Tag Archives: Adam Laxalt

Party of Sexual Predator Protectors?

Okay, so when did the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party, become the party of sexual predator protection?  There was the Access Hollywood tape… gee, that was just “lock room talk.” “Boys will be boys.”  Women came forward, but the GOP marched on to an electoral college victory.  The President stands credibly accused by a former Playboy model, a porn star/director, and others.  What’s the expression? “A fish rots from the head down.”  The Republicans stood by him.

Roy Moore wanted a seat in the US Senate.  Republicans supported him… in the face of credible accusations of sexual misconduct with minors.  Moore lost, to the credit of the citizens of Alabama who didn’t buy into the idea that the man is always right, the woman is always hysterical (and wrong), and it’s not “right” to ruin a man’s reputation — even if the man did a banner job of wrecking the woman’s life and reputation.

Where was Rep. Jim Jordan’s attention when members of the wrestling team at OSU were being assaulted?  He didn’t know?  How do assistant coaches — those who are actually the closest to team members — not know?  How do they not report what they know or suspect?  Did he not care enough to investigate rumors? Check on what team members were saying?  Where are the Republicans?  Where are the calls for a full investigation in addition to the one conducted by the university?

Former Congressman Blake Farenthold said he was going to pay $84,000 in a sexual harassment settlement; he ultimately decided to pay — absolutely nothing.  Nothing.  Where are his fellow Republicans calling for him to live up to his agreement?  Crickets. Silence.  There is no reason to believe the Republicans will do anything to rectify this situation.

And here in Nevada — Storey County Sheriff Gerald Antinoro was the subject of investigations for sexual misconduct.  AG Adam Laxalt decided not to press any charges, and accepted Antinoro’s endorsement in the gubernatorial race.   From the Republicans? More crickets…silence…acceptance…a willingness to look away, to let boys be boys, to dismiss locker room talk, to set the lowest bar possible for men’s conduct.  No accountability.  No responsibility.  No consequences.

So, when did the GOP become the party protecting the likes of Brett Kavanaugh? When did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell know there were more than just the one allegation of sexual misconduct facing Kavanaugh?  Were the Republicans shoving the confirmation vote in order to get Kavanaugh (Trump’s Get Out Of Jail Free Card) on the bench before more women came forward with their stories?

Enough!  Contrary to what some Republicans have tried to tell me via my television screen, most high school boys (both back in the Jurassic Era during my attendance and today) are not sexual predators in training — or practice.  Some are, but that’s why these cases are “news” — they are not the standard, or even the most common practice.  Yes, there are employers who are guilty of sexual misconduct — an inordinate number of whom seem to have served on the Republican National Committee finance arm — but, this is not the norm.  These examples are outside the bounds of acceptable conduct, and they should be seen as such.

Register.  Help others register.  Check your registration.  Help others check their registration.

Vote.  Help your friends and neighbors get to their polling stations.

There is no other antidote to political corruption than voting. Good old fashioned voting. Good old fashioned American citizens voting, and facing down the Russian bots behind the “walk away” movement or other cynical attempts to depress the vote.

VOTE like your right to vote depends on it.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Senate, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

And now some after thoughts

There are some Nevada politicians still clutching Trumpian coat-tails, or pants’ legs, or something as of now.  They might want to ask some questions, some fundamental, some quotidian, some tangential about that posture.  We’ve had a day in which President Obama has spoken of a need to preserve and protect our democratic institutions, and in which his successor has spoken of a felt need to use the Department of Justice to pursue his personal political critics.  It’s time to address the questions.

Do Nevada politicians really want to associate themselves with a president who cannot, or perhaps will not, differentiate between his own sense of security and the security of this nation?  There is a difference.  Our national security is not compromised by the publication of non-classified, albeit controversial, information about how the West Wing functions.  It is a stretch to assume that IF a person divulges information from a meeting then it is presumed the individual in questions would necessarily reveal classified information.  I can think of one instance in which #45 shared information with Russian visitors to the White House that compromised sources and methods; no sources and methods were compromised by the NYT op-ed piece.

