Tag Archives: Nevada elections

Warning: Vote Suppression Scheme includes Nevada

Crosscheck Nevada For those happily thinking that vote suppression schemes like CrossCheck are happening somewhere else, and that Republicans might be pulling shenanigans in lands far away – be WARNED as of 2013 Nevada joined the CrossCheck system.  And, not to his credit then Secretary of State Ross Miller bought into it.

First, consider the source, Kris Kobach. “So far, in his career, Kobach has been the guy that John Ashcroft tasked with weeding out foreign travelers in the wake of 9/11—and Kobach’s program was so deeply involved in racial profiling that it was shut down. He also was the author of Arizona’s notorious “Papers, Please” law.” [Esquire]

Second, consider HOW operation Cross Check works.

“Election officials in more than two dozen states have compiled lists of citizens whom they allege could be registered in more than one state – thus potentially able to cast multiple ballots – and eligible to be purged from the voter rolls.” [RS] (emphasis added)

The “could be” part of the sentence is important because it forms the basis of the vote suppression efforts.

“Crosscheck has tagged an astonishing 7.2 million suspects, yet we found no more than four perpetrators who have been charged with double voting or deliberate double registration.”  [RS]

How do 7.2 million people get to be “suspects?”  The methodology is incredibly sloppy.  If this isn’t by design then it’s at least a way to get the “most suspects possible” from a limited number of registrations.

“We found that one-fourth of the names on the list actually lacked a middle-name match. The system can also mistakenly identify fathers and sons as the same voter, ignoring designations of Jr. and Sr. A whole lot of people named “James Brown” are suspected of voting or registering twice, 357 of them in Georgia alone. But according to Crosscheck, James Willie Brown is supposed to be the same voter as James Arthur Brown. James Clifford Brown is allegedly the same voter as James Lynn Brown.” [RS]

It’s easy, if all the James Browns are lumped into one group then all become “suspect” and their voting rights denied on election day, as potential fraudulent voters.  Now imagine being a Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Brown, Davis, Miller, Wilson, Moore, or Taylor in the United States – the top ten surnames in the 1990 census.  If Robert C. Brown moved to Nevada and didn’t bother to de-list his name from the Ohio rolls, Robert F. Brown could be struck from the list as a “potential” fraud. And, even if Robert C. Brown had absolutely NO intention of voting in Ohio, he’d still be viewed as a “potential” fraud.

RollingStone’s report continues:

“We had Mark Swedlund, a database expert whose clients include eBay and American Express, look at the data from Georgia and Virginia, and he was shocked by Crosscheck’s “childish methodology.” He added, “God forbid your name is Garcia, of which there are 858,000 in the U.S., and your first name is Joseph or Jose. You’re probably suspected of voting in 27 states.”

Including Nevada.  And who gets caught in this trap?

This inherent bias results in an astonishing one in six Hispanics, one in seven Asian-Americans and one in nine African-Americans in Crosscheck states landing on the list. Was the program designed to target voters of color? “I’m a data guy,” Swedlund says. “I can’t tell you what the intent was. I can only tell you what the outcome is. And the outcome is discriminatory against minorities.” [RS]

Why is this important? Because 27% of Nevada’s population is Hispanic.  9.3% of the Nevada population is African American. 8.5% is Asian. [Census]  What of the Social Security numbers and birthdays that were supposed to rectify this weakness in the Cross Check database?  The Social Security numbers weren’t on the lists Rolling Stone found.

According to the report, those entrapped by the Cross Check scheme are notified by a small print postcard which requires a response to the Secretary of State’s office.  It’s no secret who is less likely to return the post card – the young, the unemployed, those who move from job to job, minorities, women, and those in lower income brackets.  Precisely the people the Republicans don’t want voting.

The ACLU of Nevada has some voting tips for citizens of the state:

Check your voter registration status at least 30 days before the election. Locate your polling place and note the hours of operation.

Vote before Election Day, through early voting or absentee voting if possible. If you plan to vote at the polls, go early in the day to avoid the last-minute rush.

Bring identification even if it’s not required.

Read all instructions carefully. Take your time. Ask for help if you need it.”

We might want to add some additional tips – If you have a very common last name – If you have a surname which is common among ethnic minority populations – If you are a student – If you have moved recently – If you live in a neighborhood or precinct with a significant percentage of ethnic minority group population – Mark your calendar, perhaps on October 4th, and make certain of your voter registration well before the November 8th election.

Your vote counts – make sure it’s counted!

