Larios v Cox was affirmed by the Supreme Court today, with the brave and noble Justice Scalia dissenting. This means that the old legislative districts approved by the Democrats and Barnes are never coming back and also that a number of states could potentially be in play. When the decision first was handed down by the district court, a number of people pointed out that 30 other states had similar deviation to Georgia's (in the 9-10% overall range).
Democrats or Republicans in those states should immediately sue to overturn their districts based on this decision. 41 states total have deviation greater than Georgia's current 2% (+ or - 1% overall) although the court's refusal to hear this case makes it a little unclear if this is the new safe harbor or if +/- 4 or some other number will still be acceptable.
The court also refused to get involved in Colorado's redistricting case, affirming the CO Supreme Court's ruling that redistricting can only be done once per decade. Even when a court is who initially does it then that counts as the once per decade and a newly elected legislature can't step in and claim responsibility for something the court has already done. This is in Colorado's constitution and doesn't necessarily apply to other states.
Following redistricting law is kind of like watching water swirl down a drain. Ultimately we think we know what the conclusion will be but it's taking a long time to get there and the path is not very direct. It seems to me that the guidelines in the future will be to do whatever you want but to keep the deviation to +/- 1% or as close to 0, preferably. Certain states, like Hawaii will probably be allowed extra deviation due to extraordinary geographic concerns, but I think the future is ugly maps with little to no deviation. And then after that I imagine there will be a growing chorus demanding nonpartisan redistricting commissions like Iowa's. BOOORING, but it seems inevitable.
Extra: See what kind of deviation your state allows.
There has been a lot of chatter regarding redistricting lately (see SCOTUS blog and Election Law Blog) and something possibly being in the works, though I'll go on a limb and predict no change, ie the status quo, will keep up.
It's gotten me wondering, especially with the Canadian elections last night, is redistricting an American thing or do other countries do it as well? It seems like Britain, England, France etc use pretty defined districts (or ridings or whatever) to elect members of their lower houses and it doesn't seem like they adjust them for population variance as often as we do. And that might account for the huge swings that you can see in a parliamentary election from one party to another, though I have a hard time coming up with a rationale to explain exactly how that would work.
The only thing I can kind of think of is how the counties in Georgia swung from heavily pro-Barnes in '98 (he maybe won 120 out of 159) to just as heavily pro-Perdue in '02 (he won a similar majority as Barnes had). If we still had the old county unit system for electing our state house you might have seen a huge Republican swing but the reality is about 60 of these counties that swung from one party to another in a statewide race might only make up 6 or 7 senate districts and 20 house districts.
UPDATE: I've done some quick research and it seems that Canada allows 25% deviation (so the lines probably don't change much) and that the actual parliamentary body takes care of the process through committees -- no letting the provincial legislatures handle it like in the states. And also that Britain has a "Boundary Committee" that seems intent on making adjustments to local districts but I'm unclear regarding their House of Commons.
It is amazing but for a prominent article about John Kerry, this one is one of the fairest I've seen. It's virtually free of GOP spin and lies and it's pretty flattering to its subject matter. And oh yeah, it's in that well known liberal publication the Army Times.
You should see the movie everyone else is seeing if for no other reason than to see truly how terrible even "modern" warfare is. You can debate on whether or not it was worthwhile to take out Saddam (as this very singularly seems to be the only worthwhile thing to come out of the whole adventure) but if a top priority of yours is supporting the troops I think it's clear that the best thing for them would be to not have a President that would send them into this sort of situation again.
It's such a difficult issue...in October 2002 I would have counted myself a supporter of some sort of action in Iraq back when the details hadn't emerged yet. As war got closer though I was a more vehement objector to it. I'm not asking for some sort of prize because of this "prescience" but I do think that myself, like about 40% of America, can see both sides of this issue -- wanting to do something while at the same time not wanting to do just anything.
When you look back at polls at one time nearly 80% of the country supported this war and now even at its lows nearly 40% still do. My guess is that a fairly sizable bloc of that 40% wouldn't support it if it were "Kerry's War" or "Gore's War" and so that leaves about 60% of the country that isn't willing to follow their chosen leader off of a cliff.