President Bush took flack from critics of the Iraq War, from those critical of his administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, and from others who decried his economic policies and his advocacy of de-regulation.  Never once did he call the press an “enemy of the people.”  President Obama received his share of criticism and complaint concerning everything from wearing a tan suit to the validity of his birth certificate. Never once did he call the press an “enemy of the people.”  Both these men understood the difference between the President and the Presidency, and the difference between being the Head of State and the State itself.

Merely because criticism makes #45 feel insecure doesn’t mean the state is insecure.  Bush understood this. Obama understood this.  Nevada politicians would do well to consider whether or not to wholeheartedly support someone who can’t make this distinction.

Do Nevada politicians truly want to run campaigns anchored in a message of fear and division?  What is gained by suggesting that Nevada citizens of Hispanic origin are less “American” than the citizens of Irish, German, Polish, Basque, or Chinese descent who preceded them?  What is gained by inferring that immigrants from the Philippines are less capable of assimilating into the broad fabric of Nevada life than the immigrant workers in the hospitality industry who came from other countries?  What is better for Nevada in the long run, promoting a path to citizenship and entrepreneurial opportunities for immigrants to this country (and this state), or building walls, both metaphorical and literal to keep them at a distance?

It isn’t necessary to run about wearing a white hood to touch the vile pitch of racism.  All that’s required is to advocate in favor of restricting the economic opportunities, circumscribe the education, and diminish the participation in civic life, for various ethnic or minority groups.  We can constrict them, devalue them, and make advocacy difficult for them.  We can take away their voices by capriciously restraining their voting rights.  We can wall ourselves off from them.  However, in doing so we only succeed in encircling and shrinking ourselves.

If there’s one thing Nevada has it’s miles and miles of beautiful miles and miles. We can see further toward the horizons beyond most other topographical regions in this nation.  Why would we choose to close down our social horizons when after a few moments driving time we can open up our physical ones?   Every time we build a wall we restrict our own field of vision.

Fear usually breeds failure.  Do Nevada politicians want to associate with failed policies? Nothing seems like a larger failure than the Zero Tolerance debacle on our southern border.  416 children to date separated from their parents, some of whom were lawfully seeking asylum in this country.  Too many of these youngsters are under the age of 5.  This is an unconscionable failure.  Unless, of course, one adopts the President’s mindset that immigrants from Mexico and Central America “infest” our country; unless, of course, one thinks of people from Sh*thole Countries as undesirable. And now the Administration wants to detain families indefinitely. Indefinitely. [Vox]

There is only one nation on this planet that pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, and as President Obama noted today, it wasn’t Syria…it was the United States of America.  There is only one nation that gave away dominance in regional trading by backing out of the Transpacific Partnership…it was the United States of America.  China and Japan are only too happy to fill the void.  There is only one western democracy causing friction among NATO allies…the United States of America. There is only one nation threatening trade wars with debilitating tariffs … the United States of America.  There is only one nation taking positions which could seriously damage trade relations with two of its most valuable trading partners… the United States of America.  This isn’t success.

We got vague promises of future vague promises from the North Korean regime.  While we made relations with China more difficult, the Chinese now have less incentive to pressure North Korea to do more.  The North Koreans are continuing their military research apace. This isn’t success.

Polarization begets gridlock, and gridlock impedes progress.  Do Nevada politicians want to take this route?  My way or the highway is NOT a bargaining position.   Implacable positions, taken for political expediency, mean a politician can never follow the dictum: Campaign in poetry, Govern in prose.  I can startle a conservative relative by arguing that single payer health care would promote entrepreneurship and support small businesses by leveling the playing field between the big box retailers and the mom and pop stores.  My conservative relative can widen my eyes by arguing that when work requirements are attached to Medicaid benefits we should be mindful of single adults, who while not physically disabled, are intellectually or developmentally challenged, and adjustments should be made for them.   If hard and fast positions don’t advance conversations; then how can they be an impetus toward progress?

