites. Nearly half of Latinos (49%) and 41% of Blacks changed residency between 2000 and 2005 compared to 38% of whites.

"It's a misnomer to call them inactive," said Daniel Ivey-Soto, New Mexico's director of elections. More than 18% of the database is inactive at any time, half of which are actually active voters, he said.

Former Voting Section lawyers also question the DOJ's timing because states have been coming into compliance with HAVA's database regulations at differing paces. For example, Alabama's governor recently asked for more time to develop a statewide, computerized voter registration database. In response, the Justice Dept. requested to hear why the state is missing its already extended August deadline, according to the Associated Press on Tuesday.

We've provided links below for more information on list maintenance that voter participation advocates can use to advocate for public policies, rules, and regulations that broaden access to the polls, rather than restrict them.

Quick Links
"Maintaining Current and Accurate Voting Lists." Project Vote. December 2006.
"Geographical Mobility: 2000-2005." U.S. Census Bureau.
"Purged! Will Eligible Voters Be Purged From Election Rolls?" Demos. 2004.
Blog: "Backroom Voter Suppression: Who Gets Knocked Off Voter Lists?" Project Vote. August 10, 2007.
DOJ Letter to NC State Board of Elections
NC State Board of Elections response to DOJ

In Other News:

Four Wisconsin men were charged with voter fraud this week for registering and voting as convicted felons last November. The men claim they misunderstood the state's law regarding voting rights as felons. Read more in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Starting with next week's election, Georgia will require all voters to provide an ID at the polls. Judge Harold Murphey, who halted enforcement of the 2005 law for unconstitutionality, "reversed course," and applauds the law, which now includes a voter education and outreach program. Read more in this NPR report here.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

Notes on Nebraska Politics

Mike Lux — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:00:00 GMT

Although Chuck Hagel is obviously a really quirky guy and could change his mind at the drop of a hat, everyone I talked to in the know about Nebraska politics is pretty convinced that Hagel is going to announce his retirement, and that Bob Kerrey is going to get in the race to replace him. I know that many in the blogosphere are not fans of Kerrey's, some even comparing him to Lieberman, and I have never been close to him. But I think his running again is actually a good thing.

The most obvious reason is that he will likely give Democrats another seat in the Senate. Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey and Scott Kleeb are the two other potential Senate candidates, and while both have a lot going for them, I think their paths to winning a statewide Senate race are much more uphill compared to Kerrey's, who is still very popular and who would likely beat any of the Republican candidates.

I also don't think Kerrey is as bad as a lot of the blogosphere assumes. He is for sure an independent cuss, one who has driven me crazy many times over the years, and he would be very unpredictable on issues the progressive community cares about. But overall he was the most progressive Senator that Nebraska has had since the legendary George Norris (a Republican in the 1930s who championed rural electrification and labor law reform). And unlike most politicians, he will be open and passionate about what he believes. He will drive us all crazy from time to time, but on balance he's a whole lot better than either Lieberman or any of the Republicans running.

I also had a good conversation with Scott Kleeb, his wife and new Nebraskan Jane Fleming Kleeb, and most importantly their one month-old baby Maya (they got me to lunch by promising I could hold her). Scott got 45% last year in one of the five most Republican districts in the country, and is trying to decide whether to run again. It's a tough call given the nature of the district, and it would be really difficult to defend the seat even if he did win in 2008. I think he's leaning toward going for it in spite of the odds, and I hope he does- he's a good guy. The nature of the district wouldn't allow him to vote with progressives on every issue, but I think he would always be open to listening to us, and would do what he could, given the district, to be a solid team player for Democratic leadership on tough votes.

Nebraska: Second Primary Challenger to Hagel Declares

Matt Stoller — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:46:46 GMT

The right-wing is prowar, which is why people like Chuck Hagel keep getting primary challengers. That, or Hagel's going to retire. His first challenger is Jon Brunning, a hyper-ambitious and unbelievably hardworking former liberal Democrat running to the right of Hagel. This new one is a guy named Pat Flynn, and he's a weird one.

A Schuyler investment adviser announced Tuesday that he is a candidate for U.S. Senate.
Pat Flynn, 48, said he is fed up with the lack of a conservative posture by the Senate and wants to take Nebraska values to the nation. The Republican said those values include religious faith and an anti-abortion stance.
The volunteer youth minister said he was arrested for both drunken driving and marijuana possession in his 20s but has reformed his life and believes that he sets a good example by being upfront and making amends for past mistakes.

Ok then.

And in a semi-related Nebraska politicians are freaks thread, former Senator Bob Kerrey, who may run on the Democratic ticket, presided over actor Steve Martin's wedding. Martin invited his friends over for a party without telling them it was a wedding, and then delivered his vows sporting an 'Inspector Clouseau mustache'. Boomers are crazy.