And that's good news. And I think it's good news for Kerry, because while the first impression many voters may have gotten from Bush's negative ads was that he was a flip flopper and that Bush was a strong leader, I think the more they think about it, "flip flopping" shows at least signs of being able to second guess yourself -- or in Bush's case your cronies. As for being a "strong leader" well look where it's led us.
Also, although many people on both sides of the aisle will write off Fahrenheit 911 as merely a "Bush bashing fest" I think it continues the theme of Moore's earlier movie about the culture of fear that we live in, how it is exploited and the truly terrible things that happen when pessimism becomes the primary motivator in people's decision making. And despite Bush and Rove's hopes, just saying that things are OK is becoming less and less of a replacement for things actually being all right.
Here's something to chew on. The chairman of the "Democrats for Bush" organization didn't vote for George Bush in the primary this year. He didn't vote for the flag or a Democrat, either. Just didn't vote. Strange how apathy can set in at even the highest levels isn't it? That or he just can't bring himself to vote as a Republican but can't stomach the Democrats anymore either. Regardless, it's a bizarre spectacle we're all witness to.
I've got to hand it to Robert LaMutt for making the first really memorable campaign spot of the election cycle. In years past Bob Barr would usually take this distinction but LaMutt's use of a talking dog will probably be the most memorable positive ad of the primary election cycle.
Dear Jim: If this stuff really bothers you then advocate some sort of tax increase to pay for it. At the very least, stop supporting tax cuts that aren't matched by guarantees of offsetting spending cuts (not just the promise of cuts).
The odd thing is, I can't tell if Wooten would rather more people qualify for state assisted health care or if he thinks better off people should replace the "lazy" poor people who are currently eligible for assistance. Since he doesn't offer any solution beyond proclaiming "it's wrong" I must admit that I'm kind of confused as to why he wrote the article in the first place.
It's funny...when Democrats appeared above Republicans on the ballot because the of the old "party of the Governor" clause Wooten advocated immediate repeal of the law. What a pressing issue! Now that there is a medicaid crisis it's ok to bemoan the fate of those affected but god forbid government actually grow to help them. What's a compassionate conservative to do?
Further electoral college commentary. The absolute worst idea of the bunch is to just assign the votes by congressional district. This is a terrible idea for a number of reasons, the most immediate that comes to mind is gerrymandering. If you think redistricting is already bad just wait until its outcome decides the Presidency. You'd have a state like Pennsylvania that both Gore and Rendell (their Democratic governor) won but Bush probably picks up a majority of the electoral college votes done by Congressional district because the lines are drawn to heavily favor Republicans.
Regional voting like this is ok for a representative body but statewide or nationwide elections aren't representative because the Congress already takes care of that. Furthermore, you punish people who vote similarly for living in close proximity of each other. Imagine a state with 2 rural Congressional districts and 1 urban one. The Republican wins each rural district 60-40 and loses the urban one 75-25. The way Nebraska and Maine already do it the Republican gets 2 EV's and the Democrat gets 1. But the Democrat would have actually won the statewide vote 52-48.
Combine that with gerrymandered districts and you've got serious potential for a very flawed system. Additionally, I realize that when you extrapolate this argument it is eventually an argument against a non-proportional (ie electoral college) method of electing statewide or nationwide officers.
Finally, it's important to remember that while the electoral college may give Montana 3 times the voting power of California the old county unit system gave some small Georgia counties 30 to 50 times the voting power of Fulton and DeKalb counties.
I see that Kos has gotten excited that Colorado might allocate its Electoral College votes proportionally. I say hold your horses there, buddy. While it's true that allocating Colorado's votes in 2000 would have helped Gore to the tune of +3 (therefore giving him the election) allocating electoral votes on a nationwide level would have actually produced a Bush win, 274 to 264 or 276-262 if you allocate the 2 Senate votes to the winner and then divy up the rest of the state's votes proportionally.
Interestingly, when you do it the second way, Gore actually leads Bush 220-216, but since Bush won 11 more states than Gore did those extra 2 votes really add up (just like in the real electoral college). I'm not sure what the solution is.