Comments Off on Warning: Vote Suppression Scheme includes Nevada

Filed under Vote Suppression, Voting

Important Dates: 2016 Election

Nevada Voter Registration 2016

_____ Register to vote

_____ Check your own registration

_____ Help someone else register to vote

_____ Help them check their registration

Comments Off on Important Dates: 2016 Election

Filed under elections, Nevada politics, Politics

I Guess I’m The Establishment

Clinton Logo

At the risk of bringing out the woodwork crowd, let’s open the door anyway. I’m a Clinton Supporter, and have been for some time.  Not that my support is exactly a necessity for anyone’s campaign – I supported Biden in 2008.  Kerry in 2004, and Bradley in 2000.  No one is now speaking of Presidents Biden, Kerry, or Bradley.  However much my endorsement may be the Kiss of Ultimate Obscurity, it does come from a recovering Republican whose former party went berserk in 1968 and over the edge in 1980.

I am a Democrat because I believe in capitalism.  As anyone who’s visited this blog more than a handful of times can attest, I do believe that capitalism works, and that it works better when financialism is restrained.  Wall Street is not an existential enemy.  For all the flaws in the system there has to be some way to distribute capital from sources of surplus to sectors of need, and no one has figured out a better way to do that than capitalism to date.  In short, a mixed economy provides the best way for businesses large and small to obtain the capital they need to sustain themselves and grow.  A mixed economy is, in my definition, capitalism regulated by rational restraints on the tendency to monopoly and financialism.

Therefore, it would be out of character for me to worry about Secretary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street gatherings; I’m certainly not a Socialist by any stretch of the definition.

I am a Democrat because I believe there is strength in diversity.  We’ve become the greatest nation on this planet because, not in spite of, the cultural diversity of this country.  This is the nation that gave the Jewish genius Albert Einstein a safe haven in 1933, and we were better for it.  Sergey Brin came from Russia, and founded Google – pretty good for an immigrant. Jerry Yang came from Taiwan, to found Yahoo! I’m certain we’re better for attracting Carlos Santana and enjoying his music, and I’ll always think of Albert Pujols in “cardinal” red.  There’s Puebla Foods entrepreneur Felix Sanchez de la Vega Guzman whose NJ based company is now worth $19 million.  Interested in drones? Then you probably already know about Jordi Munoz who co-founded 3D Robotics.  I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about Garrett Morgan, the African-American inventor of a modern traffic light – I’m not sure I like him when stopped for a long pause, but he’s probably saved my life innumerable times.

In short, I’m not in need of a revolution of any sort.  I certainly don’t feel the need to make American great again – what’s not great about a country that attracts the best and brightest from all over the world?  Nor do I feel the need to upend the socio-economic system, remember I’m not a Socialist.  We can, and should, do a better job of diminishing the income inequality gap in this country.  However, that doesn’t require a “re-distribution” of any sort.  We need to adopt economic policies which encourage entrepreneurship and the expansion of the American middle class.

I am a Democrat because I believe John Donne was right. No man is an island. All that “rugged individualism” palaver is just so much gibberish seeking to justify selfishness, or “I got mine, now you try to get yours…sucker.”  Perhaps someone with money to burn can hire a private security company – but I need the local police.  And, even the family which can afford the security company still needs someone to insure that the clothing on their children’s’ backs isn’t highly flammable or toxic.

When the woman in the family is earning only about 3/4th of what a man in the family can make, then the entire family suffers for it, and so do the merchants who would otherwise see more retail sales at their grocery stores. How much productivity do we lose each day a youngster has to endure crowded classrooms and underfunded education systems?  How much more attractive are our cities and towns when they have libraries, parks, and an investment in the arts?

I am a Democrat because I believe in democracy.  Notice please that’s not libertarianism of any sort. My definition of the little d – democracy holds that where there are no holds barred there’s the least real freedom.  Without rules we’d be back to ‘might makes right’ and reverting to the savagery of ages past, like bronze, iron, and stone.

Again, let me affirm that I believe we have one of the best political systems on Mother Earth, if we truly cherish it and make it possible for more people to vote in our local, state, and national elections.  Getting registered to vote in this nation should be far easier than the effort required to buy a gun.  We need to renew our Voting Rights Act, to revisit our campaign funding schemes, and to require that the FEC  truly have the capability to ferret out and punish untoward practices.

I tire very quickly when individuals launch into conspiracy theories and assorted assertions of fraud and misadventure.  At the beginning of this piece I said that I’d backed several candidates none of whom were elected to the office aspired to; I could have named many more from state and local elections.  With the exception of the 200o election, which I believe to have been messed up by election rigging in key states, I do not believe that if a specific candidate loses a specific election it must be because of some nefarious plot to defy Democracy and Vox Populi.  The glazed over look in my eyes is probably there because I stopped believing in conspiracy theories long ago.

If this renders me “establishment” so be it. I do not expect any other person in this great free land to pass my political purity test and I have no interest in sitting for anyone else’s.

