4 Days After #ElectionDay: Clinton 228, Trump 290. MI(16),NH(4) Uncalled!

It is now 4 days after Election Day and the full results in the presidential election are still not known. Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States because he has won more vote in enough states to claim more than 270 electoral votes. However, Hillary Clinton now leads by over  600,000 votes in the popular vote total; this is expected to swell to over 1 million by the time California certifies its results in December. Currently, they have only tabulated roughly 9 million votes in a state where 12 million people votes in 2012 and Clinton leads 2-to-1.

Since I blogged last on Wednesday, Arizona (11 electoral votes) was called definitively for Trump on Friday even though he won there relatively handily 49-44 in what used to be thought of as a non-swing state. In Michigan, Trump leads by roughly 13,000 votes out of 4.7 million votes cast. In New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) Clinton, is ahead by a narrow total of 2528 votes out of 700,000 cast. The U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire (which, at an estimated total of $100 million spent, was the most expensive of the year) was decided in Governor Maggie Hassan's favor over incumbent Kelly Ayotte by a mere 743 votes! Ayotte has surprisingly conceded the race without requesting a recount.

Stay tuned!

2016 ELECTION: Trump 279, Clinton 228. AZ(11),MI(16),NH(4) Uncalled

Donald Trump was elected 45th President of the United States  last night this morning when Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were called for the GOP candidate, eliminating Hillary Clinton's path to 270 electoral votes, as Trump surpassed that threshold.. Like in 2000, the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote, but lose in the electoral college. The 27 electoral votes of Arizona (11) and Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4) are still close to call but Trump is leading there. He also won a rare electoral college vote in the North East by wining Maine's 2nd congressional district.

Marriage Equality Cases Will Be Decided By US Supreme Court This Term!

Great news! The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear (granted certioari) in a number of consolidated cases from all four states in the Sixth Circuit that could lead to a ruling striking down all state-based laws that prohibit same-sex couples from getting married and states from recognizing those marriages. Two years ago on June 26, 2013 the Court ruled that the Congress could not enact a law to prohibit recognition by legally married same-sex couples for federal purposes.

There are currently 36 states (and the District of Columbia) with marriage equality, so the ruling by the Supreme Court would likely strike down the bans in the 14 remaining states.

The specific question the Supreme Court will ask parties to address in briefs and oral arguments are:

 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? 

It is likely there will be oral arguments in April (90 minutes on Question 1, 60 minutes on Question 2) and a final decision issued in the case(s) by June 2015.

Woo hoo!

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner!

Florida Becomes 3rd Most Populous State in the Union, North Carolina Becomes #9

The news this week was that Florida surpassed New York to take the #3 spot in the list of most populous states in the country. However, there was little mention that North Carolina skipped past Michigan to take the #9 spot and #8 Georgia joined the 10 million people club.

Here is the official data from the Census:

The 10 Most Populous States on July 1, 2014

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

State

California
Texas
Florida
New York
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan

Population

38,802,500
26,956,958
19,893,297
19,746,227
12,880,580
12,787,209
11,594,163
10,097,343
9,943,964
9,909,877

6th U.S. Circuit Rules AGAINST Marriage Equality, Upholding Bans In KY, MI, OH and TN

Well! In a somewhat surprising move, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has reversed multiple lower court rulings in favor of marriage equality and issued a 2-1 decision upholding the rights of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee to enforce laws that restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

The 2-1 decision is contrary to decisions in the 9th, 10th, 4th and 7th Circuits which all favored marriage equality and which the Supreme Court declined to review last month, effectively granting marriage equality to go into effect in 30-plus states. Today's decision means that it is much more likely now that the United States Supreme Court will have to step in and give  a final resolution of the marriage equality question once and for all, probably by June 2015.

The two judges appointed by President Gerge W. Bush voted to uphold the marriage bans using the argument that judges should not be deciding such a question which could (and should) be sresolved by the Democratic process while the judge appointed by President Clinton voiced a fierce dissent to such an idea:

If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams. 

[...] 

Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent.

It will be interesting to see how quickly the U.S. Supreme Court responds to today's actions by the 6th Circuit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg predicted that the Court would not feel inclined to get involved unless and until a Circuit split developed, and that is exactly what happened today.

Sixth U.S. Circuit To Hear Appeals In SIX Marriage Equality Cases Today

Today, August 6th will be an extraordinary day in the history of marriage equality. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear marriage equality cases from all four states in the jurisdiction of the circuit: Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

As the Columbus Dispatch puts it:

It will be the single-largest legal event in the same-sex marriage debate since June 26, 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Since then, every major federal and state court ruling nationwide has gone in favor of gay-marriage proponents. The Cincinnati hearings are expected to draw such large crowds of journalists and spectators to the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse that the clerk of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set up two overflow courtrooms equipped with piped-in audio of the proceedings. All five cases will be heard by the same three-judge panel, consisting of former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Deborah L. Cook, 62; ex-state Solicitor Jeffrey Sutton, 53; and Martha Craig “Cissy” Daughtrey, 72. Daughtrey was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, while Cook and Sutton were picked by President George W. Bush in 2003.

The 6th Circuit is considered relatively conservative so even though marriage equality is on an unprecedented winning streak in federal court, a win from this court would be something of a surprise.

WISCONSIN: Federal Judge Issues Stay and Injunction Halting Marriage Equality

Bad news out of Wisconsin! Federal judge Barbara Crabb finally issued a final order implementing her previously issued decision in the same-sex marriage case of Wolf v Walker in favor of marriage equality from last week and included a stay and injunction that makes it clear that no marriage licenses should be issued to same-sex couples while the matter is appealed to the U.S. 7th Circuit.

This means that the multiple counties and big cities like Madison and Milwaukee where same-sex couples were being issued marriage licenses have to stop doing so immediately.

The judge wrote in her final order that the Supreme Court's previous decision this past January to issue a stay in the case of whether Kitchen v. Herbert striking down Utah's ban on marriage equality should go into effect compelled her to do the same since the two cases are indistinguishable from each other. All this year federal judges in various jurisdictions have been striking down laws banning marriage equality in several states (Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia, and many others) usually issuing stays automatically preventing marriages from going into effect.

In some jurisdictions, notably Oregon and Pennsylvania, the state officials agreed with the ruling and thus did not appeal it, causing marriage equality to go into effect immediately in those states. However, in others, like Wisconsin, politicians have continued to battle in court to uphold their discriminatory marriage laws and are appealing to the appropriate federal appellate circuit. The 4th and 10th appellate circuits have heard oral arguments in their marriage equality cases and could issue decisions at any time, although most observers do not expect one to do so until much later this year at the earliest.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

SCOTUS Upholds Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban 6-2, Sotomayor Vociferously Dissents

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a curious 6-2 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a Michigan ballot measure which precludes the use of "race-based preferences" in public education. The majority opinion by Anthony Kennedy went out of its way to say that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action policies but on whether voters had the power to ban affirmative action policies.

New York Times reports:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one. 

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.” 

His announcement of the decision from the bench was businesslike. Then Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent, an unusual move signaling deep displeasure. She said the initiative put minorities to a burden not faced by other college applicants and so violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 

“The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she wrote. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent. Justice Sotomayor seemed to mock one of Chief Justice Roberts’s most memorable lines. In a 2007 decision that limited the use of race in public school systems, he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” 

Justice Sotomayor recast the line. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” she wrote, “is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”

The result is significant for California, because the Golden State is one of 7 where voters have passed ballot measures banning affirmative action based on race (or gender) in public education. California's measure is called Proposition 209 and an attempt to place a repeal on the November 2014 ballot was abandoned earlier this year after Asian constituents expressed their displeasure with the idea of allowing UCLA and UC Berkeley to be allowed to take race into account when deciding who gets admitted to California's top state universities.