We can, and must, do better.  And, we’ll do better when we function from a foundation predicated on our shared values, not one based upon our private fears.

Comments Off on And now some after thoughts

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

Are we having fun yet? Silver State Visit Edition

Getting the news from a continuous fire hose is becoming tiresome.  And, now we find that the Occupant of the Oval Office is headed to the Silver State once more:

President Donald Trump will be returning to Nevada within weeks to campaign in advance of the midterm elections, according to White House officials who spoke to reporters Tuesday afternoon.

A person familiar with the president’s thinking would not name the candidates for whom Trump will stump, but noted that Trump has campaigned for Sen. Dean Heller’s re-election effort, GOP gubernatorial nominee Adam Laxalt and congressional candidate Danny Tarkanian. [LVRJ]

Within weeks?  No definite date?  And, while we’re at it, can we ask Who Is Paying For This?  Who’s paying for the use of Air Force One?  Is the Trump Campaign paying for the travel and security expenses incurred for these campaign appearances?  Who’s the beneficiary?  Is it Senator Dean Heller?

Senator Heller, would you care to discuss funding for women’s health care?  Or will you be satisfied to have the Oval Office Occupant speak in generalities about “best health care ever in the history of all history?”  While the GOP resolves to re-impose costs on those with pre-existing medical conditions? While the GOP decides to discard the basic provisions of the Affordable Care Act and Patients’ Bill of Rights to cover maternity expenses? Mental health care?  Children’s health care? While the Republicans allow insurance companies to offer Junk Insurance to people who can barely afford any medical bills?  Perhaps Senator Heller would like to discuss what’s happened with the Great American Tax Cut, most of which went to the top 1%? Or, would he care to speak to his rather murky pronouncement on minimum wages? Frankly, it all gets rather murky when Senator Heller starts his word salad spinner such that whatever policy position he espoused last week is something rather different this one.

Would Adam Laxalt care to discuss women at all?  He’s at the ready to discuss his role as the “bulwark against the Democratic tide.” [NVIndy]  Evidently I’m supposed to read this as he’s the Trump-Lovin’ Immigrant Bashing Gun Adorin’ candidate for the governorship, even though the outgoing governor doesn’t seem too thrilled with the prospect of having him as his successor.  I could see my way clear to vote for him the day I decide it’s OK to separate children from their asylum seeking parents at the southern border? It’s OK for him to capitalize on his famous-immigrant Nevada heritage in the Sweet Promised Land, while signaling those coming later are rapists, murderers, and members of MS 13.  Or, it’s OK to ignore the majority of Nevada voters who said we wanted background checks for gun sales…  in short, I don’t see “that day” coming any time soon.

And Tarkanian?  Is there some office for which he’s not been a contestant?  I’m not sure if Clark County elects its Animal Control Officers, but should they do so, we can wager Mr. Tarkanian will seek a position?  Meanwhile, he’s still packing around the baggage from his previous election ventures.  The citizens of Nevada’s third Congressional District deserve better, and Susie Lee is that option.  They aren’t likely to debate, so we’ll just have to stay tuned.

I think I’d be better pleased if the Oval Office Occupant (or Triple 000) on my keyboard) would stay in D.C., continue rage tweeting in the small hours of the morning, and continue convincing people he really did know about violations of campaign finance law — he didn’t know, he did know, he knew but it’s not a crime if he knew it, he knew it was a crime but it’s not that big a crime, or a crime isn’t a crime.   I don’t hold out any hope he’ll attend to those 500+ children who’ve been separated from their parents and still haven’t been reunited, or that he’ll think about the possible effects of continuous delays in trade negotiations with China and Mexico on American farmers, ranchers, and orchard operations.  However, it’s a free country and he’s welcome to come to the Silver State and embrace whichever candidates still want to get one of his bear hug handshakes  while he spends his “rally” time talking about himself, barely mentioning the candidates for whom he is supposed to be campaigning.