There’s a difference between partisanship and zealotry. I am a partisan.  Perhaps in the eyes of some I am worse yet – a pragmatist. I don’t believe in intransigent positions for the sake of intransigency and purity – if I did I’d still be a Republican.  I believe that compromise is a good word, and a good political outcome.  So, here I am, and if that’s “Establishment” it’s a badge I’ll gladly assume.

Comments Off on I Guess I’m The Establishment

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

A Small But Significant Win? NV Voting Rights Case sent back to Federal District Court

ballot box There was a small but perhaps significant win yesterday for those who believe that ALL eligible citizens in Nevada should have to opportunity to register to vote.

“A federal appeals court on Thursday revived a lawsuit alleging that the Nevada Health and Human Services Department has been disenfranchising potential low-income and disabled voters by not providing registration materials to clients at its offices as required by federal law.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed in 2012 by the National Council of Las Raza and two branches of the NAACP, had been dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Clive Jones after he determined the groups had no standing to bring the claims.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, reviving the complaint that Nevada state officials are violating Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by failing to make voter registration materials available to people who visit their offices.” [LVRJ]

Note, the Appeals Court isn’t saying that the NV HHS was, in fact, in violation of federal statutes, but that the District Court erred in declaring that the original plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file their suit.  Voting rights groups were pleased with the decision:

Voting rights groups Demos, Project Vote, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which represented the plaintiffs along with the law firms Dechert LLP and Woodburn and Wedge, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a victory for low-income voters in Nevada and the community groups that serve them,” said Brenda Wright, Vice President for Legal Strategies at Demos. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision recognizes the fundamental importance of access to the courts in protecting the right to vote. We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has rectified a miscarriage of justice by reinstating our clients’ voting rights claims.”

In its opinion, the Court rejected Nevada’s argument that the plaintiffs—organizations that conduct voter registration drives in low-income communities throughout the State—were not harmed by the state’s violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and therefore lacked “standing” to challenge them. 

“The Court recognized that Nevada is answerable to community groups that have been forced to pick up the slack for the State’s failure to fulfill its legal obligations,” said Sarah Brannon, Director of Project Vote’s Government Agency Voter Registration Program.”  [more at Demos]

This, of course, will not please the “election integrity” crowd who will assert that voting is a sort of privilege, a reward for being a “taxpayer” – as if members of minority groups, and those who need social services aren’t “real” taxpayers.  They will, no doubt, continue to whine that their lack of success in some elections can’t possibly be because they lack candidates who appeal to a majority, ergo it must be because the “other side” cheated in some conspiratorial way.  In short, any election they don’t win must necessarily be fraudulent.

No, a “fraudulent” election is one in which there is ample evidence of voter suppression, indications that minority community members were sent misleading and downright inaccurate information, activities such as those of the infamous Nathan Sproul, sweeping voter roll purges, and such suppressive legislation as photo IDs which are difficult for rural, elderly, and non-white voters to access.

Here’s hoping the Federal District Court will take a more constructive view of the issues raised in this case, and will direct that more eligible individuals will be encouraged to participate in Nevada elections.

Comments Off on A Small But Significant Win? NV Voting Rights Case sent back to Federal District Court

Filed under elections, Nevada news, Nevada politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Spooks, Haunts, and other Scary Things in the Nevada Legislature

Nevada Legislature Scary Things

The GOP controlled Nevada Legislature is haunted. Specters and spooks dog the steps of the members of the Assembled Wisdom, wraiths point toward things of which we must be afraid, very afraid.

We must be afraid of voter impersonation fraud.  The fact that it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean that we ought not to writhe in terror at the prospect.  Speaking of ghosts of elections past, we have Sharron Angle to add her wail to the cries of alarm:

“Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, who lost the 2010 U.S. Senate race to Harry Reid, testified for the bill, saying “we do have a voter impersonation problem across the country.”  Anderson asked if she has found examples of voter impersonation in Nevada in her investigations. Angle said no, but that there is “anomalous activity that goes on in Nevada elections that is not easily explained.” [LVRJ]

One might reasonably guess that “anomalous activity” is one of those terms which might be analogous to the Spectral Evidence allowed in the Salem Witch Trials?   However, we might just as well place this within the glossary of meaningless phrases, which while sounding erudite, mean almost nothing, such as “stocks are down on profit taking,” or “there’s lots of cash on the sidelines.” [Ritholtz] Or, such unverifiable and empty notions like “highway miles.”  Or, those gratuitous and equally meaningless phrases which appear in job opening announcements, “self starter,” “team player,” and “highly qualified.”

The point being is that bills like SB 169 (photo ID) are necessary to solve the Republican problem of not being able to win elections if lower income, non-white, young people, and the elderly are allowed to vote.