This is not surprising, because figures that came out this week show that Asians are a plurality (36.2%) of all admitted students from California to the University of California, with Latinos (28.8%) surpassing Whites (26.8) for the first time this year. Black students made up a paltry 4.2% of the total number of admitted California students.

SCOTUS blog reports on how strongly Justice Sonia Sotomayor attempted to convince her colleagues that what they were doing in allowing the majority to ban policies intended to help minorities was wrong:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who recited orally from the bench a lengthy version of her dissenting opinion, said the ruling would make it much harder for racial minorities to defend affirmative action programs.  What had happened in Michigan, she protested, was “the last chapter of discrimination” — changing “the basic rules of the political process in that state in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.” 

The Sotomayor opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ran to fifty-eight pages – surpassing by more than three times the length of the lead opinion by Justice Kennedy and even exceeding the forty-four pages that all of her colleagues had written.

Viva Sonia!

Attorney General Holder Announces U.S. Will Recognize Michigan Same-Sex Marriages

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER 

ON FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES IN MICHIGAN

WASHINGTON—Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement today on the status of same-sex marriages performed in the state of Michigan:

“I have determined that the same-sex marriages performed last Saturday in Michigan will be recognized by the federal government.  These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. The Governor of Michigan has made clear that the marriages that took place on Saturday were lawful and valid when entered into, although Michigan will not extend state rights and benefits tied to these marriages pending further legal proceedings.  For purposes of federal law, as I announced in January with respect to similarly situated same-sex couples in Utah, these Michigan couples will not be asked to wait for further resolution in the courts before they may seek federal benefits to which they are entitled.  

“Last June’s decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor was a victory for equal protection under the law and a historic step toward equality for all American families.  The Department of Justice continues to work with its federal partners to implement this decision across the government.  And we will remain steadfast in our commitment to realizing our country’s founding ideals of equality, opportunity, and justice for all.”

###

6th Circuit Issues Stay On Michigan Marriage Equality Decision

Bad news but not surprising. The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the state of Michigan's request for a stay on last Friday's federal district court ruling in DeBoer v. Snyder that struck down the state's ban on marriage equality.

Equality on Trial reports:

The three-judge panel pointed to the Supreme Court’s recent stay in Kitchen v. Herbert, the challenge to Utah’s same-sex marriage ban:

In light of the Supreme Court’s issuance of a stay in a similar case, Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2014), a stay of the district court’s order is warranted.

The judges who decided on the motion are Judge John Rogers, appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Helene White, who was first nominated by President Bill Clinton and later by President George W. Bush when the Senate declined to act on her nomination, and District Court Judge Karen Caldwell, who’s also an appointee of President George W. Bush, sitting by designation.

The decision to halt marriages was 2-1: Judge White dissented, writing that “Michigan has not made the requisite showing” that a stay is warranted, and that the stay in Kitchen provides little guidance here.

It is not surprising that the 6th Circuit issued a stay in the case but it is disappointing. Almost a dozen federal judges in multiple states (Virginia, Michigan, Texas and Oklahoma) have ruled that state marriage laws violate federal constitutional principles since last June's landmark United States v. Windsor ruling. However, marriage equality has not gone into effect as a result of any of those rulings yet. Not yet.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan Ban On Marriage Equality!

By now it has become routine, but today yet another federal judge, this time in Michigan, struck down a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, saying that it violates the United States Constitution. Victory in Michigan was especially sweet for LGBT advocates because the judge actually insisted that a trial of the facts occur, the first time this has happened since openly gay judge Vaughn Walker insisted on a trial of the facts in the 2009 federal lawsuit against California's Proposition 8.

Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge said Friday as he struck down a law that was widely embraced by voters a decade ago — the latest in a recent series of decisions overturning similar laws across the country.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman announced his ruling after a rare two-week trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children.

There was no indication that the judge was suspending his decision. Attorney General Bill Schuette said he was immediately filing a request with a federal appeals court to suspend Friedman's decision and prevent same-sex couples from immediately marrying. The decision was released shortly after 5 p.m., when most county clerk offices in Michigan were closed. Clerks issue marriage licenses.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.

Two Detroit-area nurses, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, want to get married, but the original purpose of their 2012 lawsuit was to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by same-sex couples.

The case is DeBoer v. Snyder. Freedom To Marry released the following press statement:

“The discriminatory ban is untrue to Michigan’s – and America’s – values, and the judge was right to strike it down. It’s time that all committed couples in Michigan be treated with respect and dignity under the law, fully able to share in the freedom to marry and the responsibilities and protections marriage brings. Today’s win comes after a full trial -- complete with prosecutors and defendants, witness cross-examinations, and testimony from family experts on the well-being of children -- which showed that opponents have nothing more than the same bogus claims they have recycled for decades. They were simply unable to provide a single legitimate reason why committed same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage. Michigan, like all of America, is ready for the freedom to marry.” 

Michigan’s DeBoer v. Snyder is only the third full trial on the freedom to marry in history, following trials in Hawaii and California. Wolfson served as co-counsel in Hawaii’s Baehr v. Miike, the first-ever trial on the freedom to marry and the first case in the world to win a ruling in favor of the freedom to marry. 

54% of Michigan residents support the freedom to marry, according to a 2014 Michigan State University poll.

Wow!

SCOTUS Considers Voter Ban On Affirmative Action Today

Today there will be an important oral argument before the United States Supreme Court that could determine whether race-conscious remedies of past discrimination conducted by public and private entities (i.e. also known as affirmative action) will have a future in the United States.

The High Court will consider Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682. SCOTUS blog summarizes the issue as: "Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions."

The Los Angeles Times reports that we in California have an interest in this legal skirmish over Michigan's voter-approved ban on affirmative action because California has a similar measure in its state constitution thanks to the 1996 passage of Proposition 209. In fact voters in Michigan, California, Arizona and Washington have all passes similar ballot measures banning "preferential treatment" based on race or sex in public education.

[Mark] Rosenbaum and the American Civil Liberties Union sued in 1996 to block the California ban from taking effect, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. 

Now, in the Michigan case, Rosenbaum gets a chance to make a constitutional argument against state bans on affirmative action that would apply in California as well. He does not contend that race-based policies are required. Instead, he relies on what lawyers call the "political restructuring doctrine." Under it, Rosenbaum argues, Michigan unfairly "rigged" the political process by taking away from university officials the power to set admissions policy and instead writing it into the state constitution. 

By adopting the state ban, the voters — most of whom were white — deprived minority students of a right to press state officials to adopt affirmative action policies. This is "changing the political process along racial lines to prevent the state from taking constitutionally permissible race-conscious action," he said. 

A Michigan-based group called the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action goes further and describes the state's policy as a "new Jim Crow" system akin to the "separate but equal" doctrine that the high court established in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896.

It is not a good sign that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from considering the case so that there will only be 8 voting members participating in the decision. However if by some miracle there is a 4-4 split, the lower court's 6th Circuit en banc 8-7 decision that struck down the ballot measure would go into effect.

Where In The World Is MadProfessah? Houghton, MI

I was on a business trip to Michigan Technological University in Houghton, MI (population: 7,708) when Sandy hit the Eastern Seaboard. Unfortunately, due to the air travel disruptions caused by the largest Atlantic storm to ever make landfall in the United States, I am not back in my usual location of Arlington, VA but will be staying an extra 48 hours in the Upper Peninsula (the U.P.) of Michigan.

It's actually a very beautiful location, if a bit remote as you can see from the graphic above. There's effectively only one flight a day out of here and it only goes to Chicago O'Hare (ORD) one of my least favorite airports in the world. I'm much happer spending my time in Houghton (where the people are lovely) than trying to find an overpriced hotel room in Chicago or worse yet sleeping on cots (or benches!) in O'Hare. (Trust me, that has happened to me before, one reason ORD is an airport I generally try to avoid if at all possible!)

Wish me luck to get back to the DC metropolitan area sooner rather than later!

Anti-Gay Stalker Ordered to Pay $4.5M to Gay Man

Chris Armstrong was the openly gay student body
president of University of Michigan when
he became the target of a deranged cyber bully

Well, this is an interesting development! You may recall a few years ago there was an Assistant Attorney General of Michigan named Andrew Shirvell was discovered to be basically cyber-stalking and bullying the openly gay student body president of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Shirvell made increasingly bizarre appearances in the media defending his right of free speech and repeatedly spouting homophobic and just plain weird statements about Armstrong. Eventually, the Attorney General of Michigan fired the psycho after it was revealed Shirvell had stood outside Armstrong's residence at 1:30am yelling insults.

The gay guy who was harassed is Chris Armstrong and after he graduated he filed a federal lawsuit against Shirvell asking for $25,000 indamages (or an apology). Shirvell rejected the offer. Yesterday, a federal jury ruled that Shirvell should pay $4.5 million dollars for his actions against Armstrong.

Here's how the Detroit Free Press covered the result:

Andrew Shirvell, a 2002 U-M graduate, drew national attention for his blog, which he published in 2010, attacking then-U-M student body president Chris Armstrong.The blog -- the "Chris Armstrong Watch" -- was filled with posts from Shirvell, including ones calling Armstrong, the first openly gay student body president at U-M, "Satan's representative on the student assembly" and a "privileged pervert." 

"It's not just a victory for me, but for so many others," Armstrong said Thursday. "I think of all of the people who are bullied outside of a strong supportive environment like I had at (U-M). I think it's a strong statement about what will be tolerated."Armstrong sued in 2011, alleging Shirvell defamed him, invaded his privacy and stalked him. 

The two fought viciously in court for more than a year before a weeklong trial began last week. The jury got the case late Wednesday and deliberated for most of the day Thursday. 

Armstrong, who graduated in 2011, won on all counts and was awarded $4.5 million, Armstrong's attorney, Deborah Gordon, told the Free Press.

Oh good grief! The guy represented himself in his defense. Hasn't ever heard that a lawyer who represents himself ha s a fool for a client?

Anyway, I hope other homophobic freaks view this ruling as a warning to "check themselves before they wreck themselves!"

Hat/tip to TowleRoad

STUDY: Racial Animus Fuels Voter ID Laws

One of the big stories of 2012 as the United States approaches the presidential election on November 6 has been what progressives like to call "the war on voting." It's pretty much an article of faith among most people who are not Republicans that our Democracy is strengthened if more people vote. However, in many states with a Republican majority in the legislature and a Republican governor (like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida) due to the low-turnout 2010 elections, Republicans have passed "voter identification" (sometimes called "vote protection" laws by Republicans or "voter suppression" laws by Democrats) which appear to have the effect of reducing the number of people who will be allowed to cast a legal vote.

Voter ID Laws Have Disparate Impact On Racial Minorities
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has analyzed the impact of these voter identification laws on various racial groups, poor people and young people and the results are striking:

The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:

• Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.

• More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.

• 1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.

• Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.

More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.

A poll tax by any other name is still a poll tax (and is therefore just as unconstitutional)!

Joan McCarter at DailyKos points out that the suppressive effect on the voting rights of these constituencies, all of whom tend to vote more prevalently for Democrats than Republicans, is precisely what the people who passed the laws intended.

Voter ID Laws Are Fueled By Racial Animus
One interesting question is what is fueling the drive for voter identification laws now and another academic study has analyzed that question and come to a conclusion (that is unsurprising to some) that it involves racism.

The University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication recently conducted a national survey of American voters to discover what kind of voters support voter identification laws and demonstrated that support for the measures is highly correlated with racial resentment, regardless of party affiliation.

In fact, while most Republicans and conservatives strongly support voter identification laws regardless of their level of racial resentment, it is Democrats and liberals who have more racial resentment that are more likely to support voter identification laws.

The survey reveals strong partisan and ideological divisions on racial resentment [see Figure]. Republicans and conservatives have the highest “racial resentment” scores, and Democrats and liberals have the lowest; Independents and moderates are in the middle. In addition, Democrats and liberals are least supportive of voter ID laws, whereas Republicans and conservatives are most supportive. The link between “racial resentment” and support for such laws persists even after controlling for the effects of partisanship, ideology, and a range of demographic variables.

Read the last sentence again. Regardless of partisanship (Republican or Democrat) or ideology (conservative or liberal) or other demographics, people who support voter identification laws are correlated with people who harbor racial resentment. There's also the matter-of-fact reporting that Republicans and conservatives have the highest levels of racial resentment; it is not just partisanship which animates the Right's energetic efforts to replace the first black Democratic president.

Hopefully, federal courts who are considering challenges to these voter identification laws in places like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania (which "just happen" to be the swing states where the outcome of the 2012 presidential election may be decided) will also consider the unconstitutional disparate racial impact of these laws as well as the evidence that that they are fueled by unconstitutional racial animus.

Our nation's democratic tradition is one of the wonders of the modern world, but it is vulnerable to partisan manipulation, especially in a close election, because all one has to do is produce a disturbance or perturbation which either (more likely) suppresses voter turnout of your opposition or enhances voter turnout of your supporters on Election Day to swing an election in your favor. Once Election Day is over, it's over and the results will stand, even if those results were tainted by partisan trickery. And once a group is able to achieve a result that does not reflect what the majority of voters actually intended (some would argue that this already has happened!) it is basically the end of our nation's democratic tradition.

ACLU Sues Michigan Over Anti-Gay DP Benefits Law

Previously MadProfessah had blogged about a new discriminatory law signed into effect by Republican Governor Rick Snyder which would ban public employees (at the state, county, or city level) from receiving benefits based on domestic partner status. Now comes word that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Governor and the state of Michigan to strike down the law in court.

The case is known as Bassett v. Snyder:

The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.

“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”

Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.

As Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowleRoad comments, this case is really about more than just domestic partnership benefits, it's about whether the state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a legitimate governmental purpose or compelling justification.

The answer is, of course, "heck no!"

MI: Governor Signs Bill Ending DP Benefits For Public Employees

Governor Rick Snyder (R) was elected in 2010 and used his  Republican majority
in both houses to strip domestic partner benefits from all unmarried public employees

Wow. This is incredibly horrendous news (especially if you live in, or know anyone who lives in, Michigan). The Republican Governor and State Legislature of Michigan have enacted a law which bans the state (and any local subdivision) from offering domestic partnership benefits to public employees.

AnnArbor.com reports:

Public employees, including state and local government workers and public school teachers, will no longer be allowed to extend their health care benefits to domestic partners.

It is unclear whether the bill applies to state universities, although Snyder asserts that it does not. House Republicans, meanwhile, say it does apply to university employees.

The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.

"We’re so very disappointed in the governor," Kary L. Moss, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union's Michigan chapter, said in an interview. "This was the moment for him to show real leadership, to rise above what I believe is petty politics, to tell the rest of the country that Michigan is not living in the dark ages and to create an open, inclusive Michigan."

Governor Snyder vetoed a companion bill (HB 4771) which would have applied the domestic partnership ban (HB 4770) to state universities while he signed this bill into law.

Elections Have Consequences Voters Starting To Realize

In November 2010, voters elected Republican governors with Republican legislative majorities in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

Think Progress has created a fun graphic which shows that in all of those states, if voters could have a "do-over" election today, they would vote for the Democratic candidate instead. Currently, signatures are being gathered in Michigan to begin the process of being recalling Governor Vic Snyder, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker may face one next year.

Clockwise from left to right: Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin)
Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Rick Scott (R-Florida) and Vic Snyder (R-Michigan)

One of these governors is the most unpopular state chief executive in the country. The question is, which one?

Florida's Rick Scott and Ohio's John Kasich are currently the leading contenders for the title of the most unpopular governor in America, according to a recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey. (A mere 32 percent of respondents approve of Scott, while just 33 percent support Kasich. A separate Quinnipiac poll puts Scott's approval even lower, at 29 percent.) Michigan's Rick Snyder is struggling with a 33 percent approval rating, and in Wisconsin, 43 percentapprove of Scott Walker, PPP found—down 3 points from February and 9 from Election Day 2010. Only 41 percent of respondents gave Iowa's Terry Branstad a thumb's up. Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a darling of the GOP, has seen his approval plummet in recent weeks, according to a recent PublicMind released by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Talking Points Memo makes the point that these unpopular governors are heads of states which may be swing states in the 2012 presidential election, thus aiding President Obama's re-election:

A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that just 29% of voters approved of Scott's job performance, while a 57% majority disapproved. At the same time, Obama's approval rating rebounded from a negative 44% to 52% split in April to a positive 51% to 43% in May, and he increased his leads over each of several high-profile 2012 GOP contenders. Certainly some of that Obama bump is wholly unrelated to Scott -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, for one -- but Scott's unpopularity is sure to be a weight on his party's candidates next year if his standing doesn't improve.

In Ohio, a similar scenario has unfolded, where union-busting Gov. John Kasich is now so unpopular that a recent PPP poll showed him losing a do-over election by an astounding 25-point margin. In that same poll, just 33% of voters gave Kasich positive marks on his job performance, compared to 56% who said the opposite, tying Kasich with Rick Scott as the most unpopular of 38 governors PPP has surveyed.

Meanwhile, Obama posted comfortable leads against each Republican challenger pitted against him in 2012 contests in that state, despite posting a middling approval rating, with 46% of voters giving him a thumbs up versus 49% who gave him a thumbs down. In releasing those findings, PPP's Tom Jensen credited voter discontent with Kasich for helping put Obama over the top.

Why would anyone vote for a Republican, ever?

Psycho Anti-Gay Cyber-Stalker Official Fired By Michigan AG

Homophobic whackadoodle Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has finally been fired by Michigan Attorney General for his bizarre cyber-bullying of openly gay University of Michigan student body president Chris Armstrong.

The AnnArbor.com reports:

Cox's investigation into Shirvell showed he:

• Showed up at Armstrong's home three separate times, including once at 1:30 a.m. "That incident is especially telling because it clearly was about harassing Mr. Armstrong, not engaging in free speech," the statement said.

• "Engaged in behavior that, while not perhaps sufficient to charge criminal stalking, was harassing, uninvited and showed a pattern that was in the everyday sense, stalking."

• Harassed Armstrong's friends as they were socializing in Ann Arbor. 

• Called Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office, Armstrong's employer, in an attempt to "slander Armstrong and ultimately attempting to cause Pelosi to fire Armstrong.

• Attempted to "out" Armstrong's friends as homosexual — several of whom aren't gay.

The investigation found Shirvell engaged in his campaign on company time, Cox said. Shirvell called Pelosi's office while at work, during working hours, and sometimes posted online attacks about Armstrong while at work, the statement said.

In addition, Cox's statement said, Shirvell lied to investigating assistant attorneys general on several occasions during his disciplinary hearing.

"The cumulative effects of his use of state resources, harassing conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment, and his lies during the disciplinary conference all demonstrate adequate evidence of conduct unbecoming a state employee," the statement said. "Ultimately, Mr. Shirvell's conduct has brought his termination from state service."

Openly Gay UM Student Prez Talks About Being Cyber-Stalked By Psycho