A lot of people forget that the electoral college was designed to prevent one large region from dominating the others in national elections, but back then you also had more regional (not just red/blue) divisions and the goal was to throw the election into the Congress and have them sort it out. It wasn't really designed for this two-party deadlock and as much as nuts like Grover Norquist probably think the founders would be right at home at his weekly prayer breakfast, the EC wasn't designed to favor one regional group (South + Rural Western) to win every time even when they don't have the popular vote on their side. It was meant to prevent regionalism, not crystalize control for one region.
One very important thing to remember about the electoral college is that it generally magnifies the victory of whoever wins and helps establish a mandate for them. Both Nixon and Reagan nearly won 100% of the electoral vote which made their 60% or so actual margin of victory seem a lot more impressive. The same thing can be said about Clinton's 43%-42% victory of Bush 41 in 1992...it wasn't that big at all but when you woke up and saw the electoral map in the paper you kind of got the sense that Clinton was most of the country's choice.
Now when you apply this to 2000, you really must think of the biggest problem in that election as being Florida. It seems very likely that Bush voters in Florida (for various reasons) did a better job voting for him than Gore's did, but if Gore had actually won his electoral college margin would have been 292-246, which would have reinforced in the public's mind that while it was a close election Gore did win. That's one of the reasons Bush's very slim electoral margin victory doesn't bestow any confidence in his legitimacy in his opponents' eyes -- they know a margin that slim means that there really was no popular mandate.
I attended the Lumpkin County GOP BBQ in Dahlonega today to see my new best friend Johnny Isakson speak to the crowd. Unfortunately, Martha Zoller, who is never wrong was the MC for the event. She's the "voice of conservatism in North Georgia" and never met a self-hating Democrat she didn't like. She's also not so secretly supporting Herman Cain and when you count the two out of state Club for Growth college kids (straight from the Toomey campaign) in the crowd that made three people at the event.
Anyway, today's beef with Martha Zoller is her insistence on politicizing the death of Ronald Reagan. She told the crowd that (paraphrasing here) "the Democrats must have been upset when they saw all those people in line waiting to pay their respects to Reagan." I personally hadn't given it a thought until Martha brought it up, but then she went further, making sure the crowd knew that it was "middle class people like you", not "fancy dressed businessmen" thus inserting some good old fashioned class warfare into Reagan's death as well.
I thought it was a nice funeral, though I thought the media coverage was a little overdone, as I'd prefer to find out what's going on in Iraq instead of watching the airplane carrying the casket take off and land. I'm glad lots of people paid their respects as it's not everyday that an ex-President dies, it's an important piece of history. But I was not upset at the number of people that viewed the coffin -- and if Martha Zoller thinks that's how people like me think then that says a lot more about Martha Zoller than about 'Democrats.'
If Martha Zoller is the voice of conservativism in North Georgia I'd hate to hear from it's lesser advocates.
McCain saying no makes perfect sense. If Bush wins, well then he supported the winning team and everything pretty much stays the same as it is now, with McCain continuing for 4 more years as every media outlet's favorite Republican.
But if Kerry wins, wouldn't McCain be better off as VP? Not necessarily. If Kerry wins my guess would be that the minority of Republicans who supported Bush through thick and thin and who can't stand the Bush/DeLay/Frist/Lottism of the past ten years would be feeling pretty vindicated. And who would their natural leader be? Probably one John McCain.
And then instead of being Kerry's yes man, he'd likely be the go to guy in the Congress to build support for whatever initiatives Kerry decides to pass. I'd assume that McCain would be pretty instrumental in crafting said initiatives pretty much however he wants. And if you think about it, wouldn't you rather be running the Senate than presiding over it?
One thing that makes me hopeful about all the McCain rumors is that if true it disproves the notion that Kerry is too vain to pick someone who might outshine him, namely Edwards. Edwards has got nothing on McCain in that department. Everybody I know has been worried sick since Kerry wrapped up the nomination that he'd completely screw up the VP pick by choosing someone exactly like Vilsack or Gephardt, and those rumors scare me!
I've constructed a very simple statement that JK can use as guide when selecting his running mate. Here it goes: If Sam Nunn will do it, pick him. If not pick Edwards. It's that simple.
The stem-cell debate is the perfect issue to be pro-choice on and help neutralize this issue in the election. You will not find a more clear-cut area where your opponent has taken an unreasonable position exclusively to pander to his base. Just saying.