We must be very afraid of criminals.  Not only must we quake in alarm, according to the GOP Gun Club we must arm ourselves and await the day when we will be called upon to open fire on the evil-doers in our midst. Unfortunately, this serves to remind us that one person who tried this at the Las Vegas Wal-Mart ended up as a victim. [SFgate] No matter, by the lights of the Gun Club we must all be allowed to carry concealed weapons – anywhere – unless maybe not on school grounds.  (AB 148) 

As of 2013 there were 2,790,236 people in the state of Nevada.  There were 16,496 violent crimes reported.  We should put this in some perspective.  First, if we divide the number of violent crimes (victims) by the total population the result is 0.00591.  Shift the decimal to create a percentage and we have 0.59%. [TDC]  Is the likelihood of victimization in a violent crime in Nevada so high that all the dangers associated with carrying a concealed weapon worth the effort? Secondly, there were 163 murders, 1,090 rapes, 5,183 robberies, and 10,060 assaults in Nevada as of the 2013 reporting period.  [TDC]   The numbers don’t suggest a need for a proliferation of arms among ordinary citizens.

But but but… What if the criminals think there will be armed opposition to their nefarious endeavors! That will prevent them from carrying out their heinous designs! Really?  The armed robber already has his or her gun in position, ready to fire. The gun in my purse or holster is going to take a moment to get “into position.” Thus, the obvious outcome is that the robber gets the money, and the firearm.  Then there is the “collateral damage” consideration.  What if the “burglar” isn’t a criminal after all, but some family member who has lost a key?  In public spaces, how does Our Concealed Carry Hero determine if another Concealed Carry Hero is, or is not, a perpetrator of the shooting? The questions go on, but the bottom line is that in the fanciful world of the gun enthusiasts every hero can make practical decisions at 2 in the morning, make every shot count, and insure that every shot is aimed at and will hit the criminal.  It’s a scenario right out of the made for TV melodramas. Legislation should be crafted upon a foundation of facts and rationality, not the fevered imaginings of the frightened.

We must be afraid that someone somewhere is taking money away from us, and that every accumulation of government revenue is robbery, and every public service employee is unworthy.  Those comfortably ensconced in the upper 0.01% of income earners may very well be able to buy all the books they want (therefore there is no need for public libraries) or to spend a vacation on a private island or in a private resort (therefore there is no need for any public parks), and they may elect to spend money on private security, or pay for service firefighting, or pay the tolls on roads and highways, or send the kids to private schools.  When money is no object, other people’s money is little more than a object of attraction. 

Unfortunately, the upper 0.01% has been effective over the last three decades in convincing ordinary people earning $50,000 per year that a public school beginning teacher earning $37,000 is a Pig At The Public Trough.  The median wage of an employee of the State of Nevada is currently $46,590.  Hardly a figure, when agency heads are included, to describe an opulent living.   Yet, public employees are taking fire in this edition of the Legislature.

However, it’s not just the public sector employees who are drawing the attention of the Needy Greedy.   State Senator Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City) wants to repeal the state’s minimum wage.  Hardy’s SJR 6 (pdf) would repeal Nevada’s minimum wage provisions and let the legislature determine if an employer is providing health insurance if the cost is not more than 10% of the employee’s gross taxable income.  Here’s a thought – How about, instead of allowing more employers to pay less than $8.25 per hour, Nevada enacted an increase in the minimum wage? Period.

Want to see fewer people have to rely on housing subsidies to keep roofs over their heads? Raise the minimum wage.  Want to see fewer people have to resort to the SNAP programs? – raise the minimum wage. Want to see fewer individuals have to avail themselves of Medicaid assistance? Raise the minimum wage. 

For too many years we’ve been told the people (including the disabled and the elderly) aren’t working hard enough.  They should get more education (despite the costs and time involved), get more gumption (this in the face of a 5% multi-job rate), work more hours… take individual responsibility!  This is all lovely palaver from the heights, the concepts tend to disintegrate when applied in the real world.  The question could as easily be reversed. For example, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, with sales and revenue reported as $14.58 billion in 2014, and net income of $2.84 billion, couldn’t spring for more than a paltry $8.25 per hour?  The question ought to be why can’t employers pay more than $10.10 per hour, or a living wage of $15.00?

In the real world most employers do pay more than the minimum already.  Minimum wage workers comprise about 4.7% of the total employed workforce.  The chart shows national trends for minimum wage workers:

Minimum Wage workers

“Leisure and Hospitality,” where have we seen that category before? L&H is the largest employer in the state, accounting for approximately 398,000 jobs earning an average annual wage of $31,600 (net of benefits.)  So, here we sit in a state in which most employees are engaged by a sector most likely to pay earnings at or below the federal minimum wage – and we can’t figure out that those who need housing or SNAP assistance might not fall into those categories if the wages were increased? So, let’s ask again: Why are Nevada employers unwilling to pay wages which would support their employees above the rate at which they are eligible for public assistance?