If the candidates can stand it, I can ignore it.

Comments Off on Are we having fun yet? Silver State Visit Edition

Filed under Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

Laxalt on my phone, Heller in my paper

Hmm, that was interesting.  Last evening I had one of those “push polls” on my telephone from the Adam Laxalt brigade, which was ever so anxious that I know that Mr. Laxalt was a Primary proponent, an Assiduous advocate for women’s health and safety — why, just look at what he did about that backlog of rape kits!  (?)  Yeah right.  This is  supposed to make me forget he’s not wanting to denounce the Storey County Sheriff who has this “little problem” with the women-folk? [Sun] Or, that he had NO plans to file charges against that self-same embattled sheriff. [NVIndy] Or,  that the best he could do was put some ‘space’ between himself and the embattled one? [LVnow]  When a politician’s name and the word “embattled” show up together, it’s never good news.  And, no, some spiel about rape kit backlogs isn’t going to make me gloss over the retention of affection for the Embattled One.  Nice try, as they say, but close is only good according to the old saw in horse shoes and hand grenades.

About 22 hours ago the press told me Senator Dean Heller met with Orange Blossom’s latest pick for the Supreme Court and was SOOOOO impressed… [LVRJ] I am less impressed.  The Pick seems to have issues with the whole idea of having presidents held accountable for their actions, no special counsels or commissions for him. [CNN]  Then there’s the whole Planned Parenthood thing. [PPA]

I could use a bit less of this.

I could use more of those kids from March for Our Lives.   I could use more pictures from the District of Columbia, showing people protesting the Capitulation Summit, the incarceration of babies and toddlers, the general cruelty and incompetence of the current administration. [Hill]

Comments Off on Laxalt on my phone, Heller in my paper

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

The Ever Entertaining GOP Primary in Nevada

Is it something in the water?  The main GOP candidates for the lieutenant governorship in Nevada are a real bunch.  Exhibit A, the Recall King (Roberson) whose efforts yielded a large Zero [LVRJ] and then there’s Exhibit B, the Scientology promoter. [NVIndy]

The GOP headliner in the governor’s race looks to be Trumpian Adam Laxalt [NVIndy].  Laxalt is the Koch Brothers’ own boy: “Laxalt has far outraised his opponents, cornering donations from the Adelson family that owns the Las Vegas Sands, Station Casinos and their owners, the Fertitta family. He has more of a structural advantage, garnering endorsements from sheriffs across the state, opening campaign offices and mobilizing large teams of volunteers. He also counts on support from outside groups such as Freedom Partners, part of a network run by conservative billionaires the Koch Brothers, which has paid for $1 million in ads to introduce Laxalt to Nevada voters.” [NVIndy] Interesting.  If one’s last name is “Laxalt” and there’s a felt need to use the services of Kansas based fossil fuel behemoths (Kochs} to “introduce” you to Nevadans, something may be amiss?

It seems like a fine year to be a Democrat.

Comments Off on The Ever Entertaining GOP Primary in Nevada

Filed under Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Laxalt Wading in the Waters

Sometimes it’s  a good idea to read all the way to the end of an article.  A point illustrated in this discussion of Adam Laxalt’s latest:

He participated in a conference call with EPA administrator Scott Pruitt on July 13, as part of a briefing over the Waters of the United States rule. Laxalt in 2015 entered Nevada into a lawsuit with 12 other states challenging the Obama administration’s expansion of the rule, which covers federally protected waters under the Clean Water Act.

Previously (2015)  the states won a TRO against the EPA’s expansion of the waters subject to the Clean Water Act:

“The States here have demonstrated that they will face irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction,” he said. “Once the Rule takes effect, the States will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters that will then be subject to the scope of the Clean Water Act.”

“The Rule allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical, physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” Erickson said.

