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.

An Affair to Pretend Not to Remember

Nancy's Note: I cut this post in half because it tells two different stories about two different politicians. Stay tuned for part II.

Devotees will remember that I have a personal relationship with the phenomenon of the disgraced politician. While leading a recent organizer training, I found myself in the somewhat new position of having to explain who John Edwards is and why I revile him so. "Wow, you must really hate Bill Clinton," one organizer responded. Well, no. For one thing, Bill Clinton never made a liar out of me. He never funneled money to his mistress while habitually being late with my paycheck. And, this last one is somewhat debatable, he didn't put control of the presidency in jeopardy for the Democratic party. Still, this organizer's question touched a nerve. Where do I draw the line when it comes to infidelity and indiscretion perpetrated by my elected officials? This question has become particularly salient since two such politicians announced their candidacy in elections in which I will cast a vote. I plan not to vote for Elliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, although maybe not for the reasons one might think.

Bill Clinton had the good fortune of being done running for office by the time his infidelities took center stage. If he had been up for election in 1998 and I had not been 14 there is a good chance I would not have supported him. It isn't the infidelity I object to. Although I idolize Hillary Clinton, I don't pretend to know what goes on in other people's marriages. Besides, if she can forgive him, I certainly can. Moreover, when it comes to hiring an accountant or doctor, I want the person who will do the best job for me, not the person who is nicest to his or her spouse. Why should my choice in an elected official be any different? I would not have supported President Clinton because of the apparent power imbalance between him and Monica Lewinsky. She was a 22-year-old intern and he was President of the United States. You would be hard-pressed to find a clearer case for sexual harassment and abuse of power. The fact that he had been accused of other incidents of a similar nature does not help his case.

When we talk about Clinton in the liberal community, we tend to ignore the scandal that was once the focal point of his career. Meanwhile, Monica Lewinsky's political future was doomed the moment their affair became public. To this day Lewinsky is the poster-child for intern jokes, while Clinton has gone on to have an illustrious post-Presidential career. All this despite the fact that Clinton's position of power and responsibility made him far more culpable than Lewinsky. Had this been another man, another profession or another time Monica Lewinsky would be considered a victim.

That said, my fervent admiration for and slight crush on present-day Bill Clinton is well-documented. His commitment to ending climate change and improving global health, continued support of Democratic candidates and apparently reformed private life have regained him my esteem. Clinton is exceptional for his charisma, ability to deliver a nuanced message and commitment to progressive causes. We have not seen such a politician since he left office and likely won't for a long time. I mention Bill Clinton's exceptional intelligence, skill and charm because the of the comparisons we are likely to hear from Spitzer and Weiner as they attempt to rebrand themselves. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, you sirs are no Bill Clinton.

Before he resigned from Congress, Anthony Weiner was often likened to Bill Clinton. He was known for his wit as a liberal bulldog. His wife, Huma Abedin, worked for Secretary of State Clinton and President Clinton even officiated at their wedding. Again, Weiner's infidelity is not the problem, if it was infidelity at all. Honestly, I could imagine being Huma Abedin, being several months pregnant working a full schedule in an often long-distance marriage and my husband saying to me, "Honey I want to wack it to some facebook chats about how hot I must have looked in my Bar Mitzvah pictures" and me saying, "Knock yourself out." My problem is Weiner's spectacularly poor judgment in the execution. When your career is on the line, one would think you'd be more careful with your tweets. When Weiner resigned, I argued that his judgement, poor though it was, was not reason enough for him to be ousted. If we kicked people out of elected office for having bad decision making skills, half of Congress would have to resign. At the same time, I am not running to vote for someone who could be so professionally careless.

When the smoke cleared it became semi-public knowledge that one of the reasons Weiner did not receive more cover from Democrats was that he was personally unpleasant to work with. I heard stories of him screaming and even throwing office equipment at his staff (by which I mean the people who work for him) an accusation I take seriously as a political staffer. In the end Weiner just doesn't have the track record that a legend like Bill Clinton does. For all his soapboxing, what did Anthony Weiner actually accomplish? Making Anthony Weiner famous, which evidenced by the fact that he entered a crowded primary already replete with qualified candidates, seems to still be his goal.

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

Get Ready For Some Guest Posts!!!

Hey Guys,

I'm headed off to visit the world's best little brother in that bastion of democracy, Russia! Did you know I was a Russian major undergrad? Anyway I'll miss you like crazy. (Which is actually a little pathetic on my part.) Please enjoy the following guest posts in my absence! They are great, but as a matter of policy, guest blogs are the opinions of the guest bloggers, not yours truly. If you would like to pitch a blog, email me at campaignsick@gmail.com. Thank you so, so much to my incredible guest bloggers. I'll see you when I get back!