It struck me today that when you compare Slate's coverage of Reagan's death with their general coverage of George W. Bush in the here and now, the coverage of Reagan is a lot nastier, although the headlines are usually worse than the body of the various pieces.
I think this probably has to do with the coming of age bias of most of the mainstream media. Guys like Saletan were much younger and much more likely to dislike those figures they disliked at that age but now they are serious journalists. But those first impressions carry over. Does anyone think Hitchens would dislike Reagan were he President in 2004? Probably not.
I wonder what kind of implications this will have for me personally. 20 years from now there could be some President way worse than Bush but I might be inclined to give him a pass because he doesn't stir up the same passions Bush did at age 21. Matthew Yglesias noticed a similar thing going on with George Will and John Kerry -- Will attacks Kerry this week for his stance on nuclear waste in Nevada, but you can tell Will's heart just isn't in it. I guess he realizes that at this age he could really go after Kerry, but what for? Bush is no hero to true believers of the conservative movement that Will made his career in, and I guess there aren't as many chicks to get being a fiery conservative pundit when you qualify for Medicare.
The flip side of this is that middle age conservative journalists are going mental about Reagan now for the same reason. When they were 15 or 20 or whatever and wore their Ronald Reagan button proudly on their jean jacket and everyone they knew at Harvard or wherever was just shocked that they weren't a liberal it forged a real bond. When I was 6 I liked Reagan just because he was the President...I imagine that if you're of an impressionable age and a Republican this guy was great and the fact that all your liberal friends couldn't stand him made it even better.
The thing that confounds me is that when you take all the things away from Reagan that even I would grudingly admit make him a good politician/President (good speaker, wrote some of his own speeches, wrote pen pal letters to admirers, right on Communism -- like all other Cold War Presidents of course, somewhat responsible on budgetary matters) you basically have leftover the things that George W. Bush reminds conservatives of Reagan, and the completely empty things like "owns a ranch."
The saddest thing is that Bush has eschewed all the great qualities of his father (namely his diplomatic abilities and experience) for the most shallow of Reagan's conservative appeals because that's what gets votes. John Kerry's no prize and he wasn't my first or even second choice, but you get the sense that after the campaign is over he'll enjoy being President for all the nitty gritty details, the same way he enjoys being in the Senate and I'm sure being Lt. Governor and a prosecutor, he likes to do these jobs. Bush seems to like being President because of the permanent campaign, afterall campaigning is the only thing he's been a real success at in his entire life. That's the job he likes and ultimately having a guy like that may not be terrible for mayor of your city but as President it's a joke that's just not funny anymore.
While I am all for bloggers running for the state legislature (ahem) I am all against blogger candidate celeb Mary Beth Williams' playing of the Sex Card. Obviously every candidate that runs for office is going to leverage any and all possible advantages to try to get themself elected, but the idea that women must be represented by women is, to me, as offensive as suggesting that African-Americans must be represented by AA's or that whites must be represented by whites.
The fact that the rest of the legislative districts in her city are represented by men is really a matter for the voters in those other legislative districts, and shouldn't be an issue in hers. The whole point of represenative democracy isn't that you use one district to "even out" the results of other districts (this is also why I'm against the strict GOP reading of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, disavowed by the Supreme Court in Georgia v Ashcroft) but that voters equally apportioned can make their own decisions independent of others.
I know we're supposed to be all excited about a blogger running for office, but if she's resorted to this type of appeal then I just don't see what the reason for the excitement is. Get excited because a candidate has good ideas, leadership potential, great campaign skills or any number of other valid reasons. But just because a "mom" or an African American (see Willie Talton) or even a blogger is going to get elected is no reason in and of itself to rejoice.
Who knew that when I ran for office in 2002 I received a "C" from the NRA. There doesn't seem to be much supporting information available as to why I received a C while intown Reps. Stephanie Stuckey-Benfield, Sally Harrell and Kathy Ashe all received "A"'s. I'm guessing it has something to do with incumbency but I would use this as a cautionary example of not to take voter scorecards too seriously. At least do your own backup research especially on issues important to you. I recommend simply calling the candidates and chatting them up personally.