As of 2017, Laxalt joined litigation involving groundwater rights, and the priority of states to exercise control, in one instance at the expense of Native American water rights:

A Native American tribe sued in federal court claiming that, as part of its federal reservation of land, it has a priority right to use groundwater in the valley. Relying on Supreme Court cases involving implied reservations of surface water rights, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a priority right to use groundwater under federal reserved land is included as an implied right with the reservation, and that that right necessarily pre-empts state water law.

[…] The brief, in support of writs filed by two Southern California water agencies, asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether the federal reserved water right doctrine extends to groundwater and, if so, under what circumstances, so as to guide all states on managing groundwater resources.

And, there’s another sticky legal wicket, as illustrated by the case of property owners in Pahrump who feel they will be harmed by a State Engineer’s office decision about drilling on private property:

“It is factually impossible for petitioner to be irreparably harmed if a stay of Order #1293 is not issued as it does not own any land or otherwise have an interest that is affected by the order,” Laxalt’s opposition filing stated. “Petitioner does not have any legal interest in the basin.”

The argument of legal standing revolves around a technicality, with Laxalt noting that as a limited liability company that did not exist until after Order #1293 was issued, Pahrump Fair Water LLC is not affected by the order. The filing read, “…a limited liability company is an entity distinct from its managers and members.”

Laxalt’s opposition contains various other arguments as well, including his belief that a stay of Order #1293 would harm the public. In addition to declarations regarding potential negative impacts to water supply, Laxalt predicted a rash of drilling if a stay were granted.

Laxalt may be on more solid ground in this case, but calling the input from resident members of the plaintiffs “impertinent,’ ‘immaterial’ and ‘irrelevant’ probably isn’t the best way to make friends, influence people, and get individuals to the table to negotiate a settlement.

Granted, water rights may not be a crucial element in the outcome of Nevada’s 2018 elections, but Laxalt’s relationship with the ethically challenged EPA director could raise eyebrows and questions in this political climate.

Comments Off on Laxalt Wading in the Waters

Filed under ecology, Native Americans, Nevada politics, Politics

We Are Not Being Well Served: A Lethal Pattern of Administration Obstruction

We aren’t well served when the Department of Justice declines to work WITH state officials to implement policy.  When the DoJ dithers about assisting Nevada’s attempt to improve the background check process for firearm purchases — [NV Indy] Gee, it almost seems like someone at the federal level is doing a bureaucratic dance routine to subvert the intent of those who want to expand background checks?  Someone doesn’t want to alienate the powers that be at the NRA?  Meanwhile candidate Adam Laxalt, subservient as ever to the NRA line, must be pleased with Governor Sandoval’s discomfort.

We also aren’t well served by the right wing echo chamber which has now evidently decided that if they can’t find logical arguments to deflect the demands made by the kids in March for Our Lives they will happily start tooting the Swift Boat Parade Brigade horns with personal attacks on the kids themselves.  [TampaBT] [WaPo] [KCStar] However, ad hominem is all too often the preferred argument for many on the right side of the political spectrum.  These people might be dismissed as small people with smaller, narrower, minds except that they have the ear of the current mis-administration, and those ears are receiving messages out of step with American concerns.  Listening to these radical voices obscures national issues we should be focusing upon.

Nor are we well served when the message comes from the podium at the White House briefing room that the Department of Justice will take no role in the investigation of the shooting of Sacramento citizen Stephon Clark.  There’s a pattern here.

The FBI will not facilitate the implementation of Nevada’s Question 1 decision. The Department of Justice will take its sweet time promulgating rules concerning the sale of bump stocks (see Las Vegas concert massacre). The Department of Justice will do an about-face on federal participation in the investigation of law enforcement use of lethal force on members of minority communities.  This pattern may explain why the citizens of Nevada continue to be frustrated by the lack of Question 1 implementation, the citizens of the US continue to see protests related to Black Lives Matter, and young people bemoan (and organize) against the inflexible obstruction to their demands for sensible restrictions on gun ownership and sales.

What the pattern won’t accomplish is the solution to any of the problems addressed by the Black Lives Matter organization or the young people involved in March for Our Lives.  The two issue areas are not unrelated.

Bullets fired from guns kill people.  The bullet may be a .223 round (5.56 mm) coming at a person at 3,330 feet per second (about three times the velocity of a typical Glock pistol.) [BI]  The bullets may also come from a Glock 19 or the Glock 22, or perhaps the Smith & Wesson M or P9, the most popular service handguns for law enforcement personnel. [SRI]  Instances of bullets being fired by one human being at another human being, or beings, should be investigated fully.  We have no problem with this concept when thinking about murder investigations in general.  We do have a problem with the concept when it’s in the context of a mass shooting or in a case of the use of lethal force by a police officer.

In the instances of mass shootings authorities appear to want to investigate everything except the actual cause of death — the AR 15 is often the weapon of choice for mass shooters [BI] who want to use the gun as it was designed — to cause the greatest level of lethality in the briefest possible time.  If we know the level of lethality associated with the use of assault style weapons like the AR 15 why don’t we directly address the issue of whether or not these should be in the hands of civilians?

In the instances of officer involved shootings almost the first thing reported is that the “officers feared for their lives.”

“Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.

An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.” [Guardian 2015]

Question: Why do law enforcement personnel “fear for their lives” more often when confronting a person of color than when facing a white person?  I think we know the answer, it is just that this aspect of the problem isn’t something the present Department of Justice is particularly interested in pursuing.

We aren’t well served by an administration which will not admit the vast scope of the problems presented by mass shooters and highly questionable use of force by some members of law enforcement.  These are national problems which beg for national solutions, whether the current Department of Justice wants to step up to the plate or not.


The kids have broken the 10,000 contract plateau in their Parents Promise To Kids project.  Right now it’s at 10,127.  That’s 10,127 parents, grandparents, and other interested people who have pledged to kids they will make gun reform a major feature in their voting decisions.  Step Up. Thank You.

Comments Off on We Are Not Being Well Served: A Lethal Pattern of Administration Obstruction

Filed under Gun Issues, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Laxalt Then And Now

February 15, 2018 Adam Paul Laxalt blames Michael Bloomberg (a convenient target) for his reluctance to enforce Q1 (gun sale background checks) and tells us “Asked if he would support banning bump stocks, Laxalt said he joined a bipartisan group of attorney generals in asking the federal government to review how it regulates them. “My guess is you will see these things regulated at the federal level,” he said.” [LVRJ] No mud (blood) on me.  Another way to read this is to infer Laxalt will do nothing on bump stocks, but will wait to see if the Trump/NRA administration will allow some form of regulation at the Federal level.

February 21, 2018 (17 children and adults are now dead in Parkland, Florida) Adam Paul Laxalt, formerly a scheduled speaker at the NRA Annual Leadership Forum, is “erased” from the program.

“Laxalt, also a Republican candidate for governor, appeared on the event’s website this week as a scheduled speaker for the May 4 NRA Annual Leadership Forum — which touts itself as a “must-stop for candidates seeking the highest levels of elected office” — along with Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, political commentator Tomi Lahren and Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist.”  By Wednesday, Laxlat’s name and photo were no longer on the event’s site. Scott’s name and photo are also gone.” [LVRJ] (emphasis in original)

February 22, 2018, but but but wait wait wait…a Laxalt aide says the gubernatorial candidate never “committed” to the NRA Forum. “Laxalt campaign spokesman Andy Matthews said Thursday that Laxalt hadn’t responded to confirm an invitation to the NRA Annual Leadership Forum in Dallas before his name was removed from a headliners’ list.” [RGJ]    But he didn’t have any problems with his name on the conference schedule previously?

February 23, 2018, protesters gathered in Las Vegas, ahead of a court hearing on Question 1.  Governor Sandoval says Nevada voters made their wishes clear — they want Universal Background Checks.  It wasn’t quite so clear to him in 2013 when he vetoed a bill to that effect.

Stay tuned as Adam Paul Laxalt twists and turns trying to remain a viable candidate opposing a popular concept — Universal Background Checks — while perhaps hoping the “issue” will subside as has happened after other gunfire atrocities?  Is he hoping to jump on board with the Trumpian idiocy calling for arming teachers? Is he hoping the Congress will do some tiny thing sufficient for him to espouse a minute bit of progress? It’s only February, and Laxalt doesn’t know what his schedule will be in May, by then he may have embarrassed himself out of the race?

Comments Off on Laxalt Then And Now

Filed under Nevada news, Nevada politics, Politics

Adam Laxalt: The Grandson of Immigrants doesn’t like immigrants?

Adam Paul Laxalt seems to have forgotten that he is a descendant of Dominique and Therese Laxalt.  He also appears to have forgotten that Dominique Laxalt started life in the great American west as a sheepherder.  I supposed he’d prefer Nevadans identify him as the grandson of former Governor Paul Laxalt, popular politician and friend of Ronald Reagan — not especially as the great grandson of a Basque sheepherder.   He must be only tenuously connected to his immigrant roots because that’s the only rational explanation for his joining the “anti-sanctuary city” case brought by 11 AGs:

 “The brief urges the court to reverse a U.S. District Court judge’s order preventing the implementation of the federal government’s executive order pertaining to sanctuary cities. The case is an opportunity to remedy the threat California’s “sanctuary cities” pose to Nevada safety, Laxalt’s office stated.” [Sierra Sun]

First let’s look at the rational as published by the Sierra Sun, and evaluate Laxalt’s position.  Part One:

“Nevada’s law enforcement officials, including all 17 currently elected county sheriffs, have consistently opposed sanctuary-city policies that would prevent compliance with federal law and compromise public safety, the office stated. In the vast majority of cases, an individual must be arrested for committing a crime and booked into a jail or detention facility before Nevada law enforcement agencies check whether the individual is sought by federal immigration authorities and, if so, alert those federal authorities, the office stated. Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community, the office stated.”

The part about “compromising public safety” needs a bit more explication.  In standard law enforcement practice, a person does something criminal, that is commits a felony or a misdemeanor, and is detained. After detention law enforcement looks into the person’s background — outstanding warrants? Outstanding court issues? …. Immigration status? The Oval Office Anti-Immigrant policy inserts ICE into the arrest process, and herein lies a problem — If the individual arrested for being publicly intoxicated thereby disturbing the peace  (NRS 203.010) is named Smith, Johnson, or Baker what is the likelihood the sheriff’s office is going to check with ICE for his or her immigration status?  What we have here is an invitation to discrimination, whites detained face misdemeanor penalties and Hispanics face more extensive investigations by ICE for being named Hernandez.

The odds are in Nevada the person with the Hispanic surname is US born.  Hispanics are 28% of the state’s population, and of this number 61% were born in the United States. [Pew]  The most common Hispanic name in Nevada is Garcia.  [Anc.com] If Garcia is the most common surname for a person of Hispanic heritage in Nevada then we can add Jose as the most common name for a boy of Mexican descent.  Now, consider for a moment what happens when a Jose Garcia is picked up in violation of NRS 203.010 and his “name is compared” to an ICE target list.  Think there aren’t ample opportunities for mistakes to be made? Maybe think again.  As for releasing “violent offenders back into communities…” that needs to be discussed as well.

Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community, the office stated.”  This is a misvioleading conflation of the first water. The statement works IF and Only IF we assume that the person detained is automatically assumed to be a violent offender or if violent offenders are the most commonly arrested.  It also works IF the audience assumes “those people” are likely to be violent offenders, the release of any one of them puts the population in peril.  To make these assumptions AG Laxalt would have to ignore the 2016 Crime in Nevada report. (long pdf)

A person doesn’t get far into the 2016 Department of Public Safety report before it’s obvious that the most common index crimes in this state are good old fashioned garden variety property crimes: burglary, larceny.   The five year average for property crime (2012-2016) stands at 76,833 far outpacing personal crime averages.  So, even for ‘serious’ crimes, the ones that get reported as indexed, the odds are a person didn’t get picked up for a violent crime against a person.  Therefore the argument that we should turn our local deputies into ICE officers because otherwise we’d have roving rapists and murderers in our midst is more fear mongering than reality.  Not that this prevents AG Laxalt from turning up the burners:

 “Sanctuary cities in California pose a danger to neighboring states like Nevada by making it easier for those not lawfully in this country and with violent criminal histories to evade law enforcement and travel out of state. What’s more, these cities undermine the rule of law and prevent cooperation between federal and local officials.”

