Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

All hail the time of the bunny!

The unpunished coup was a training exercise.

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Bark louder, little dog.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Trump’s cabinet: like a magic 8 ball that only gives wrong answers.

You are here: Home / Archives for Elections / Election 2011

Election 2011

A yes vote means we approve the law, a no vote means we reject the law

by | 20 Comments

This post is in: , , , , ,

Quick update on the Ohio effort to repeal SB5, the union-busting law promoted by former Fox news personality Governor Kasich:

COLUMBUS – Today We Are Ohio released the following statement regarding the decision by the Ohio Ballot Board to make a “no” vote on Issue 2 a vote to repeal SB 5, the unfair attack on employee rights and worker safety.

“We Are Ohio is pleased that Ohio Secretary of State Husted and the Ohio Ballot Board chose to follow the Ohio constitution and legal precedent by making a ‘no’ vote on Issue 2 a vote to repeal SB 5,” said Melissa Fazekas, spokeswoman for We Are Ohio. “While our opposition may try to play political tricks to confuse voters, today’s decision by the Ohio Ballot Board will make that harder. Now that another hurdle has been cleared, We Are Ohio is focused on making sure our more than 1.3 million supporters know to vote ‘no’ on Issue 2 in November.”

We Are Ohio is a citizen-driven, community-based, bipartisan coalition that has come together to repeal SB 5, the unfair attack on employee rights and worker safety. We Are Ohio includes public and private sector workers and employees, police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, pastors, small business owners, Republicans and Democrats, local elected officials and business leaders, students, Moms, Dads, family members, and your neighbors.

Proposed ballot language:

SHALL THE LAW BE APPROVED?

YES (To approve the law)

NO (to reject the law)

So now it’s “vote no on issue 2”

A yes vote means we approve the law, a no vote means we reject the lawPost + Comments (20)

Conservatives maybe a tad worried about Wisconsin?

by | 92 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

The charitable Koch Brothers, out and about, helping the community, like they do:

mailers have now turned up from Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin, addressed to voters in two of the Republican-held recall districts, where the elections will be held on August 9. The mailers ask recipients to fill out an absentee ballot application, and send it in — by August 11, after Election Day for the majority of these races. “These are people who are our 1’s [solid Democrats] in the voterfile who we already knew,” a Democratic source told Politico. “They ain’t AFP members, that’s for damn sure.”

The mailing address for the applications is listed as “Absentee Ballot Application Processing Center, P.O. Box 1327, Madison WI 53701-1327.” A Google search shows that this address is not any sort of government office, but has been used by the conservative group Wisconsin Family Action.

In addition, Wisconsin Right To Life previously used the same address for absentee ballot application letters and phone calls that were sent out shortly before the July 12 Democratic primaries, but after the official deadlines for the applications. The group responded to criticism, saying the phone calls were intended to be for the general elections in August.

A Democrat on the ground in Wisconsin said the fliers were discovered to be hitting doors in District 2 and District 10 over the weekend.

Politico has a pdf of an actual letter and envelope.

Americans For Prosperity, Wisconsin claims it was a typo. Democrats have already filed a complaint.

I love the “Absentee Ballot Application Processing Center” they invented. Sounds official and vaguely governmental, doesn’t it? Nice touch.

Conservatives maybe a tad worried about Wisconsin?Post + Comments (92)

Exciting News! Well, it was expected, but still

by | 30 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

The next step:

SECRETARY OF STATE HUSTED CERTIFIES SIGNATURES FOR REFERENDUM ON SENATE BILL 5
Petitioners have met Constitutional requirements to place issue on November ballot
COLUMBUS – Secretary of State Jon Husted today certified that petitioners seeking a referendum on Senate Bill 5 have collected 915,456 valid signatures, meeting the necessary requirements to place the issue on the 2011 November ballot. Petitioners needed 231,147 signatures or six percent of the total vote cast for Governor in 2010.

As part of the total number of signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot, petitioners also needed to collect signatures from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties, and within each of those counties, to collect enough signatures equal to three percent of the total vote cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election, 2010.. Senate Bill 5 petitioners met this requirement in all 88 counties

Having met the requirements to place the issue on the ballot, the next step in the process is for the Ballot Board to convene to approve the ballot language that voters will consider in November. The Ballot Board is expected to meet in early August

This is good:

Senate Bill 5 petitioners met this requirement in all 88 counties

The fact that we met the 3% requirement in all 88 counties rather than the (minimum) of 44 counties that were required is good news, because the thinking is that indicates a working coalition in place all over the state to actually get the repeal passed. We’ll see.

Exciting News! Well, it was expected, but stillPost + Comments (30)

Maybe if we made a video…

by | 15 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , ,

Just finished a conference call with voting supporters from all over Ohio. On the call were reps from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Jobs with Justice, The Urban League, Interfaith Worker Justice, College Democrats from Ohio University and Ohio State, Ohio AFL-CIO, ARC, an Ohio State professor, three volunteer voter protection lawyers, a rep from the Leadership Council and some others.

This is the second voter ID law conservatives in Ohio have passed. The first, in 2005/6, apparently didn’t get the job done, so they’re back for Round Two. No one knows what the first law was supposed to accomplish, and so consequently no one knows why we need a second, still-more restrictive law. We’ll never know because no one in media ever asks conservatives that question. I’m sure the answer is “ACORN” or “The New Black Panther Party” because when conservatives utter either of those words or phrases, media seem to lose all interest in the nuts and bolts of actual voters and voting. The voting process is (in reality) dry and rule-bound and ordinary, so maybe that’s it. Much more fun to gape at doctored video again and again than talk about the basic foundation of democracy, I’m sure.

This latest Ohio voter ID law met some unexpected (and frankly, fun to watch) resistance from the newly elected GOP Secretary of State. He opposes the law, because he (rightly) concludes it will inevitably wrongly disenfranchise lawful voters.

“I believe that if you have a government-issued check, a utility bill in your name with your address on it, that no one made that up,” Husted said to reporters following his speech during League of Women Voters of Ohio’s annual Statehouse Day. “They didn’t call AEP and establish utilities in their name to commit voter fraud.”

Of course they didn’t. That’s crazy.

Anyway, the bill was held up for a while, and now there is apparently discussion on some hurry-up changes to the most egregious portions. The law isn’t set in stone, so we are unable to plan voter education efforts just yet. Hopefully conservatives in the Ohio legislature will find time between the many, many hours they spend loudly showboating on abortion to finally complete the new restrictive rules they demand so voters and others have time to learn the new restrictive rules they demand.

My take on the conference call was that the college students were the most alarmed. They will be a particular area of concentration for voting rights advocates and others who value the right to vote.

When the final law goes in I’ll let you know what approaches we’re using to help make sure that each and every registered, eligible voter gets a first class ballot that is counted.

Maybe if we made a video…Post + Comments (15)

The Voting Rights Act may be handy to have, after all

by | 80 Comments

This post is in: ,

Courtesy of Demos:

Dear Attorney General Holder:
We are writing to express our concerns about highly restrictive photo identification requirements under consideration or already signed into law in several states. These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any problem commensurate with this kind of restriction on voting rights. Studies have shown that as high as 11% of eligible voters nationwide do not have a government-issued ID. This percentage is higher for seniors, racial minorities, low-income voters and students. Voting is the foundation of our democracy, and we urge you to protect the voting rights of Americans by using the full power of the Department of Justice to review these voter identification laws and scrutinize their implementation.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act vests significant authority in the Department to review laws before they are implemented in covered jurisdictions. As you know, the burden of proof in this preclearance process is on those covered jurisdictions, which must be able to show that legal changes will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. New photo identification laws, for instance, must be subjected to the highest scrutiny as states justify these new barriers to participation. In Section 5 jurisdictions, whenever photo identification legislation is considered, the Department should closely monitor the legislative process to track any unlawful intent evinced by the proceedings.
Restrictive photo identification requirements are also being considered or have passed in states and jurisdictions that are not covered by Section 5. The Department should exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are implemented in a way that discriminates against protected classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, federal civil rights law – 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(2)- prohibits different standards, practices or procedures from being applied to individuals within a jurisdiction. We believe the Department should ensure that these photo identification laws do not violate this statute or other federal voting rights statutes.
Thank you for your work protecting the civil rights of all Americans.

Michael F. Bennet, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Jeanne Shaheen, Mary Landrieu, Benjamin L. Cardin, Sherrod Brown Mark Begich, Jeff Merkley,Kirsten E. Gillibran, Ron Wyden,Tom Harkin, Tom Udall, Herb Kohl

Here’s some basic info on the VRA.

This has disappeared from memory, but I think it’s important to recall that some Republicans tried to remove certain protections in the VRA in 2005 and 2006. They failed.

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act for 25 years, rejecting contentious efforts by Southern Republicans to dilute the landmark law.

Conservatives introduced four amendments to weaken the act, and all were rejected by large bipartisan majorities. One proposed eliminating the requirement for foreign-language ballots. Another would have created an easier method for states to escape federal oversight.

The Voting Rights Act may be handy to have, after allPost + Comments (80)

Now that he’s admitted it, and he’s the secretary of state, doesn’t he have to do something to prevent it?

by | 43 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , , ,

Finally:

The Ohio state Senate was set to consider this week what critics are calling the most restrictive voter identification law in the country. The push for restrictive voter ID measures in the Buckeye state is part of a trend of similar legislation sweeping Republican-controlled legislatures across the country. But Ohio’s measure is so restrictive — it requires the photo IDs to be issued by the state, so voters couldn’t identify themselves with their full Social Security numbers — that it lost the support of Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted.

“I want to be perfectly clear, when I began working with the General Assembly to improve Ohio’s elections system it was never my intent to reject valid votes,” Husted said in a short statement posted on his official website.

“I would rather have no bill than one with a rigid photo identification provision that does little to protect against fraud and excludes legally registered voters’ ballots from counting,” Husted said.

“I do not believe this is in any way a voter suppression issue,” said Tom Niehaus, the Republican President of the Senate. “This is about maintaining the integrity of the voting process.”

The Ohio Secretary of State is now admitting this legislation will “exclude legally registered voter’s ballots from counting”. He’s also denying it was ever his intent to “reject valid votes”. The GOP majority leader is denying “voter suppression”. He “does not believe” this is a voter suppression attempt. Finally. After 10 years of absolute bullshit on voter impersonation fraud, we’re getting down to what’s really going on here.

Don’t get too excited about Secretary of State Husted’s sudden and mystifying attack of conscience. He doesn’t have a great record, and he’s only been in office since January. His behavior in a 2011 case involving provisional ballots doesn’t inspire confidence. Second class (provisional) ballots are less likely to be counted, because provisional ballots introduce an element of pollworker, election employee, and election official discretion that just doesn’t come into play with a first class ballot. The chaotic mess that resulted when a close 2010 Ohio judicial race went to recount (that I’ve described below) is a good example of that.

Briefly, there was a very close race for juvenile judge in a county in Ohio in 2010. The results turned on whether provisional ballots were to be reviewed or excluded. The voters involved cast their provisional ballots correctly but due to pollworker error, those second class “provisional” ballots were accepted at the wrong precinct table. Hundreds of provisional ballots were thrown into question, and they came out of majority Democratic precincts.

It went to court, where conservatives won the right to exclude provisional ballots in the state supreme court. A federal court disagreed, and ordered that a review be conducted to determine whether the votes could be counted. Secretary Husted cast the tie-breaker vote to appeal that federal court decision. The case is complex. It now involves advocates for voters relying on Bush v. Gore – which is always amusing, in a bitter, sad way- to use that absolute piece of garbage decision against conservatives, and it goes on from where I stopped. You may read the details here, here and here.

Provisional ballots were the fail-safe, the back-up, and we were assured by conservative lawyers and judges that the provisional balloting process would prevent the disenfranchisement of valid voters. But provisional balloting is complicated- it involves several additional steps, more than one piece of paper, and lots and lots of pollworker instructions to the voter. Each step introduces the possibility of voter error, pollworker error, or a blatantly partisan discretionary call by an elections official or employee. The supposed “fail-safe” conservatives assured us would protect voting rights doesn’t work as intended, and in truth introduces a whole new set of problems.

If you want to see how bad it can get for voters who are shunted to a second-class ballot, follow the links above and wade through the thousands of pages of legal filings that resulted from one county court judicial race. Each one of those provisional ballots represents a voter, and each and every one of those voters is now at risk of having their vote thrown out, in a race that turned on a 23 vote difference. Every voter that entered that polling place has the right to assume their vote will be treated in a fair and equitable manner, and that’s not happening. Instead, we have a viciously partisan battle that has (so far) involved 4 courts and three conflicting decisions. And, what about the voters who had the misfortune to cast those second class ballots? Where are they in all this? Long forgotten. They don’t matter.

Every time I write about voting rights I get comments asking what Democrats or liberals are doing in states like Ohio to protect voters. There is a conference call for voting enthusiasts scheduled on July 15th, here in Ohio, and, as I mentioned, Vice President Biden raised the issue when he addressed Ohio Democrats last weekend. So, it’s on the radar and there will be a plan to help qualified voters get and vote a first class ballot. How well the plan will work, and how many legitimate votes by disfavored groups will be excluded, I do not know. Conservatives are constantly changing the rules, and it’s always a challenge to keep up with their endlessly creative and novel interpretations of what’s required to vote and have the vote counted.

Now that he’s admitted it, and he’s the secretary of state, doesn’t he have to do something to prevent it?Post + Comments (43)

Three speakers, three listeners

by | 63 Comments

This post is in: ,

Here’s the Columbus Dispatch coverage of the dinner I attended last night:

Something awful happened to the Ohio Democratic Party between last year’s annual dinner and the one last night – an election. With the exception of Vice President Joe Biden, the keynote speaker, the Greater Columbus Convention Center last night featured politicians with the word former attached to their names, including former Gov. Ted Strickland. At the same venue 10 months ago, the stage was crowded with incumbent statewide officeholders.

The first paragraph is inaccurate. There were four speakers featured: a sitting state supreme court justice, Ted Strickland, Sherrod Brown and Joe Biden. So one of the four is a “former”. I know, I’m a stickler. I’ll stop there and just go ahead and tell you what I heard.

Ted Strickland, the former governor of Ohio, connected completely. He has a great voice with a beautiful rolling cadence, and when he lit into former FOX News personality John Kasich and roared that Kasich “has disrespected and insulted you” people rose in unison in that spontaneous way where the back of their knees push the chair back. Strickland connected because it’s true. Kasich isn’t a public servant and he isn’t a governor. He’s a bored and irritable CEO who is not pleased with our quarterly earnings and wants us to shape the hell up before he’s forced to make good on his threats to fire us all, whether we’re public workers or not. We’re not meeting the high performance benchmarks Kasich became accustomed to at his former employer, the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, apparently. Get cracking, peons! Yes sir.

Sherrod Brown addressed us on video, because he was at his daughter’s wedding. He also connected, but in my experience (since 2005) he always does. Sherrod Brown was a populist well before it was fashionable to appear on Morning Joe and hand-wring and moan about the middle class and he talks like a populist. He took Strickland’s narrow state-specific theme and expanded it to include national conservative attacks on workers and the middle class.

Which brings me to the Vice President. I like Joe Biden as VP and I haven’t met a single real live Democratic voter who finds his weekly “career-ending” gaffes anything but humanizing and endearing, so the following isn’t savage criticism but is instead a recitation of the facts. He does speak in a slightly eccentric, rambling way. He has a script. He just can’t stay on it. So, most of this address was like those of his I’ve heard, where we’re in Scranton and then we’re in Delaware, and somewhere in there he remembered a word he’s supposed to hit so he (literally) yells out “IMAGINE!”, completely unconnected to anything else he said. Like that.

But, Biden did hit one specific subject that I haven’t heard him cover before, and that was voting rights. He used the word “suppression”. He asked us to think about the fact that 15 or so years ago there was some bipartisan support for passage of the motor-voter law, which is (enacted) federal legislation designed to make it easier and more convenient to register to vote. Biden asked us to compare that law with the current conservative assault on voting rights underway in 22 states, and said “this is not your father’s Republican Party”.

Good that he said it, and nice to have a report from DC to the states that (shockingly!) the GOP is not and has not been for a very long time the mainstream Party that misty-eyed nostalgic pundits would have us believe. But, everybody in that room just came off a 3 month campaign to gather 700,000 signatures to try to roll back one piece of The National Conservative Agenda, so everybody in that room already knew that.

*The Columbus Dispatch reporter wrote that Sherrod Brown said “disrespected and insulted”. That’s not what I remember. Ted Strickland said that. This reporter’s account of events is ( I believe) correct.

Three speakers, three listenersPost + Comments (63)