In Soviet Russia, campaigns are sick for YOU! CM&L,

Nancy

Republicans, the Final Frontier, to Go Where No Democrat Has Gone Before

I've wanted to have a post on tracking for a really long time. Thanks to Aaron Fielding (that's me and him above) for making it happen!

I began tracking in 2010 for a gubernatorial candidate. I continued tracking in 2011 for an independent organization in the Northeast mostly Republican Presidential candidates. I have covered events with Mitt Romney, Rick Perry (my favorite), Michele Bachmann (scariest), Jon Huntsman (nicest), just to name a few.

Ever since George Allen’s infamous “Macaca Moment” tracking has become an increasingly important part of campaigns, for our side anyway Republicans still haven’t taken to tracking as extensively as our side, my theory is they are just going to make up what our candidates say so what’s the point.

Tracking is fun, frustrating, and the most unusual position on a campaign. People think it’s easy, but it takes a smart, savvy, thick-skinned individual. You’re job is to attend events featuring candidates and elected officials from the other side. Most of the time (especially during the height of the campaign season) you are attending local County/City Republican Party events and everyone there will hate you and in some cases threaten you. I will be taking you to my process of tracking and also some tracking best practices.

Finding the Event
With Facebook, Twitter and Google, finding events are becoming easier, especially if you’re a Republican tracker finding a Democrat event, but Republican candidates, local parties, and yes even the Tea Party uses electronic media to broadcast events. Every morning, and whenever you have some down time at the office, checking the candidate’s websites (campaign and/or official), state party website, local party websites, local Tea Party website and other like-minded groups (my personal favorite is the 2nd Amendment Task Force they are a fun bunch).
Tweet-Deck is a great tool for finding events, especially last-minute radio interviews event, if you are running statewide it’s hard to be everywhere, but morning radio shows are an easy way to communicate to your constituents, and some elected officials do this pretty regularly.
After an e-media search comes the fun part, contacting their offices. It’s good to have volunteers and interns do this, after awhile their staff (both campaign and official) will know who you are and won’t tell you anything.

The Event
Showtime!
Republican events are just like our events, they have staff, and a sign-in table. It’s good to get to the event early, but you don’t want to get there to early (if it’s just you and the candidate’s staff they are going to have to talk to you and the jig is up).
Going into the event, you are going to be asked to sign-in, I would politely decline. After going passed the sign-in table you need to find a good spot to set up so you can cover the event with your camera, not a flip-cam mind you a camera with your tripod. (It’s not good enough just to get them on camera, it needs to be usable for a television ad).

Good Video – Notice how the camera is not shaking and is in HD.

Bad Video – See how the video is not in HD, the sound is bad and it’s shaky.
After setting up your camera, you should leave it on, if you see someone coming towards you, you should begin recording, sometimes being kicked out of the event is actually a bigger story than what the candidate says. And you never know when something like this is going to happen.

Being Kicked Out – ***Being physically assaulted by campaign staff is always a win*** For the most part it will be a staffer asking you to leave. Tell them no, you are there because it is a public event and you have every right to be there. Now, if someone from the facility where the event is taking place and/or the police ask you to leave, you should.
When the event begins, it’s a good idea to film everything and take detailed notes with timestamps, this is important when Communications wants certain footage.

Post Event
You should film the target until they leave, it’s always good to get footage of what vehicle they take, it’s good to know what they travel in, I once had to go to an airport to get the tail number of a private plane, plus you could get a gem like this: About 40 seconds in.
After the event is over, it is important to get your detailed event memo out to staff so they can determine if there are any issues they want to push out.

Epilogue
Holding candidates accountable for what they say is an important part of Democracy. This is why tracking is so important. Yes, getting a candidate on film using racial slurs, messing up the pledge, or saying how you like to fire people is great and the press loves it, but most candidates are polished enough not to make those mistakes, so getting where they stand on the issues is why we use trackers. After you track someone long enough, you will know what they are going to say, but if they change what they say, leave something out, or add something new it is important we know what that is, it could be the beginning of a Flip-Flop, or something bigger that we need research to start working on so we can create something like this.


Finally, HOW NOT TO TRACK


If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask, I have been through just about everything and would be glad to help in any way that I can.

Come Join the Party: Why You Need to be a Part of the Young Democrats of America

The Amazing Shayna Daitch invites us to join YDA. (That would be me and her above. I now I REALLY wish we had taken a better picture.)

Shayna Daitch has called the great state of Oklahoma her home for most of her life and continues to be involved in state politics there. She has served on the board of Young Democrats of Oklahoma as National Committeewoman for two years and recently worked on the re-election campaigns of President Barack Obama and Senator Claire McCaskill. She is currently running to be Secretary of the Young Democrats of America with the YDA Progress team. Follow her twitter, @iknowshayna and @ydaprogress.


I’m really excited to write for y’all about, YDA, a group that is amazing and close to my heart. I got involved with the Young Democrats of America about two years ago. A friend of mine was trying to recruit people from Oklahoma to go the 2011 YDA Convention in Louisville, KY. She tweeted like crazy about it and had fundraised enough money to cover the cost of the trip for a bunch of people. I tweeted back at her and said I was interested in this trip. I was a little suspicious, but hey, free trip! Attending the YDA Convention was one of the best decisions I ever made. Growing up as a Jewish Democrat was often a lonely experience in Oklahoma, but YDA helped change that. I learned so much and met truly incredible friends.

As a member of the Young Democrats of America and a campaign staffer, I saw the impact of the youth vote first-hand and it is directly related to the work of the Young Democrats of America. The 2012 election wasn’t just about President Obama. It was about us as young Americans—the issues that are important to us and affect our future. Because we cared so deeply, youth turnout was the highest since 1968, when the voting age was lowered to 18, and 67% of young Americans choose Obama over Romney. Without youth voters, we know Obama would have lost Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

What is YDA?

The Young Democrats of America was founded in 1932 (shout out to North Carolina for being the founding chapter!) as the official youth arm of the Democratic National Committee. We are currently the largest partisan youth organization in America. In 2002, YDA started to operate separately from the DNC, but the relationship between the organizations remains very close. YDA has three voting members on the DNC as well as one voting member on the DNC Executive Committee.

Some things about YDA:

1) YDA highlights issues that are important to Young Americans. The DNC has an increasing sensitivity to the issues facing young Americans and does a wonderful job of pushing many of our issues into the spotlight. There are many issues that are simply more important than others to us, like college affordability, reproductive rights, and reasonable interest rates. While we agree on issues, since YDA is separate from the DNC we are able to take control of our platform, our budget, and our messaging and focus solely on youth issues. We take guidance from the DNC but have the flexibility and freedom to do our own programming as well as work with groups like the College Democrats of America.

2) YDA is an awesome way to network and further your career. Not gonna lie, YDA is the place to meet remarkable young politicos. YDA hosts several conferences each year around the country and it is great to travel and meet new like-minded professionals. Being from Oklahoma, I longed for a network of people who shared my values and were equally as passionate about moving youth issues forward, passing progressive legislation, and electing Democrats—especially young Democrats. I found these people at YDA. Many of our members are young elected officials in their own right or campaign workers, but some have careers in non-political fields. I’ve actually gotten two campaign jobs because of the relationships I had formed through YDA. The networking is helpful, especially to campaign workers who often move around the country. It doesn’t matter what resource you are seeking, someone in YDA can and will assist. Particularly, in my campaign experience, the YDA network connected me to local clubs where I recruited volunteers, they helped me understand my new turf, introduced me to new people, and once it even found me supporter housing. Additionally, it’s a good place to get the political experience you need, especially if you want to break in to state party politics or other national organizations.

3) YDA is a marketplace of ideas and training opportunities. YDA’s strength lies in its diverse and large membership. YDA has 11 constituency caucuses as well as a faith initiative and regional committees. Since everyone comes from different states and backgrounds, it is the perfect place to crowdsource. I’m constantly blown away by what our members are doing across the country. For leaders who run local chapters, it is wonderful to have the support and advice from others who have faced the same problems. Recently, the Kansas Young Democrats got one of their members elected to their state legislature and the Delaware Young Democrats worked on the initiative to pass marriage equality. In my home state, the Young Democrats of Oklahoma played a role in successfully fighting personhood legislation last year. If I needed fundraising advice, I’d call the young Democrats in California and New York who know how to make it rain. And in states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, and others, their local Young Democrats chapters turned out to help with GOTV in 2012. There are just too many examples to list, but YDs get stuff done by helping each other create change across the country. On top of this, YDA is a great place for cheap trainings. In the last year, YDA has offered trainings from the very best in the business like Planned Parenthood, Democratic GAIN, Democracy for America, and senior-level staffers on major campaigns such as OFA. We haven’t had one from CampaignSick yet, but I’m sure that will change, very soon.

Basically, if you love politics and campaigns and under the age of 36, YDA is the place for you. The next YDA Convention will be in San Antonio, TX on August 8-11th and is shaping up to be the best one yet. There will be high-level trainings, guest speakers, and special events. Won’t you join us? For more information and registration visit us on the web.