Started off today at the Gwinnett County GOP meeting at the Golden Corral in Lawrenceville where Johnny Isakson was the featured speaker. He dodged the first question about his recent Sanchez amendment (pro-choice) vote, although Mac Collins had representatives there with a big poster reminding the faithful that even Demcrat Jim Marshall had voted against it. Then he took a softball question about the "Fair Tax."
It was odd to hear Isakson basically bash the Washington establishment that he is part of and wants to deepen his connection to. Runaway spending, the lack of a balanced budget, problems with the tax code, etc? Blame George W. Bush if you ask me but if you ask the Gwinnett GOP blame some mythical Washington establishment that Bush, Isakson, Collins and others are somehow not part of.
After that I went over to a candidates forum for DeKalb CEO and the 4th Congressional District at the New Piney Grove Missionary Baptist Church on Snapfinger. Vernon Jones turned in an impressive performance, not only in turnout of supporters (he's got what seems like an endless supply) but in the depth of his knowledge of the county, especially when compared to the relatively weak field.
He was attacked repeatedly by the other candidates, but the manner he handled the attacks in mostly brushed them off and oftentimes with amusing results. I thought he was too quick to attack back, although his homework was impressive, pointing out that Judy Yates (who attacked him for raising taxes) voted to increase the millage rate in 1992 when she was first elected to the county commission and that Rep. Doug Teper (D - Atlanta) had taken numerous committee of one days that cost the state thousands of dollars when Teper attacked him for having an overpriced security detail.
My advice to Vernon would be not to talk about your opponents but to put a positive spotlight on himself more often, as he does have many achievements including offering domestic benefits to gay and lesbian employees of the county, which he was attacked for as part of an unfair criticism by candidate Calvin Sims. Vernon handled his poorly worded question that linked "domestic partnership" and "the rise of AIDS in DeKalb" well, noting that most of the new AIDS cases come from people who do not consider themselves bisexual.
The 4th district forum was less exciting. Cynthia McKinney did well and so did Cathy Woolard, although Woolard is a bit out of place in this race and you have to wonder if she kind of has realized it. In closing, it's interesting to go to two complete opposite ends of the spectrum and how the priorities of one (the "Fair Tax") and the other (improvements to Candler Road) couldn't be further removed.
I'm not saying one is absolutely more "right" than the other, although I do have a personal preference, but it does reinforce the impression that there are two separate, polarized Americas. And I think it comes down to the fact that neither one really understands the other. They know they exist and they have some idea of what they are up to, but that's about all and there really isn't any interest in learning exactly what's going on in either community or desire to tackle the problems either face. Sigh.
It looks like the South Dakota at large election is turning into a real squeaker. I think Stephanie Herseth will probably hold on to the lead though (right now it's 51-49). A couple of Republican counties where her opponent can expect to get 60% or so have yet to report but two solidly Democratic counties, where Herseth can expect close to 90% haven't reported either.
I will say this, it is not fun waiting for counties to report their election results, especially if you are losing. Late into returns the numbers are literally so overwhelming that it's hard for one little county (even if it is a big county, in Georgia's case DeKalb in the 2002 elections) to reverse a trend. I'm told that Tim Johnson eked it out at a similar stage that year and he was behind. Herseth is currently ahead and I think she'll be ok.
Other commenters have commented on Kerry's lack of a bold plan for Iraq. I've got mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I'd like to hear more detailed plans from Kerry. And on the other hand I'd like to hear them from Bush as well...which leads to Kerry's problem. With something as dynamic as Iraq something that seems like a great idea could be totally unfeasable a month from now.
Since Kerry isn't President, he won't be able to implement whatever ideas he has until at least November and by then events (which are out of his control) could have changed so that his plan makes no sense at all. And then what does he do? Change his position? Well, of course...but does that make him a "flip flopper"? I don't think so, but I'm sure Bush's surrogates will make that charge.
Kerry is in a sticky position not dissimilar to trying to get somewhere in traffic. You start out with a route in mind and as traffic conditions present themselves you modify it accordingly. The problem is that your opponent in the passenger seat insists you stick to the route originally laid out. The worst part, of course, is that they themselves have no idea how to get there.