There are some things about which we should be legitimately concerned, those just don’t seem to have made it into the consciousness of the Legislature’s majority. Here are two examples:

Nevada has an income inequality problem.

“The states in which all income growth between 2009 and 2012 accrued to the top 1 percent include Delaware, Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, North Carolina, Connecticut, Washington, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, Rhode Island, and Nevada.” [EPI] (emphasis added)

This situation is economically unsustainable.  As middle income and lower income earners tighten their belts and shave their budgets, there are simply not enough high income earners to create the demand for goods and services over time.

Nevada has infrastructure issues.  Only in the categories of waste water and solid waste does the state of Nevada get a ‘good’ grade, a B, from the ASCE.  We seem to be handling the excremental elements of our state rather better than our school buildings and our dams.

If the Legislature can move past Guns Galore!, Labor Bashing, and Vote Suppressing, we might want to address these and other pressing issues in the Silver State.

Comments Off on Spooks, Haunts, and other Scary Things in the Nevada Legislature

Filed under Crime Rates, Gun Issues, Nevada economy, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

News and Notes

Jig Saw Puzzle It’s been some time since there’s been a good old fashioned aggregation post and today seems as good a time as any.  So, here goes —

In the MUST Read Department, there’s “Nevada’s Bundy Caucus” over at Crooks and Liars.  Nothing so brightens a Wednesday morning like being reminded that a soul-mate of the nefarious Cliven Bundy has been elected to the Congress of the United States.  Whack-a-doodle Doo!  To make life even more interesting – Bundy-Lovin’ Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, the Gun Totin’ Moll of the Tea Party, wants to be the Majority Leader, according to the very credible Jon Ralston.

Also in the MUST Department, The Center for American Progress has an excellent statistical piece about Veterans in America.  Did you know that there are 22 million veterans in America, and that 2.6 million are from the post 9/11 Era?  Or, that 49,933 of them are homeless?  Read On! There’s more from the Ramirez Group on homeless veterans.  One out of every three homeless men is a Vet. Unconscionable.

Take a look at Steve Sebelius’s Fun with Numbers, concerning the 2014 election in Nevada.   Notice: Nevada Progressive is shutting shop and moving to Let’s Talk Nevada. There’s a very informative post about the campaigns and elections therein.  NRDC posts an article from Common Dreams concerning the interesting voting pattern in which progressive initiatives tended to pass while progressive/Democratic candidates tended to fail.

If you’re following the debate on comprehensive immigration reform legislation, then “GOP already in lame excuse mode,” is highly recommended reading.  Wondering what happened to the bill from the Senate?  AZCentral provides a timeline, including the fact that the Senate passed the bill on June 27, 2013 – and Speaker John Boehner has not brought the bill, or any House version thereof, to the floor since.

Even if the Republicans won’t admit it, gun violence in this country is a public health issue.   However, that doesn’t mean that the GOP will stop blocking the nomination for Surgeon General, a man who believes that bullets do serious damage to human bodies – after all the Ebola ‘crisis’ was over as soon as the election returns came in from Hawaii on November 4th. If we could see the violence issue in public health terms we’d remember that on average 32 people are killed by guns every day, and another 140 are treated in the ER for gunshot wounds.  So, if the averages hold,  approximately 1,376 people have died from gunshots since October 1, 2014. From Ebola infections? 1.

Yes, the Supreme Court will take up a conservative challenge to the Affordable Care Act.  Think Progress provides a succinct summation of the challenge.   There’s obviously some more work to be done to convince the public that (1) Obamacare isn’t a Thing, it’s a collection of reforms to the way health insurance corporations do business, and (2) repealing it means serious hardships to middle income Americans, the elderly, and continued struggles of 215,000 veterans who would be greatly assisted by the expansion of Medicaid.  Someone really should pose the question to the newly elected Congressional Representatives: Do you support the troops or the health insurance corporations?  The second question ought to be: Do you want to cost those corporations all the new customers they got under the ACA provisions?

Comments Off on News and Notes

Filed under Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

Halloween Shocker

Laxalt Or, perhaps not.  The Laxalt Family pulls the plug on support for Adam Laxalt’s candidacy for Attorney General.  [Las Vegas Sun]

It has to hurt when it comes from the family?

“It is our belief that Ross Miller’s documented history of pulling himself up by his own bootstraps and establishing a well-respected career in law and public service while still maintaining a strong sense of family and community constitute the critical characteristics needed for Nevada’s highest legal office.”

Once again we’re treated to the spectacle of the Nevada Republican Party unable to keep the members of the Old Guard aligned with the Tea Party influx of fringe characters from the radical right.   There are Nevada Republicans who aren’t pleased with the antics of the Bundy Family, and who aren’t in ideological lock step with the pseudo-libertarian radicals.  There are Nevada Republicans for whom vote suppression is not a recipe for winning hearts, minds, and votes.  However, it will be a struggle for them to take their party back from the reactionaries and radicals who have provided candidates in some of the last elections.  They are afraid of some of their own, meaning independents and Democrats should be equally alarmed.

Happy Halloween?

Comments Off on Halloween Shocker

Filed under Politics

Laxalt Endorsed By Famous Person: Word Salad Shooter Version

Laxalt First Republican candidate for Attorney General, Adam Laxalt,  told me he wanted my vote because he’s a native Nevadan, “ready to serve,” making much of his stint in the U.S. Navy – thank you for your service sir.  BUT it escapes me exactly  how prosecution of terrorists in military courts  prepares a person for administering the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Consumer Complaints, Insurance Fraud, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Mortgage Fraud Unit, resolution of questions regarding the application of the Open Meeting Law, Worker’s Compensation Fraud, and Special Prosecutions.  Nor does this explain to me how Mr. Laxalt is ready to participate in the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice, the Attorney General’s Substance Abuse Working Group, the Committee on Domestic Violence, the Nevada Board of Examiners, the Nevada Council on Domestic Violence, the Nevada Information Technology Board, the Nevada Supreme Court Commission on Statewide Juvenile Justice Reform, and the Nevada Open Meeting Law Task Force.

And, then there’s that not so little matter of having some really dismal evaluations from one’s own law firm.  Rather than demonstrate he did not earn the sobriquet “Train Wreck,”  Mr. Laxalt is outraged his opponent could be the source of the leaked evaluations – which Mr. Miller is not.  That would be a denigration of Mr. Jon Ralston’s skills as an investigative journalist – Ralston got them, Ralston shared them. [NVProg]  Even a layman can figure out “promotion to counsel” doesn’t equate to “promotion to partner.”  There’s little left but the whining that Evil Doers have sabotaged his campaign?  Most of the time using the Victimization excuse  merely serves to remind voters that those who are good at making excuses are rarely good at much else.

“Adam is running for Attorney General to protect the safety of Nevada’s families, to preserve the liberty of Nevada’s citizens and businesses and to stand up for Nevadans against federal government overreach.” [Laxalt]

And for this he gets the endorsement of none other than the most infamous Word Salad Shooter the conservatives have to offer – Sarah Palin.

“While most of the focus leading into 2014 elections has been on the country’s life and death fight for our future with a conservative majority serving in the U.S. Senate, there are other offices we need to count on to put a stop to the liberal Obama agenda. In individual states, good Attorney Generals have led the legal fight against Obamacare, to protect religious liberties and states’ right, and to uphold other imperative core Constitutional principles. Here are four conservative Attorney General candidates I’m supporting. They will continue the fight for all of us!”

OK, sometimes I do get into “Comma Queen Mode,” but “death fight for our future with a conservative majority…” says to me the fight is with the conservative majority, which as a progressive is something with which I could agree.   This, in turn, reminds me that Mr. Laxalt told me he wanted to “stop Obamacare.”  Translation: Mr. Laxalt would like to repeal the health care insurance reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act.

Seriously? He doesn’t want Nevadans to have any recourse if an insurance corporation rescinds a policy because the person made a legitimate mistake in the medical history portion of an application? Forgot you had measles in 1972?  He wants policies for women to automatically be more expensive than those for men?  He wants to kick the kids off family policies before age 25?  He wants to allow insurance companies to sell junk “life time limit” policies?  He wants to tell new entrepreneurs they can’t go to an insurance exchange (market) and pick out a policy from Anthem, Nevada Health Care Co-Op, Health Plan of Nevada, or Saint Mary’s [SSE] that fits his needs and finances?  Perhaps Mr. Laxalt hasn’t yet figured out that Obamacare isn’t a thing.  There’s are no government issued insurance policies.  There are only markets (state and federal) where people who do not have employer sponsored insurance policies can find affordable plans to purchase.   If candidate Laxalt hasn’t figured this out, perhaps there is a reason those evaluations weren’t stellar?

Speaking of families, there’s the gay marriage issue on which Mr. Laxalt has made his opposition clear, in spite of advice from Governor Sandoval and AG Masto.  There is something to be said for following the news:

“Case law over the last year and a half has completely turned our argument upside down,” Masto told the Reno Gazette-Journal on Tuesday. Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican and former federal judge, also said the state’s ban is “no longer defensible” in court and told the Gazette-Journal on Tuesday that he looked at the case “as a judge and a lawyer” and agrees with Masto.” [LVSun]

Indeed, the case law is changing, and in light of the recent refusal of the Supreme Court to take same sex marriage cases Mr. Laxalt continues to say he will “enforce the law” whatever that might be – a far cry from his adamant opposition to LGBT rights in 2010. [RGJ]  We might say, given Mr. Laxalt’s Navy experience, that that ship has sailed.