“Undermining the rule of law” is a common refrain among right wing anti-immigration advocates.  We could as easily argue that what undermines the rule of law is to have people arrested and detained because they have the same name as a person on an ICE list, or that if one’s name is Smith or Jones there will be no extra scrutiny but if your last name is Garcia or … Laxalt… then the person can sweat the possibility of mistakes.  The rule of law can also be undermined by immigration agents who dump water bottles in the desert (and brag about it) or threaten a doctor with deportation for juvenile offenses ages ago, and make it all but impossible for immigrant women to press charges for sexual assaults because to do so would invite deportation proceedings.  It also undermines respect for the law if we deliberately ignore the fact that the statistics on crimes don’t support the assertion illegal immigrants commit more crimes:

“The tone and tenor of the president’s executive order blurs the line between who’s a serious criminal and who isn’t,” and between documented and undocumented immigrants, said Randy Capps, the institute’s director of research for United States programs. There is no national accounting of criminality specifically by people who are in the country illegally. But Mr. Nowrasteh said he had analyzed the available figures and concluded that undocumented immigrants had crime rates somewhat higher than those here legally, but much lower than those of citizens.”  [NYT] (emphasis added)

3 Comments

Filed under Immigration, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

A Taste: Nevada Gubernatorial Race Money and Laxalt’s Views

The Nevada Independent has published some very useful information about the Nevada gubernatorial race — the money.  Please follow this link to find what they’ve discovered.  From the Department of Absolutely No Surprises we are informed radical right wing GOP candidate Adam Laxalt has received the largess of The Adelsons.  Laxalt’s a fine old Basque name in northern Nevada, and one which attracted votes from many who were inclined to disbelieve the coverage of his radical views during his last race.  The information concerning his family’s lack of support for him was met with the rejoinder that the opposition was “mean.”   A few samples of punch lines from the punditry:

Politico: Sandoval is leaving the Nevada governor’s mansion as one of the most popular governors in the country, and the Republican front-runner to replace him is state Attorney General Adam Laxalt. But Laxalt, a rising star in national Republican circles who has clashed with Sandoval in the past, still faces a tough road ahead in 2018. Nevada has been getting more Democratic, and operatives from both parties say the state Democratic Party is one of the most organized in the country. They are hoping to ride momentum from electing a Democratic senator and carrying the state for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Either Clark County Commission Chair Steve Sisolak or Vice Chair Chris Giunchigliani could prove formidable in the general election after a 2018 primary.

Washington Post (on the marijuana policy): Laxalt, the Nevada attorney general and a Republican candidate for governor, noted that while he opposed the ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana, “I also pledged to defend the measure were it approved by the voters.” He highlighted his defense of legal pot in two lawsuits. “My office has expeditiously facilitated the implementation of the law in the face of considerable uncertainty about the status of federal enforcement activity,” he said. (emphasis in the original)

Sierra Sun (on Laxalt’s immigration views) : Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt joined an 11-state coalition of attorneys general on Friday in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – a federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over Nevada. The brief urges the court to reverse a U.S. District Court judge’s order preventing the implementation of the federal government’s executive order pertaining to sanctuary cities. The case is an opportunity to remedy the threat California’s “sanctuary cities” pose to Nevada safety, Laxalt’s office stated.

This requires more analysis, in another post.

Comments Off on A Taste: Nevada Gubernatorial Race Money and Laxalt’s Views

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics