Monthly Archives: April 2018

Primary Season — Late Spring

By tmess2 | Published April 29, 2018

Because each state gets to set its own primary date, primary season is a gradual thing.  Putting aside a handful of exceptions (and run-offs), most primaries fall into two clusters.  The first cluster occurs in May and June (starting on May 8 and ending on June 26).  The second cluster occurs in August and September (starting on August 2 and ending on September 13).  During both clusters, most primaries occur on Tuesday, and there is at least one state on each Tuesday (other than May 29).

On May 8, there are primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia.  Key primaries are the Republican Senate primary in Indiana and West Virginia.  Both are states won by Trump in which Democratic Senators are running for re-election.  In Indiana, you have three candidates running for the Republican nomination.  It’s not clear that it really matters who wins or that there is much difference between the candidates.  West Virginia is a different matter.  The Republicans are scared to death that Don Blankenship could get the nomination.  Blankenship is the former CEO of one of the state’s larger coal miner and did time in prison related to miners who died due to unsafe mining practices.  The national GOP has (through super-pacs) been running adds against Blankenship.  In Ohio, the key races are for Governor with both parties having primaries in the race to replace term-limited John Kasich and Ohio’s 12th District in which there is both a regular primary and a special election primary (most of the candidates are the same in both, so both parties should have the same winner for both primaries, but there is always the chance in a close race that there could be a split result).

On May 15, there are primaries in Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.  The big story is likely to be the new congressional districts in Pennsylvania.   Amazingly, there are no incumbent against incumbent primaries although there could be an incumbent against incumbent general election.  Given the newness of the lines, it will be interesting to see how the local interests will influence the candidates chosen. Continue Reading...

Posted in Democrats, Elections, GOP, House of Representatives, Senate | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Following the Money: Congress 2018

By DocJess | Published April 22, 2018

There used to be an immutable law about campaign finances: more money always beats less money, unless candidates self-fund, which rarely works out well. WOW! Things have changed.

There are still some rules about campaign money that hold true. First, if, as a candidate, you can get a local voter to give you money, even $5, they are going to vote for you because they’re invested in you. Granted, if you do something incredibly stupid, that could change, although it may not. For example, there are people who fund candidates who still vote for said candidate even if the election falls between conviction and sentencing. (I am not making this up.) Contrary, if you, the candidate, sleep with a donor’s underage child and that donor probably will withdraw support, although sadly, not always. (Again, not making this up.)

Second rule is that if you cannot, as a campaign, raise a certain amount of money, you cannot be competitive. This amount differs based on the level of the election, and the cost of the media market, but all campaigns need to be able to fund a field operation at the very least. It’s pretty cheap to fund a school board operation: you need database access, some mailers/door lit, gas for the car to get to events. You can do that for less than a thousand dollars in most places. However, once you get to a state or Federal position, you need a paid campaign manager, likely a paid field person (both with legit skills), an office, advertising funds, and it goes on from there: in an expensive media market you’re looking at tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to even more. Basically, you need enough money to run a credible, professional campaign. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Money in Politics, Politics | Comments Off on Following the Money: Congress 2018

The Muslim Ban Case

By tmess2 | Published April 21, 2018

Wednesday is the last argument day of this year’s Supreme Court term, and the Supreme Court is going out with a really big case — Trump vs. Hawaii on immigration ban, version 3.0.  The significance and public interest in this case is revealed by the fact that the audio from the argument will be released later in the day.  (Usually, on argument days, the Supreme Court only releases the transcript with the audios from all arguments in a week being released on Friday.)

From the first day in office, President Trump has been attempting to ban immigration from certain predominately Muslim countries.  Version 1.0 was a rushed order that got into legal trouble quickly.  Version 2.0 reflected the administration taking the time to actually think about the terms of the order.  Version 2.0 expressly established a time frame for studying problems with the visa system and identifying which countries were problematic.  Version 3.0 placed restrictions on immigration from six Muslim countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen) and two non-Muslim countries (North Korea and Venezuela).  According to Version 3.0, these eight countries do not adequately assist the United States in terms of sharing information on the background of visa applicants.

There are two side issues in this case.  The first issue is the question of whether the case is “justiciable.”  In plain English, whether a court can review the President’s exercise of executive power related to immigration.  Generally speaking, individual visa decisions are not reviewable, but this case involves a broader policy.  The other side issue is the question of “global injunctions.”  In plain English, typically, a judge can only issue an order that resolves the claims of the parties to the case.  There is an exception for class actions in which one plaintiff is a representative of a larger group of plaintiffs, but, in a class action, all members of the class are parties to the case and have a right to have input on any settlement.  Recently, there have been several cases — both under the Obama Administration and now under the Trump Administration — in which a judge has issued an injunction that covers the precludes the government from applying a new policy to anybody, not just the individual plaintiffs. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Muslim Ban Case

Partisan Gerrymanders and the Supreme Court

By tmess2 | Published April 7, 2018

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument (transcript here) in Gill vs. Whitford, a case in which a three-judge panel found that the legislative district lines drawn by Wisconsin after the 2010 Census was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.  Last week, the United States Supreme Court held oral argument (transcript here) in Benisek vs. Lamone, a case in which a three-judge panel rejected a request for a preliminary injunction involving a claim that Maryland’s Sixth District was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the Free Speech Clause (and other parts of the First Amendment).

It is unusual for the United States Supreme Court to set a second case on the same issue for hearing while the first case is under submission (i.e. already argued).  What is more typical is granting multiple cases at the same time and having all argued at the same time.  As such,  for those who try to look for tea leaves in oral argument, one area of speculation was whether the questions from the justices might indicate where they were on the issues raised in Gill.  In theory, at least, there are some drafts being circulated on Gill.  At the very least, there was a tentative vote immediately after Gill. 

Two initial points before going into the merits.  First, redistricting and the rules for it are important.  We spent a lot of time in 2011 discussing what might happen when the new maps are drawn.  After three congressional elections (and state legislative elections) and two presidential elections, we have a pretty good understanding of the results of the 2011 line-drawing.  The bottom line (according to the Cook Partisan Vote Index) is that, in an election in which both parties get 50% of the two-party vote, the Republicans will emerge with something around a 240-195 advantage in Congress, exactly where we ended up after 2016.  To win a majority, the Democrats need to get around 53% or 54% of the total vote.   In many states, you have similar results on the state level. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Judicial | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Partisan Gerrymanders and the Supreme Court