There’s one other arrow in Mr. Laxalt’s quiver – Tough On Crime – he wants to keep women and children safe – and who doesn’t?  However, Mr. Laxalt is not running for District Attorney.  Or Sheriff. Or applying to be Chief of Police. Or, even running for a state legislative seat wherein crimes are defined and penalties assigned.  He’s running to be an an administrator, and thus far his agenda is to fight anything Federal, fight anything that impinges on health insurance corporation profits, and fight anything that says members of the LGBT community should have equal rights.   For some this agenda will be adequate, even acceptable.  For others it’s an admission that he’s frozen in the politics of the past.

Indeed, those congealed into the Rovian politics of the Culture Wars will find our National Word Salad Shooter only too pleased to endorse them.  The remainder of the electorate may see only the candidate’s imploring brown eyes, seeking our votes, and looking for all the world like a young beagle trying desperately to comprehend house-breaking instructions.

Comments Off on Laxalt Endorsed By Famous Person: Word Salad Shooter Version

Filed under Nevada politics

Nevada: Vote Like Your Right To Vote Depends On It

Ballot BoxThere’s one Nevada political race which hasn’t attracted as much limelight as might be justified.  That would be the race for Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State’s office has authority over elections and voting, and the implementation of Nevada election laws and regulations.  The Nevada Republican Party has already put citizens on notice that it intends to flog the Election Integrity Mule all the way to the polls.

Here’s their 2014 election platform statement:

“We advocate proof of U.S. citizenship and residency at the time of voter registration and requiring government issued photo ID at the time of voting.  We oppose same day voter registration to preserve election integrity.  We strongly support all electronic voting systems having a voter verified paper audit trail, used in the event of a recount.”

Look closely at the first sentence.  Yes, everyone supports the idea that a person is a U.S. citizen, and is a resident for the purposes of voting.  And, yes if a person does the registration paperwork to vote in Nevada a government issued ID or driver’s license is required. [NVSoS] If a person doesn’t have a government issued ID or driver’s license then the individual must register in person at the county election office, clerk or registrar. [NVSoS]

Once the paperwork is filed and the voter is included among those eligible to vote in Nevada, when a person goes to the polls the burden of proof to refuse that individual a ballot is on the government — not the individual.  It is up to the government to demonstrate you are not eligible to vote — it is not up to you to prove that you are.

So, here the second part of that sentence comes into play.  Under the Nevada Republican scheme of things, not only does a person have to prove citizenship and residency during the registration process, BUT the person must also prove he or she is eligible to vote at the polling place.  In other, unminced words, the burden of proof is now shifted from “you are eligible to vote unless the government can prove you aren’t” to “you are not eligible to vote until you prove you are.”

Since voting irregularities are illegal, what the Nevada Republican Party is advocating is a system in which you are NOT presumed  innocent until you are proven guilty, you are presumed guilty until you can prove you aren’t.  [Extended discussion here]

The second sentence doesn’t make much sense. If you have proof of citizenship and residency a few days before an election, wouldn’t you have it on election day?  Should there be issues regarding either element there’s always recourse to the provisional ballot.  The only thing that same day registration actually does is make voting easier and more convenient.

And all this in the interest of providing ‘election integrity.’  Nor is this a recent idea.  ALEC and its allies have been shoving the concept of increased corporate influence and decreased citizen participation for some time — and they do have Nevada allies. [DB]

There was an effort during the 2011 legislative season to enact a voter photo ID law. [DB] Legislators Roberson, Hardy, Hansen, Woodbury, Stewart, and Hambrick were the Suppression Six.  Among the bills they sponsored or supported were AB 327, AB 341, AB 425, AB 434, and SB 374.

State Senator Barbara Cegavske added her own bill to the mix, AB 311 jointly sponsored by Hardy, Sherwood, Hansen, Munford, Gustavson, and Halseth.  The bill would have eliminated all early voting in Nevada elections.

Another bit of red, white, and blue fearmongering was addressed in 2011 by SB 178, sponsored by Gustavson, Hardy, McGinness, Roberson, Settelmeyer, Hansen, Ellison, Goedhart, Goicoechea, Hambrick, Kirner, and McArthur.  The bill was a rather blatant bit of immigrant bashing, with whispers of “illegals” voting in the toxic mixture.

During the 2013 session of the state legislature there were another spate of bills regarding photo ID statutes and other means of making voting less convenient and more restrictive.  There was SB 63 (photo ID), SB 367 (repetition of immigrant bashing  SB 178/2011) , AB 216 (Photo ID) sponsored by Sen. Gustavson, Hansen, Wheeler, Ellison, Hambrick, Fiore, P. Anderson, Grady, Livermore, and Stewart.  AB 319 (Photo ID) sponsored by Stewart, Hambrick, Hansen, Duncan, Grady, Hardy, Hickey, Kirner, and Livermore.

And what of making voting more convenient?  During the 2013 legislative session, AB 440 was passed which would have extended the period for voter registration. The bill passed the Assembly on a 25-16 vote. [NVLeg] It passed the Nevada Senate on a 11-10 vote.  The Nay votes came from Brower, Cegavske, Pete Goicoechea, Gustavson, Hammond, Hardy, Hutchison, Ben Kieckhefer, Roberson, and Settelmeyer. [NVLeg]  The bill was vetoed by Governor Sandoval.

There appear to be two outcomes the Nevada Republican Party would very much like to see in the upcoming 2014 elections.  The first would be to control the State Senate, and the second might very well be to elect State Senator Barbara Cegavske as the new Secretary of State.

Democrats in Nevada would be well advised to vote in 2014 as if their right to vote depended on it — given the platform, the previous legislative efforts, and the voting records of Nevada Republicans in the Legislature, Senator Barbara Cegavske in particular — it might.

Comments Off on Nevada: Vote Like Your Right To Vote Depends On It

Filed under Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

From Out of the Mountain West? The Pollsters Are Coming.

The pollsters are coming. The pollsters are coming. It must be campaign season in Nevada and an outfit called Mountain West Research Center is polling. What do I think of Lucy Flores? Of Mark Hutchison? Of the tax initiative? How do I react to some really negative comments about the aforementioned candidates?  A little segment on how I feel about Governor Sandoval, but so little as to convince me that whoever paid for this polling is far more interested in the race for Lt. Governor.  A few questions about the tax initiative, with a quick summation of pros and cons, wherein the cons sounded very much like GOP talking points.  In fact, most of the summations sounded like talking points and/or lines of vulnerability for the candidates under consideration.

Mountain West Research Center, with a 208 (Idaho) prefix, wants me to know: “Some say we’re the sherpas of market and opinion research. We say if the pack fits, wear it.”   With the 232 added to the number, this makes me think the outfit is located in Pocatello.  A couple of years ago there were some people annoyed by the firm’s calling practices, and one claim that a representative told a contact the company was not bound by Do Not Call restrictions. [800 notes]

Interesting coming from a firm which is rather solidly tied to the fine old art of push polling.  Back in 2010 a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire hired Mountain West Research, got caught push polling, and was fined. But, that’s to get just a bit ahead of the story.

There seems to be a bit of history for Mountain West Research, as follows from Mother Jones:

“Since then, Western Wats and the Mountain West Research Center have popped up regularly during competitive election seasons—frequently in conjunction with push-poll allegations. In 2006, democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont’s campaign reported that supporters had gotten push-polled by Mountain West during his primary challenge against Democrat Joe Lieberman. Western Wats also surfaced in the Vermont Senate campaign that year, tied to negative calls against the Senate’s only bona fide socialist, Bernie Sanders. But Western Wats really made news in 2008, when it was identified as the firm behind calls to voters in New Hampshire suggesting that Mitt Romney had dodged the Vietnam draft by serving as a Mormon missionary in France. The campaign behind those calls was never identified, though Rudy Giuliani was the leading suspect. (Ayotte, as attorney general, was charged with investigating the allegations.)” [MJ 10/22/2010]

But wait, there’s more, including allegations that Mountain West Research violated labor laws.

“In April, Western Wats (Mountain West) settled a complaint with the US Department of Labor for serious violations of child labor laws. It agreed to pay more than $500,000 for reportedly employing more than 1,400 kids under 16 (some as young as 13) to staff its call centers. Many of the kids were paid less than minimum wage. Naturally, Western Wats dismissed the complaint as mostly full of “technical” violations, but the civil penalty was among the largest ever assessed by the Department of Labor for child labor violations.” [MJ 10/22/2010]

And, then in October 2010, Mountain West paid a fine of $20,000 for its push polling in New Hampshire. [ResLive]

So, let’s assume for the moment that Mountain West Research Center, 1110 Yellowstone Ave. #227 Pocatello, ID 83201, is yet again joining the fray — inserted into Nevada’s campaign season by someone who hopes no one will notice its former connections to high jinx in New Hampshire and Vermont, and its questionable labor practices of days not so long gone by?

Comments Off on From Out of the Mountain West? The Pollsters Are Coming.

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics