The Laws That Prohibit ONE IN EVERY 13 BLACK AMERICANS from voting

Earlier this week, President Obama became the first US President to visit a federal prison (really? yes) and also made a very important comment in a speech to the NAACP's 2015 National Convention, “If folks have served their time, and they’ve re-entered society, they should be able to vote.”

From Vox: 5.8 million Americans weren't legally allowed to vote due to their criminal records in 2012, according to data analyzed by the Sentencing Project. Several states prohibited 6 to 11 percent of their electorate from voting. And since black Americans are likelier to go to prison, this had a disproportionate impact on the African-American electorate: While the overall disenfranchisement rate didn't break 11 percent for any state, the black disenfranchisement rate topped 20 percent in Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia.

The link between the systematic disenfranchisement and systematic incarceration of black people is real and harrowing. It is not an accident and it is not a coincidence. It is not that far a leap from other measures that have been used to reach the same ends. Breaking the link won't cure a racist system, but it is an important step. Watch for this issue moving forward and ask your candidates about it in 2016. I'm going to leave you with a quote from President Obama's NAACP speech.

“Today I’ve been talking about the criminal justice system, but we have to recognize that it’s not something that we can view in isolation. Any system that allows us to turn a blind eye to hopelessness and despair—that’s not a justice system. It’s an injustice system. But that’s an extension and a reflection of some broader decisions that we’re making as a society. And that has to change.”

Two Percent of Americans Report Having Run For Office

Office seekers are overwhelmingly male (75%) and white (82%). Imagine my surprise. You can read the Pew Report here.

NAACP v. Husted

Despite what the picture on his website might have you believe, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted REEEEAAALLLLY doesn't want more people voting. Like really, really. You may remember some of his greatest hits like getting sued by OFA and getting hauled in front of a judge for deliberately disobeying the court's order to restore early voting. The ACLU brief sums it up nicely.

"In Ohio, targeting early voting has become a pattern. In 2011, the Ohio General Assembly passed a law eliminating both Golden Week and the last three days of early voting before Election Day. Voters responded by organizing a ballot referendum to strike down the law, prompting legislators to repeal it on their own.

In 2012, Husted continued the pattern by issuing a directive that cut the same three days of early voting for all non-military voters. The Obama campaign responded with a federal lawsuit and the court forced Husted to restore the early voting days, allowing an additional 67,000 voters to cast an in-person ballot before the election."

May of this year rolled around and Husted and his bros in the legislature were like, "You know what we should do? Cut early voting. That's gone awesomely and been totally legal before." Enter NAACP v. Husted.

"The lawsuit names Husted and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine as defendants. It seeks to strike down Ohio Senate Bill 238, a 2014 law that eliminated the first week of early voting in Ohio. This period, often referred to as "Golden Week," enables voters to register and cast a ballot on the same day. The suit is also challenging a 2014 Husted directive that further slashed the early voting period by eliminating all Sundays, the Monday before Election Day and all evening voting hours."

Thankfully, and unsurprisingly, a Federal court granted injunctive relief this morning ruling that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act(the part prohibiting laws that have a racially discriminatory effect) which means Golden Week (weird name) will be restored for the midterms. Can Ohio please stop now?

It's a Mess-issippi

If you're like me and have Google alerts for "voters" and "election" (because of course, why wouldn't you?) you've probably heard a lot about the Mississippi Republican primary. It's in my Google alerts about every other day and just when I think it's over, it's not. On the off chance you are not like me in the Google alerts regard, let me walk you through it.

State Senator and Tea Party candidate Chris McDaniel decided to challenge incumbent Republican Senator (and Joe Liberman look alike contest winner) Thad Cochran who has represented Mississippi since Night Fever was number two on the music charts. It was a particularly nasty fight during which McDaniel's supporters somewhat inexplicably broke into a nursing home to photograph Cochran's ailing wife. McDaniel tea partied so hard that he actually narrowly beat Cochran in votes cast in the June 3rd primary. But because a third party candidate gained 1.5% of the vote, neither Cochran nor McDaniel earned a majority of votes, and both candidates continued on to a June 24th runoff.

At this point, the Cochran campaign kicked it into high gear because a) Cochran came very close to being ousted outright in the primary and b) usually when things go to a runoff incumbent candidates are boned. One of Cochran's key strategies for the runoff was courting African Americans and Democrats (but it's Mississippi, so I repeat myself) by reminding them of the resources he's brought to the state. This was a clear contrast with McDaniel who is racist and favors abolishing federal funding for education. Democrats heard Cochran's message and thought, "It's unlikely that a Dem is going to win this seat anyway, let's go with the guy who's not crazy." Cochran won the runoff by 7,667 votes thanks in large part to African American voters.

Mississippi does not have party registration, which means that any voter who did not cast a ballot in the Democratic primary was eligible to vote in the runoff. This allows traditional Democratic voters to vote in the Republican primary and visa versa, which in fact McDaniel did in 2003. However, sorest of all possible losers, Chris McDaniel is claiming that voters who had voted in the Democratic primary also voted in the runoff and is asking for a redo due to "irregularities" which is what Tea Partiers call it when black people vote in Mississippi.

So that's where we're at. I will let you know what happens with this potential meta-redo (three-do? Inception style redo within a redo?) but my guess is that it's not happening. Currently there is a court case led by Texas voting "rights" group True the Vote to compel the release of June 24th voter information.

Can't wait to go down to Mississippi myself in a couple of weeks. Should be a blast!

Campaign Love and Mine,

Nancy

PS. Do you like me reading election news so you don't have to? Click here to support CampaignSick.

How to Be an Ally (At one point or another we're all doing it wrong.)

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about privilege and what it means to be an ally. Let's start with a definition. An ally is someone who is a member of a privileged group and advocates for or supports people who do not enjoy that same privilege. Last week my Facebook newsfeed seemed to be blowing up with stories about allies and privilege left and right and while I know I'm one of dozens of bloggers to blog on the subject, I spend my work days advocating for a community of which I'm not a part and most of my free time surrounded by male feminists, so I've had a lot of opportunity to consider what makes a good (or in the below examples poor) ally. Here's what you need to know.

1) Everyone has privilege. #intersectionality Required reading: White Feminism

Everyone. Deal with it. This article was inspired in part by experiences I've had as a woman working with male feminists and in part by experiences I've had as an ally working with gay people, trans* people, and people of color. Education, economic status, age, beauty, body size and ability, health, these are all forms of privilege too. And here is a common misconception: privilege is not an accusation. Good people can have privilege in a variety of situations simply because of the way society is constructed.It's whether you recognize and what you do with your privilege that matters. This gets into a larger conversation about intersectionality that is slowly but surely beginning to take place in the progressive movement. If what we're really talking about is not men, or white people, or cis-people, but privilege can you BE a feminist without acknowledging the disproportionate systematic challenges that face people of color? I'm inclined to say no. Recognizing and accepting your own privilege is the first step to being an ally.

2) You don't deserve a medal.

A couple of weeks ago I posted the above GIF on my tumblr. A colleague posted it on her Facebook wall. Then it BLEW UP. A self-proclaimed male feminist took exception. And thankfully most of my colleague's Facebook friends took exception to that exception. Here are some of his choicer comments:

"I get what the "author" (can you be an author just for posting a gif with a caption on tumblr?) is trying to say here, but I think it comes from the same kind of place as punk kids getting mad at other punk kids for calling themselves punk and not actually being punk enough for the former's liking. Or maybe it comes from the same kind of place as anti-gay activists saying that gay marriage will take away from the worth or sanctity of straight marriage." "I don't honestly think it matters, though. Jerks exist, and it's sad, but considering how much shit many guys get in most places of this country (let alone the world) for identifying as a feminist, the last thing I'd think anyone would want is to turn someone off from being willing to openly identify as such." "I don't care about your experiences because this situation isn't about your experiences. Not every situation is about someone's experiences, and not everyone has to talk everything out. If you'd like to correct me and explain how your experiences make it okay for you to be critical of others, feel free, but for now what happened here was that I had an opinion and you attacked me over it. That's all I see - that's my experience, and it makes it tough to want to engage anyone in discussion about feminism at all."

Until this guy launched into his defensiveness, I totally got where he was coming from. As an ally it can be extremely frustrating and even hurtful to be met with suspicion and mistrust when you are genuinely trying to make the world a better a place! But here's the thing. It's not YOU personally who is being met with suspicion, it is decades of paternalistic allies who want to co-opt [people of color, LGBT people, women]'s experiences and make it about them. These are the same people that when confronted with accusations of insensitivity dismiss them with "you should feel lucky to have me on your side."

As the "author" of this GIF, I can tell you exactly what I meant. It's great (beyond great, should be de rigueur) if you consider yourself a feminist, but show me don't tell me-or at least don't expect me to be impressed by the mere proclamation. Everyone should be a feminist, everyone should support gay rights, and that should be obvious to everyone. If you believe you deserve gratitude for your basic human decency you're doing it wrong.

3) Know what you don't know.

(Required watching).

This Piers Morgan interview with trans activist, Janet Mock was all over my Facebook feed last week, although I don't know how much traction it got in the mainstream media. Morgan makes some pretty classic mistakes when interviewing Mock, repeatedly referring to her as having been a boy or man, referring to her birth name, and focusing on her physical transformation and her surgery specifically as the point when she "became" a woman. Piers Morgan comes off as not only trans-ignorant, but also pretty sexist. The whole interview can be summarized as, "Enough about your body, what does your boyfriend think of your body?"

I'm not saying that to be an ally or even a good person you need to sit home and pour over feminist theory or read every press release put out by the NAACP, but if you're gonna talk about these things, learn about them. It would have taken Piers Morgan 20 minutes on TransAdvocate's Facebook page (or I don't know, skimming the book he was conducting the interview about) to know that some of what he was saying to and about Mock was not okay.

For those of us who are not journalists there's a lesson to be learned:come from a place of listening and ask questions. And I don't mean "what does your genitals look like?" I mean, "what do I need to know?"

4) See people for who they are not what they are.


Start watching this video at 1:30

One of my pet peeves in life is when someone refers to their "gay friend." Like, "this is my gay friend, Steve." Maybe I've just reached a critical mass of gay friendship where it no longer makes sense to make that distinction, but it seems to me that that person's function in your life should be being your friend, not being gay. My problem with "gay friend" is that it essentializes that person into a gay stereotype and functionally objectifies them. (Things on my shopping list, "flashlight, screwdriver, gay friend" you never know when you'll need one around!) It's important that we see things like race and gender because they pervade our culture and are too infrequently discussed. However when all you see is race or gender, that can be equally problematic.

In the above video Kansas Senator Pat Roberts tells Surgeon General nominee Vivek Murthy that Murthy would feel "right at home" in Roberts' hometown of Dodge City because they have Indian doctors there too. He was 1/2 way to telling him he enjoy his people's breads and curries. Yikes.


5) You're going to make mistakes. When you do, own up to them.

While Piers Morgan's initial interview was pretty inexcusable because you'd think as a journalist he would have done some research, it is also not surprising. Our society does a crap job of talking about real trans people and their stories and as a result misconceptions abound. Look, you're going to make mistakes. I've done some things that looking back are absolutely cringe-worthy. I work in LGBT politics and it wasn't until recently that I understood how offensive it is to use the word "tranny." I'm not proud of that, but I shared it because it illustrates how even the best intentioned among us (and I'd like to count myself in that group) can mess up royally. The trick is to learn from it. Piers Morgan's insensitivity could have been a great teaching moment for both him and his audience, but instead his defensiveness and self-righteousness made him look like a total jackass.

No one expects you to know everything. Some of the sweetest men I know who would never mean to say something to offend me have uttered some pretty boneheaded sexist things. The difference between mainsplaining/me not talking to them for a week and an honest conversation that brings us closer is an apology. Sure, it's not great to offend someone, but when you do; apologize, learn from it and move on.

6)You don't get to decide what's offensive.



Speaking of intentions, the road to hell is paved with the best of them. What's so painful about watching this whole incident unfold is how genuinely and misguidedly hurt Piers Morgan is by the accusation that his original interview of Mock was offensive. However as Mock brilliantly points out, "being offensive and being kind are not mutually exclusive things." When it comes to any sort of privilege, you have to remember we're not just talking about one interaction. We're talking about years of systemic, deep-rooted oppression.

When Piers Morgan asked Mock about her surgery, it may well have come from a place of curiosity and interest in her life story, but what many of Mock's followers heard was, "Because you are a woman,a transwoman, and a woman of color, your body and its most intimate details are up for public discussion" and "You were not a 'real' woman until your body looked the way society expects a woman to look." I've had this discussion with my mother who occasionally insists on using the word "fag" to describe someone who is acting dorky. Yes, I know what she means by it but the people at the next table don't and at very least you are subtly reinforcing the idea that gay is wrong or bad even if that's not a belief you hold. Bottom line, when it comes to privilege if people are offended, it's offensive. And by the way, Piers Morgan, screaming over them is not the best solution.

7) It's no one's job to make space for you.

Did you hear the one about the male women's studies student who never showed up to class because he was intimidated by being in a room full of women and then sued the Professor for failing him? Nope that's not a joke. That actually happened. Required reading here. My favorite quote from the story?

“I believe if you want to attract more males to these courses, you have to work with them. My request for accommodation was reasonable.”

This is obviously a ridiculous extreme but it speaks to a larger phenomenon. As an ally it's no one's job to make you feel comfortable. There will be spaces where you are not invited at all and there will be spaces where you don't get to dictate the agenda. Yes, it is just good sense for men and woman to work together for gender equality, but it's not women's job to find a way to include men, it's ally men's job to find a way to work with us. The fact that this man expected to be catered to only underscores his privilege. You want to be part of space that is tailor-made to accommodate men, or white people, or cispeople, or straight people? GO OUTSIDE LITERALLY ANYWHERE IN AMERICA. You're in my house now. You don't get to come in and rearrange the furniture to your liking.

As I said before, we're going to mistakes. These, and others. What I appreciate in an ally and what I aim for myself is striving to do better, knowing that issues of sex, gender, race, body and class will always be fraught with pitfalls. So I leave you with this excellent video about using your privilege in the right way.



Ally Love and Mine,

Nancy

Ask Nancy: What Happened With the Supreme Court and Voting Rights?

Many people are confused by the recent disappointing ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, a case I wrote about earlier this year.You can read the entire opinion here. I answer some common questions about the ruling, and its potential implications, below.

Did the Supreme Court strike down the Voting Rights Act?
No, but they did strike down the coverage formula delineated in Section 4 which was one of its most important mechanisms of enforcement.

I thought you said this case was about Section 5.
It was. Section 5 required that jurisdictions covered under Section 4 have any changes in voting laws "precleared" by the Department of Justice or a three-judge panel in DC. Hence without Section 4, no Section 5.

What was the coverage formula based on?
When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 any jurisdiction that maintained a "test or device" as a barrier to enfranchisement, for example a literary test, as of November 1, 1964 was included. It also included states where less than half of the voting-age population was registered to vote as of November 1, 1964 or where less than half of the voting-age population had voted in the previous Presidential election. In 1970, Congress renewed the act and added that any jurisdictions that fit the aforementioned criteria as of 1968 would be also be included. In 1975, when Congress renewed the act again they expanded the formula to include jurisdictions that fit the criteria as of 1972, they also expanded the definition of "test or device" to include a failure to provide election materials in a second language in areas where linguistic minorities were concentrated.

So once you were covered you were covered forever? What if you violated voting rights after 1972?
Jurisdictions that felt they no longer fit the critera could seek a declaratory judgement to "bail-out" and no longer be covered under Section 4. Any jurisdiction that violated any other part of the Voting Rights Act could be "bailed-in."

Why did the Supreme Court rule Section 4 unconstitutional?
It comes down to everyone's favorite loophole for discrimination: state's rights. The constitution gives all powers not specifically assigned to the Federal Government to the states, including the administration and regulation of elections. In addition, we operate under a principle of "equal sovereignty among the states." In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Section 4 violated these principles by treating some states differently than others.

But wasn't that true in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was enacted?
Yes. However, in a 1966 case challenging this portion of the act the Court ruled that the “uncommon exercise of
congressional power” was justified by the “exceptional conditions” of widespread discrimination, voter suppression and intimidation. The Court argued that conditions have changed dramatically since 1965 while the VRA has not.

Is the court claiming that voter suppression and discrimination no longer exists?
No. It is claiming that discrimination has declined dramatically and that it looks very different than in did in 1965. The Court pointed out that when the VRA was enacted the formula was partially based on Jim Crow era measures like poll taxes and literary tests, while the most recent electoral schemes dismissed under Section 5 involve things like redistricting and voter ID.

Isn't it possible that discrimination has declined in covered areas because of Section 5?
Possible, nay probable. Quoth my personal hero, Justice Ginsburg in the dissent, "[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." This is evidenced by the fact that since the ruling previously covered jurisdictions have been running to implement redistricting schemes and voter id laws that they know to be discriminatory. Texas Governor and famous big jerk Rick Perry just approved the new Texas electoral maps that had been ruled discriminatory by a three-judge panel.

Surely some areas had evolved and no longer needed to be covered under Section 5.
Of course. That's what the bail-out mechanism was for. However, it was the districts trying to implement discriminatory measures that objected to Section 5. As famous civil rights attorney, Fred Gray pointed out if these jurisdictions had "developed to the point where they [were] interested in protecting the individual rights of minorities and the proposals [were] indeed not discriminatory, they would have nothing to worry about when submitting an issue for preclearance."

Without Sections 4 and 5, how are voters protected from discriminatory changes to election law?
The Court went out of its way to emphasize that Section 2, "which bans any'standard, practice, or procedure' that 'results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color,' applies nationwide, is permanent, and is not at issue in this case." Voting rights advocates are already gearing up to sue discriminatory jurisdictions under Section 2.

Section 2 seems like it's got us covered. What's the problem?
What Section 5 did was shift the burden of proof from the oppressed to the oppressor. Section 2 requires that oppressed groups be aware of changes to election law and have the organization and resources to fight them. Don't forget, Section 4 covered municipalities too. Sure it might make it on the news if there were a new statewide law, but what about a local change in early voting hours? By the time a suit is brought and decided against a discriminatory change it may have already had a deleterious effect. It's a lot easier to stop a law from being implemented than fight it once it's already in place.

So, is preclearance gone forever?
Not necessarily. The Court's main objection to Section 4 is that the formula is based on the discriminatory practices of yesteryear and that only combatting these practices justified what would normally be considered Congressional overreach. The Court deliberately left it open for Congress to come up with a new way to use preclearance to fight modern day discrimination. "To serve that purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions." Unsurprisingly, some Democrats have already begun formulating a plan to do just that and Republicans are formulating a plan to stop them.

An Affair to Pretend Not to Remember, Part II: Advocate from Where You Stand

Elliot Spitzer's story differs from Weiner's in that he broke the law. You know the law, that thing that elected officials help craft and enforce? He broke it. Being friends with many young lawyers who are afraid to jaywalk lest they be disbarred, I find the fact that Spitzer is now running for Comptroller unconscionable.

I'll leave it to better informed minds to argue whether prostitution should be illegal in the first place, but one thing I do know is that our current penal codes place a disproportionate burden on sex workers as opposed to their clients. Again for me it comes back not to sexual ethics, but gendered ones. Enter Kristin Davis, the self-described "feminist, entrepreneur, and former Wall Street Hedge Fund Vice President" and mostly notably former madam who arranged escort services for Elliot Spitzer. Ms. Davis recently announces that she will also be running for Comptroller. She began her campaign to draw attention to this and other double standards in the law.

“I’ve been waiting for my day to face [Spitzer] for five years...I sat ... in Rikers Island, I came out penniless and nothing happened to him. The hypocrisy there is huge.”

You said it sister! Davis now runs a non-profit whose mission is to combat sex trafficking, is a vocal critic of stop and frisk and advocates the legalization of marijuana. She is running as a Libertarian. I am supporting Scott Stringer in the Democratic Primary, but I gotta say if it comes down to her and Spitzer in the general election, she's got my vote.

Beyond Leaning In: Seven Lessons from Women's Workforce Participation

The one good thing to come out of this latest wave of attacks on women's reproductive rights is a renewed call for more women in public leadership. Wendy Davis' heroic filibuster seems to have sparked another wave of questions as to why there aren't more women in key leadership positions defending our gender when our rights are being attacked. Even with recent electoral gains the 113th Congress is still only 18.3% percent female. There is a lot to be said about women's workforce and political participation- two phenomena that are inextricably linked. As you know, I spent two years studying why and how women participate in public life. I certainly could not cover it all in one article, nor do I intend to. However I have been promising to explore the subject for months and now that I'm no longer in school, I am finally able to share what I learned there. So without further ado, here are seven lessons from studying women's workforce participation that help illuminate why we still have so few women in public life.

1) It's not going to be 50% at the top until it's 50% at the bottom. Perhaps the biggest barrier to women's public achievement is that women still bear the disproportionate brunt of domestic responsibilities. Even when a women works as much and makes more than her husband (and yes we're talking two parent, hetero relationships here) she is still the default caregiver for children at home. Women are also far more likely to drop out of the workforce when a child comes along. As Sheryl Sandberg has pointed out, women often start "leaning back" years before they have children or even choose careers before they are married based on the assumption that childcare and other domestic responsibilities will fall on their shoulders. Working women on average get less sleep than their husbands and take fewer opportunities for self-care. In contrast, couples who set a gender balanced approach to care giving make more money overall, have lower divorce rates and more active sex lives.

2) We need to stop blaming women. Popular discourse would have you believe that women just need to assert themselves. Mentorship and sponsorship programs, leadership seminars, even talks on salary negotiation aim at combating this issue. While these measures are important, they don't tell the whole story. Studies now show that even when equally qualified women ask for the same salary as their male counterparts they are more frequently denied. Male bosses pass over women for promotions because of the natural bias to promote someone who reminds them of themselves. Double blind surveys show that in the exact same business scenarios men are seen as leaders where women are accused of being bossy. While men are "ambitious" women are "out for themselves." We can do it exactly the same and not get the same result. Of course women need to take responsibility for our career paths and even more importantly institutional norms, but our current pattern of professional victim blaming is setting us up for failure.

3) When women run they win at the same rates as men but... Political participation advocates are quick to point out that when women run for office they win at the same rates as men. What they don't tell you is that the average female candidate is more qualified than her male counterparts. Female candidates have more higher education, more professional experience and are more active in the political community than men. Society sets a higher bar for what kind of woman runs in the first place. Social scientists wonder why women tend to do better in general elections as conservative candidates. One answer is that for a woman to become a nominee of a conservative party she must have already faced so much scrutiny that she is exceptionally qualified for the job.

4)Women ask, "why me?" when men ask, "why not me?" The extent to which the pressure to be perfectly qualified for the job is imposed by society as opposed to self-imposed is one for the sages. My guess would be a lot of column a, but also some column b. Studies show that women underestimate their own abilities while men overestimate theirs. The first question a woman asks when offered a potential job opportunity is, "Are you sure I'm qualified?" The first question man asks is, "How much money does it make?" By the same token men are likely to apply for a job they want even if they meet just a few of the qualifications listed, while women are likely to apply only if they meet most or all of the qualifications. Whether applying for jobs or running for office, the implication for recruiting female candidates is huge!

5) "We can be anything" does not mean "We can be everything." Our mothers' generation broke barriers to ensure that that we could could grow up to be anything we wanted. The problem is that women are now expected and expect themselves to be perfect mothers, leaders, workers, partners, lovers, volunteers, and friends all at once. Our society was built around gender specialization, men worked and spent little time with their families and women raised families, kept house and spent little time in the workforce. The new work/life balance involves making trade-offs for both men and women. In an ideal future this will mean fathers splitting parental leave with mothers, it will mean some parents working part-time or taking a less demanding job in order to spend time caring for their families. It will also include families with a "traditional" male breadwinner model and that's okay too. Choices are meant to liberate, not constrain us. This does mean that women who run for office need to be excellent time managers. For this reason, women who run for office often do so before they've had children or after their children are grown.

6) You can't paint with the color grue. Telling a woman she can run for office is like telling someone in 1970 that they can be a software designer; there's no pathway, too few role models, no clear picture of what that would look like. Men grow up imagining themselves as leaders, women grow up being told they can be leaders, but not shown. Imagine me asking you for a picture in the color "grue." I can describe it but if you've never seen it, you won't know how to make it happen, and painting grue would have never occurred to you. For this reason women need to be ASKED to run for office and supported at much higher rates than men. Many women who would make excellent candidates simply haven't thought of it on their own or need to be shown a pathway for how it is feasible in their own lives. This is one of the reasons that I prefer to support women candidates in Democratic primaries. In order for more women to run for office, more women need to run for office.

7) Men have it hard too. I'll admit I've had a difficult time acknowledging that gender bias disadvantages men as well. In the past I have discarded these claims with likes of "why don't we have straight pride parades?" Still, a society that tends to equate masculinity with wealth and power and define men by their jobs sends a pretty clear message about what men's priorities should be. If we want men to take paternity leave and take more responsibility at home in general, we need to make that okay, both through public policy and a redefinition of masculinity.

This is just the tip of the iceberg! I can't wait to share more with you and hear what you have to say!

Campaign Love and Mine,

Nancy

Infographic: How long did people wait in line to vote in the 2012 general election?

Average wait time was 14 minutes. Which party do you think waited only 12? Original article with clearer picture here.

Advocate From Where You Stand: White Flour

It's been a long time since I shared one of these and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to tell why I couldn't resist. On the heels of President Obama's re-election...

A group of neo-Nazis held an anti-immigration rally in Charlotte, North Carolina on Saturday, but their demonstration was overshadowed by a horde of cheerful clowns. Local media reported that the neo-Nazis were outnumbered by about a five-to-one ratio. The clowns shouted “white flour,” while others came with signs reading “wife power.” “The straight up message from us is you look silly,” said Lacey Williams of the Latin America Coalition. “We’re dressed like clowns and you’re the ones that look funny.”

Brilliant.

Get Outta My Dreams, And Into My Binder

By now, most marginally politically savvy people are aware of Mitt Romney's bizarre comment that he had "binders full of women" when he was Governor of Massachusetts. For the record, if I were not going out on the trail to do GOTV, I would totally be a binder for Halloween.

As you may or may not know, in addition to my MPA, I am getting a Certificate in Gender Policy (because I want to be Amy Gardner when I grow up.) When considering any public policy, I can't help but view it through a gender policy lens and Tuesday's debate was a doozy. Audience member, Katerine Fenton, asked this question about workplace inequality, “In what new ways do you intend to rectify inequalities in the workplace? Specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn.” Interestingly, Fenton has outspokenly rejected the label of 'feminist' and remains undecided, but I'll let you unpack that kettle of fish on your own.

Let's discuss the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Lilly Ledbetter itself is not what gives women the right to equal pay, that would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lilly Ledbetter states that the statute of limitations "for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action." In other words, it doesn't make it illegal to pay men and women differently for the same job, it makes it more feasible to do something about it.

Right now in the United States, women make 77 cents for every dollar that men make. "But," you may argue, "some women choose to take time off to care for children. Women are less ambitious than men. Women choose to work in different fields." I would challenge some of those assumptions. How do you define ambition? How are women socialized not to exhibit ambitious behaviors, or to choose alternate fields? Most concretely, even when women do try to fit in the male model they are not rewarded in the same ways as men. (Brilliant catalyst study that I highly recommend to anyone interested in these things.)

Second,they can adjust for these differences. (Don't worry they got a man to do the math.) Even when every single discrepancy is accounted for; race, class, children, education, job title, job function, etc, women still make 5% less than men across the board. So, not supporting or being non-committal about legislation that allows women to do something about this (like say, Mitt Romney is) is pretty ludicrous. (LUDA!)

Now, let's talk about something that Mitt Romney said about women in the workplace, that, hold on to your underpanties, I actually sort of agree with:

"I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o'clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you."

Romney has gotten a lot of flack for the implication that women's first responsibility is in the home, but flexible schedules and job share are actually recognized and respectable policies to help patch the "leaky pipeline" of women in the workplace. It's something I could imagine myself taking advantage of when I become the world's most politically active housewife (move over, Bill Clinton.) Can men or childless women take advantage of these policies? Sure. But let's call a cat a cat. It is mostly women with familial obligations requesting these policies and mostly those women taking advantage of them. It would be fabulous if more men were to take advantage of these policies in dual earner households, since as one of my Professors is fond of saying "it's not going to be 50/50 at the top until it's 50/50 at the bottom." But, it is not a Governor's place to tell families how to divide household responsibilities (after all, we're talking about the party of small government) nor do I think it is healthy to expect him to deny the societal pressures that hinder women's ability to advance in their careers. So while he phrased his answer and explained the policy ectremely poorly, I'm going to go ahead and assert that the policy in and of itself is not sexist.

What I loved about President Obama's answer was that in addition to addressing the Lily Ledbetter Act (which he signed) he pointed out that healthcare and birth control are economic issues for women. (Killed it.) Speaking of birth control, let's address Mitt Romney's ridiculous solution to gun violence in our country:

But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the — the benefit of having two parents in the home — and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone — that’s a great idea because if there’s a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will — will be able to achieve increase dramatically.

So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.

I don't care that he mentioned "parents," this was like the world's biggest dog whistle for those trampy, irresponsible unwed mothers, particularly black ones. (For more on Romney's dog whistle strategy, click here.) Let's pretend for the moment that this was not a contemptible attempt to evade the fact that Romney does not support laws addressing gun ownership for the mentally ill, which it totally was. You know what would reduce the number of single parent households, Governor Romney? Subsidized birth control, sex education, safe and legal abortion, and adoption for gay couples. So I'm assuming you must support all of those, right?

As a post-script, I want to talk about one more thing that did not happen at the debate but did happen of the debate and made me want to unsubscribe from society. @5hannnnnon (who has since deleted her account) tweeted: "Obama shut up you nigger. You're a liar. Your brother lives in Kenya where you were born. #Romney2012” and somehow of all the hate-filled ignorant tweets taking place that night, this one got retweeted all up and in the internet. Later she clarified "Omg people calm down I'm not racist. I just hate Obama.” Oh, okay, I didn't realize that ASS OUT BIGOTRY was how we dealt with discourse in our country, good note. So clearly, this girl is a horrible person (although you have to applaud her correct usage of your/re.) But then I go on her twitter page and there is a SLEW of tweets saying things like "I WILL RAPE YOU!!!!!," like A LOT OF THEM. WHAT? So we deal with policy arguments with racism and racism with sexual violence? These are America's voters, kids.

Today In Voter Suppression

An interesting argument in the South Carolina case:

Garrard Beeney, arguing on behalf of civil rights organizations intervening in the case, also noted that South Carolina law required notaries to determine if someone is intoxicated or on drugs before they signed an affidavit. Given that blacks are less likely to have a form of state-issued identification, he said, the law would lead to them being asked that question in disproportionate numbers at the polls.

“We’d now have, in the polling place, 21,000 human breathalyzers to determine whether someone in eligible to vote,” Beeney argued.

Judge Bates agreed, noting that “an even-handed application of ‘are you drunk’ is going to end up affecting more African-Americans” because of the racial make up of the pool of voters who lack identification.

Oh boy. Could you even imagine what that would look like?

Obama is on the ballot in Kansas (and other things that should not be news)

NYT: "Citing a wave of angry backlash, a Kansas man on Friday withdrew a petition in which he argued that President Obama should be removed from the state’s election ballot because he did not meet citizenship requirements."

But here's the amazing part: "The state will continue to try to obtain the birth certificate...But without the petition, Mr. Obama will remain on the ballot, Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach told The Associated Press."

Need I ask the question, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Racist.

Conventional Rhetoric: Race, Class and Welfare

The Republican convention played heavily on the issue of entitlement reform and as result there is a lot of information (and misinformation) floating around. Unsure of what to believe myself, I did some research and tried to synthesize what I learned below.

One challenge to the Republican ticket is separating their stance on things like Food Stamps and Medicaid from that on Medicare, particularly now that Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan as a runningmate. Ryan, as you may remember, gained prominence on the national stage after proposing an austere budget that, among other measures, would cut Medicare. This is a problem for Republicans because their plan for victory is predicated on winning a large majority of older white voters, many of whom rely heavily on the program. Republicans are aware of the risk they run by running Ryan, as is evidenced by a leaked memo from the National Republican Campaign Committee instructing Congressional offices on how to deal with the issue.

“Do not say: ‘entitlement reform,’ ‘privatization,’ ‘every option is on the table,’” ...Do say: ‘strengthen,’ ‘secure,’ ‘save,’ ‘preserve, ‘protect.’”

The Politico.com contributer who wrote about the leaked memo seems to be critical of this strategy, which I think is unfair. (Not surprising however, given the lack luster journalistic ethics employed by some former contributers.) Sure it's spin, but that's how the sausage is made. Republicans have every right to attempt to frame the debate as they see it. For the record, I checked to see how successful the memo was at controlling the convention rhetoric. Here's how they did:

Words to Say:
Strengthen 6:2, Democrats
Secure 5:3, Democrats
Save 6:4, Democrats
Protect 8:6 Democrats

Words Not to Say:
Entitlement 2:0, Republicans

Words listed in the memo but not mentioned did not come up at either convention.

What I found striking about the memo was not its mere existence, but its advice to steer clear of the word "entitlement" since the crux of the Republican attack plan seems to be linking Obama with Reagan's "Welfare Queens." According to common sense and many in the media, both of these terms, as well as much of the other rhetoric used at the conventions and by the Romney Ryan ticket, are "racist dog whistles." While there is no explicit mention of African Americans, these terms are purposefully being used to conjure up a specifically racially biased image for those older white voters on whom the Republicans rely. The Reagan reference is particularly interesting since both sides are piggybacking off the former President's legacy, Republicans with their Welfare Queens and the Democrats with "Morning in America."

I said above that I don't mind Republican efforts to frame the debate, but I do mind lying--something the Romney Ryan tickets seems to relish. Paul Ryan's argument that the Republican budget plan would actually protect Medicare while the Affordable Care Act stripped it seemed to the GOP's strategy at last week's convention. Except it isn't true. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein reports:

Ryan and Obama include the same cuts to the Medicare program itself. So if you’re an insurance company participating in the Medicare Advantage program, you’re getting the same cut no matter who wins the election. So the answer to the question [how much does the Romney plan cut Medicare?] is, “the same amount as the Obama administration.”

What Romney/Ryan are saying is that they then take the money saved from their cuts to Medicare and put it toward deficit reduction while Obama takes that money and spends it on health care for poor people. The argument here is that by using the money to cut the deficit, Romney/Ryan make future cuts to Medicare less likely.

But Romney/Ryan also add a trillion dollars to the defense budget. And they have trillions of dollars in tax cuts they haven’t explained how they’re going to pay for. So those decisions make future cuts to Medicare more likely. Meanwhile, Obama cuts defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, raises about $1.5 trillion in new taxes, and puts all that money into deficit reduction. So that makes future Medicare cuts less likely.

In addition, quoting Time's Kate Pickert, cuts made by the Affordable Care Act will not reduce benefits for Medicare recipients, but instead by are achieved "eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers." Not reducing payments to those providers simply the growth rate of those payments.

In an even more blatant example of Republican misinformation on the issue, a Romney campaign ad claiming that Obama cut work requirements for Welfare has been proven patently false. Criticism of these falsehoods prompted Romney pollster Neil Newhouse to respond, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Oh, okay.

Ronald Brownstein puts it succinctly in a National Journal Article where he points out that the Republican answer to the Democratic accusation that Republicans are raiding the middle class in favor of the rich is that Democrats are raiding the middle class in favor of the poor. Republicans know they need to hammer away on this because as it stands now, swing-state voters trust Obama over Romney to handle issues of Medicaid and Medicare. So far, the middle class seems to know better.

To quote former Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, "I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." Of course, he lost.

Today In Voter Suppression (and Gerrymandering and Racism)

Benjamin Jealous speaking at SIPA

I am going to quote heavily from this Salon.com article, in part because it is thorough and well written but moreover because I am so angry after reading it that I am having trouble forming coherent sentences. The deliberate and systematic racial discrimination described in the article is exactly what NAACP President, Benjamin Jealous, was talking about when I heard him speak about voting rights and discrimination last spring. This is from his speech:

“Historically, efforts at voter suppression have always been about suppressing issues of equality and social justice...Protecting the vote and ending racial profiling are actually the same thing. The disproportionate incarceration of the black community and voter suppression are exactly the same thing.”

I've already posted a little about his speech (which moved me to tears, not an easy feat), but just now found the video, which should be required watching for anyone interested in voting rights. Jealous mostly focuses on incarceration as it pertains to voting rights, but the points he makes about the link between racism and voter suppression are extremely relevant to the Salon article, which chronicles five ways that the Texas Legislature is targeting Latino and African American voters. Excerpts from the article:

1. Lawmakers drew some districts that looked like Latino majority districts on paper — but removed Latinos who voted regularly and replaced them with Latinos who were unlikely to vote.

In the redistricting case, a panel of three federal judges found that Texas lawmakers had intentionally created districts that would weaken the influence of Latino voters, while appearing to satisfy the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. [Nancy note: Consider the level of cunning that had to be involved here. It actually offends my sensibilities.]

2. Lawmakers widened the gap between the proportion of the population that is Latino and African-Americans and the proportion of districts that are minority-controlled.

In the years leading up to the 2010 census, Texas’ population increased by 4.3 million people, 65 percent of them Latino. As a result, Texas gained four seats in Congress.

In their decision, the federal judges in the redistricting case noted that minority voters have no constitutional right to proportional representation. But the Voting Rights Act says states can’t weaken the electoral power of minorities. So, the judges reasoned, if there is already a gap between the minority population of a state and its political representation, states can’t let that gap grow wider.

3. Texas removed economic centers and district offices from African-American and Latino districts, while giving white Republicans perks.

In defending its new maps, Texas argued that the districts had been shaped to help Republicans and hurt Democrats — a perfectly legal tactic — and that race had been irrelevant to its choices. [Nancy note: WHAT? As if that's fine but keep going]

[Three protesting members of Congress] and African-American Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, all Democrats, also testified that their district offices were drawn out of their districts — a detriment because constituents want easily accessible district offices.

“No such surgery was performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents,” the judges found. “In fact, every Anglo member of Congress retained his or her district office.”

4. Divide and conquer: Texas “cracked” minority voters out of one district into three.

Lawmakers reshaped the district in a way that “cracked the politically cohesive and geographically concentrated Latino and African American communities,” and placed those voters “in districts in which they have no opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.”

5. Texas passed a voter-ID law with requirements that would make it disproportionately difficult for African-Americans and Latinos to vote.

It's important to note that the Texas voter ID law will not be in effect for the November election.

I know about and understand greed and the desire to keep your party in power. I'm not saying that's good, but it is what it is. This seems to be to surpass partisan politics and fall into the categories of racist and unAmerican.

I don't like to use the word "evil" when it comes to political issues. It implies a link between government and religion that I am not quite comfortable with. Besides, I want to believe that our leaders are motivated by good intentions no matter how misguided their choices are. But, it's really hard for me to come up with another word that fits this situation.

Of course I knew about all these phenomenon. I'd just never looked at them collectively while listening to Benjamin Jealous speak.

Reeling from this,

-Nancy

It's a Beautiful Day in the Negrohood!

"Ben Akselrod [who] is hoping to unseat Democratic Assemblyman Steven Cymbrowitz in the Sheepshead Bay district primary race...apologized after his campaign sent out a mailer [accidentally] using the word 'negrohood.'"

The actual text of the mailer is as follows:

"I am running for Assembly because I believe the number 1 job of that office is to keep the community safe. The current assemblyman has allowed crime to go up over 50% in our negrohood so far this year. I am fighting for video cameras throughout our community to protect our seniors who are the most vulnerable and cut down on anti-semitic attacks in our community. I will also make sure the mayor gives our community more police to patrol our streets."

In case you needed a reason to proofread and re-proofread your campaign mailers, here it is.

Today In Voter Suppression-The New Jim Crow

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

I was really excited to share my notes from an incredibly powerful lecture by Benjamin Jealous, head of the NAACP, where he talked about how efforts to keep former convicts from voting, coupled with the disproportionate rate of incarceration among black men were another form of voter discrimination and suppression. As educated as I try to be on this issue, Jealous made me realize that the history of racist, round-about voter suppression in our country is many times longer and more pervasive than I had ever imagined. This was a week after Trayvon Martin was shot, so things were pretty real.

Unfortunately, midterms happened I lost my notes from that lecture. Then I found this live tweet from the event but was disappointed to see relatively little of Jealous' speech included but I was delighted to see Michelle Alexander on the Colbert Report (above) because she explains the situation better than I possibly could. I invite you to read over the event tweets as well because they contain some pretty salient points.

Did you know, for example, that you are more likely to be stuck by lightning twice than to meet someone who has committed voter fraud? Benjamin Jealous told me so. I googled this and it turns out to be true, or at least widely circulated on the internet, in some iteration or another. (Some have it as struck by lightening three times than to commit voter fraud, etc.) That really puts these laws in perspective, huh?

Here is Jealous in an interview:

The reality is -- there was an argument for the poll tax. There was an argument for the literacy test. There was an argument for keeping women from voting. And they were all phrased in terms of vote security. Women it was argued shouldn't vote because if she was married, her husband would have two votes because he would tell his wife how to vote. People who couldn't pass the literacy test didn't know enough to be allowed to vote, and could be too easily influenced by others. Vote security is a real issue, but the poll tax didn't make voting more secure, discrimination against women didn't make voting more secure, and nor will voter ID. It's a solution without a problem.

George Bush had his Department of Justice spent five years looking for these types of impersonation cases, and in five years after analyzing millions of votes cast they came up with 86 cases -- in five years. We have sufficient prosecutors in the Department of Justice to handle an 86 case over five years case load."

I can't wait to read this book and I suggest that you do too!

Nancy

Ask An Election Nerd: How Do I Know Who To Vote For?

If you've been disappointed that I haven't written a long blog post in a while, (horribly bad impression of a mafia accent) I got your long blog post right here! Seriously, I almost considered footnoting this thing. Below is a question that was submitted through my tumblr a while ago. I've gotten a couple of these, so I've decided to start an Ask An Election Nerd segment to my blog. If you would like to submit a question, email me at campaignsick@gmail.com, or message me through tumblr. And away we go!

Dear Nancy,

I found your blog because a friend sent me a link to your Ryan Gossling Tumblr.

I am a 20something living in the Midwest in an important state in the world of elections—Ohio. I know people say my vote matters, but I don't know how to sort out who to vote for. Sometimes, I feel like my vote won't matter and that I shouldn't even vote if I don't put in the time to really vet the candidates, which seems nearly impossible.

I just need someone to lay it all out for me and build my confidence in my own personal voting process. Voting is a personal process right? Then why do I feel so crowded? I know I can't be the only one who feels this way. I want to do my civic duty to the best of my ability, I just don't know how.

Signed,
Nikki

Of all the reasons that someone would choose not to vote, this is the easiest for me to understand. When it comes to politics, truth is often in the eye of the beholder. There is a lot of information out there and I use the term "information" loosely. Campaigns, independent expenditures, and any pundit with a microphone are more than happy to tell you the truth as they see it, but even among the best intentioned (and I'm not implying that any of those groups are) there is room for reasonable debate. One thing I do not suggest is taking one of those "who should I vote for" quizzes online like this one, because you never know is behind them.(That may be a perfectly legitimate group, I just don't advise doing so as practice.) By simply choosing which stories to report news outlets are guilty of employing bias, plus there are candidate debates, rumors, gossip, advertising, forwarded emails from opinionated relatives...it is really difficult to know what to believe.

Before we talk about how to choose a candidate, let's briefly discuss why it's important to vote even if you're confused. To begin with, whether we realize it or not, politics affects every one of us. When I was a field organizer I was unfailingly blown away by community members who told me they weren't going to vote because they weren't "political." You mean to tell me you're a doctor and you have no opinion on health care? You're a teacher and you don't care about education? You're religious and you don't care what happens to poor people? You're a woman (or related to one) and you have nothing to say about birth control? I'm not buying it.

Also, and cue the John Philip Sousa music, voting is a big part of what makes this country great. We were the first democracy to work in modern times and since then, the concept has pretty much flourished. Sure it's imperfect, but as Winston Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others." Democracy keeps us safe, free from tyranny and exploitation, and able to advance better than any other system and it doesn't work unless people vote. (Churchill also said "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter," but that's why we're here.) It's no coincidence that people have died for that very right. I'm not just talking about the Founding Fathers here, I'm including very real and recent examples in the Middle East and Africa. NB: When I talk about voting, I mean in free and fair elections, not ones rigged by a dictator.

So voting, important, got it, you're on board. On to how to choose. The good news is that because there's so much conflicting information, it's okay to pick and choose your sources. It's okay to discount some factors that other people might find important. Maybe you don't care that your candidate has cheated on her husband or about her record on the environment because you like what she has to say about debt reduction. It's also okay to choose someone who doesn't agree with you on everything. The only way to find someone who is lock step with you 100% on every issue is to run for office yourself. It's about finding a candidate who you feel best represents your values.

Below is a list of information narrowing techniques to help make the task of picking a candidate a little more manageable. Some work better for primaries, some for general elections and most can be used in concert with one another. Feel free to pick and choose and don't let the perfect (i.e. knowing EVERYTHING about your candidate which is nearly impossible) be the enemy of the good.

1) Go with your gut. My empirical experience has been, and I'm sure there's research to bear this out, that people usually pick a candidate based on their gut reaction and then come up with reasons to justify their decision later on. Most people have gotten so good at doing this, they don't even realize what they're doing. They'll rattle off a list of reasons why they support Newt Gingrich over Rick Santorum with great sincerity, never acknowledging even to themselves that they got these talking points from emails or discussion boards or NPR after they knew who they were supporting. As an operative this can be maddening. However, we have gut instincts for an evolutionary reason, because they work. As a field organizer, I was infuriated when people told me they weren't supporting John Edwards because 'they just didn't trust him,' but in the end that turned out to be... prescient. Watch a primary debate and the candidates are pretty similar on the issues, though they express themselves differently. Listen to your gut. Who do you trust? Who do you want answering the proverbial red phone at 2am? If you like a candidate and she makes you feel good about spending your vote on her, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you're up front about it.

2)Call a lifeline. If I have a toothache, I call one of my two good friends who are dentists (or as I call them friendtists.) If I have a legal question (read as: I have been watching Boston Legal), I gchat my sorority sister who is an attorney. I love it when my friends call me for advice about whom to support and I don't think any less of them. This just happens to be my wheelhouse. There is nothing wrong with using a trusted proxy to help you make a decision. On my first campaign in Minnesota, I called my State Senator's campaign manager from the voting booth to ask her whom to support in a school board primary. Even though I didn't know the candidates, I knew my colleague would tell me to support someone who agreed with her boss, who I knew I agreed with on education. If you have a friend who is more politically engaged than you, why not ask her? This strategy may sound simplistic, but if you think about it, why trust a pundit whose motives you cannot be entirely sure of over someone who you personally know and trust? We tend to spend time with people who share our values and who knows us better than our friends?

3)Be a single (or double or triple) issue voter. You will never agree with a candidate on everything, so it's important to prioritize. Even experienced campaign operatives and so called Yellow Dog (as in I would vote for a Golden Retriever before a Republican) Democrats have a litmus test. For instance, I won't work for a candidate who is anti-equal marriage, anti-choice or supports repealing healthcare. I care deeply about other issues, but before I even consider voting for someone, I find out where she stands on those three. If you're a small business owner, you might want to do some research on how the Presidential candidates' economic plans would affect your business. Maybe you also care deeply about the environment. You may want to find out if any of the candidates are endorsed by The Sierra Club or the League of Conservation Voters both of which support candidates based on their stance on environmental issues. Deciding how to vote based on one or two issues doesn't mean you don't care about others, it means that you're voting in line with your own priorities.

4)Party Down. There is a lot of legitimate criticism of our two party system. It certainly creates some strange bedfellows. For example, why does it follow that someone who is anti-choice must also be against government intervention? But the system exists for a reason. If I walked into a voting booth right now and saw two previously unknown candidates, one with a (D) and one with and (R) next to her name, I would vote for the Democrat without a moment's hesitation. I know that the average Democrat is much more likely to agree with me on any given issue than the average Republican, within a margin of error of plus or minus Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman. Even if this particular Democrat disagrees with me on something I care about, on a federal level I know that she is going to caucus with the Democrats and thus help push through at least some legislation that I support, as opposed to a Republican who might help block something, even if she agrees with me, because of pressure from political leadership. (This happens in both parties, although the Republicans are notoriously good at "keeping their people in line.")

5)Identity politics. Just ask my slightly racist grandfather, people tend to vote for people who look like them. Or better yet, check out New York City's voting history. On the one hand, I don't advocate using your race, gender or sexual orientation as the primary means of choosing a candidate (particularly if you're a straight white dude) on the other hand, broadly speaking, people do tend to share values with people who share their culture and minorities are far from adequately represented in our legislatures. Did you know that 17% of Congresspeople are female despite the fact that women make up more than half of our country's voters? Hardly representative for a representative democracy. For this reason alone, all other things being equal, I tend to vote with my vagina (although more difficult since they got rid of the levers on voting machines). But seriously folks, regardless of the issues, there are some very legitimate reasons to vote simply to get more sexual, racial, religious minorities and women into office. The next generation will not aspire to be leaders unless they see people they can relate to in leadership positions. We don't want to send black children the message, "you can be anything you want, it's just reeeeallly unlikely." Finally, the more of any group that is in a governing body, the less their participation is treated as tokenism and their disagreements are seen as discord and the more they can simply legislate.


That my friend, is what you get for asking a good question, a really, really long answer. In conclusion, keep writing to me! I love answering these kind of questions and I hope I answered that one well. Kudos to you, Nikki! The fact that you are curious, pro-active and taking your vote seriously puts you miles above most of the voting population.

Until next time,
Nancy

*Don't Forget! If you would like to submit a question, email campaignsick@gmail.com or message me through my tumblr.

Racist Campaign Ad Airs During Superbowl

Ironically I was doing my reading for Race Statistics class when I noticed a link to this ad pop up on facebook.



Wow. Remember when I posted The Most Sexist Campaign Ad and said it was also pretty racist? Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.

Bleaugh is the new Black

Gawker:"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." Santorum is pretty sure that's not what he said. "I've looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video," he told CNN's John King on Wednesday. "In fact, I'm pretty confident I didn't say black." Pretty confident! That's all we need. "I started to say a word and then sort of changed and it sort of, bleaugh, mumbled it," he explained.

Good save, Rick. You're like a bleaugh basketball player getting a rebound.