The values that underpin these governing strategies reflect contrasting political visions, and the differences can be seen in stark terms in the states. In a red state such as Texas, government exists mostly to get out of the way of the private sector while holding to traditional social values. In blue states such as California and Maryland, government takes more from taxpayers, particularly the wealthy, to spend on domestic priorities while advancing a cultural agenda that reflects the country’s growing diversity.
[...]
Control in the states today is more closely aligned with voting patterns in presidential elections than in the days when conservative Democrats dominated state and local elections in the South and moderate Republicans held greater sway in the North.
Karl Kurtz, a political scientist at the National Conference of State Legislatures, noted in an article published this year that Republicans control both houses of the legislatures in 22 of the 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and that Democrats hold majorities in 18 of the 26 states won by Obama.
The eight Obama states that have full or partial Republican control are or recently have been presidential battlegrounds. These are Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.It's an interesting article. It will be very easy to take stock of the partisanship tally at the end of the 2014 midterm elections.
I think as the Supreme Court cases get released there will be a flood of similar statements as politicians use the opportunity of a major change from the United States Supreme Court towards LGBT equality to articulate their opinion change on LGBT equality as well.The Supreme Court is set to make a pair of decisions on the topic of marriage equality shortly, and the national conversation on this issue is picking back up. This is a significant moment for our nation when it comes to rethinking our society’s priorities and the role of government in Americans’ private lives and decisions, so I want to be absolutely clear with Alaskans. I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government. When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values. I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values: it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another. While my support for same sex civil marriage is something I believe in, I am equally committed to guaranteeing that religious freedoms remain inviolate, so that churches and other religious institutions can continue to determine and practice their own definition of marriage.With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay? I believe when there are so many forces pulling our society apart, we need more commitment to marriage, not less.This thinking is consistent with what I hear from more and more Alaskans especially our younger generations. Like the majority of Alaskans, I supported a constitutional amendment in 1998 defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but my thinking has evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift. Fifteen years after that vote, I find that when one looks closer at the issue, you quickly realize that same sex unions or civil marriages are consistent with the independent mindset of our state – and they deserve a hands-off approach from our federal policies.
The 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip. In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws:A poll tax by any other name is still a poll tax (and is therefore just as unconstitutional)!
- Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
- More than 10 million eligible voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week.
- 1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. People of color are more likely to be disenfranchised by these laws since they are less likely to have photo ID than the general population.
More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax — outlawed during the civil rights era — cost $10.64 in current dollars.
- Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City, Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012 — February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.
The survey reveals strong partisan and ideological divisions on racial resentment [see Figure]. Republicans and conservatives have the highest “racial resentment” scores, and Democrats and liberals have the lowest; Independents and moderates are in the middle. In addition, Democrats and liberals are least supportive of voter ID laws, whereas Republicans and conservatives are most supportive. The link between “racial resentment” and support for such laws persists even after controlling for the effects of partisanship, ideology, and a range of demographic variables.Read the last sentence again. Regardless of partisanship (Republican or Democrat) or ideology (conservative or liberal) or other demographics, people who support voter identification laws are correlated with people who harbor racial resentment. There's also the matter-of-fact reporting that Republicans and conservatives have the highest levels of racial resentment; it is not just partisanship which animates the Right's energetic efforts to replace the first black Democratic president.
| Party | Feb 1999 | January 2008 | January 2012 |
| Democratic | 46.72% | 42.71% | 43.63% |
| Republican | 35.27% | 33.45% | 30.36% |
| NPP | 12.89% | 19.38% | 21.24% |
Although I only live part-time in California, I am still registered to vote there, and I support the decision not to move forward with a ballot measure, especially since there will almost definitely be marriage equality fights in Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina and Oregon next year.
Equality California said that while public opinion on marriage for same-sex couples has increased since Proposition 8 passed in 2008, support continues to hover near 50 percent—indicating more work must be done before asking voters to overturn Proposition 8 through what would inevitably be a very expensive and difficult campaign. In addition, the Perry v. Brown legal challenge to Proposition 8 has provided hope that the freedom to marry can be restored in California and create a legal precedent to protect marriage without the potential risks and expense of a multi-million dollar campaign in these very trying economic times."With a challenge to Prop 8’s discrimination now before the courts, Freedom to Marry supports Equality California’s decision to forego a ballot campaign in 2012,” said Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry. ”Freedom to Marry will continue to work with Equality California and our many other partners to engage Californians in the crucial conversations necessary to grow the pro-marriage majority and permanently restore the freedom to marry in California as soon as possible."“We share the pain, frustration and discrimination that California same-sex couples and their families experience every day because they are denied the freedom to marry,” Palencia said. “Today, we are recommitting ourselves to doing the hard work of changing hearts and minds to be ready to change that reality should the courts fail to do their job.”
Good luck to Mayor Pougnet on winning a second term. Let's hope some ohter Democrat steps up to the plate to challenge Chaz Bono's step-mom, the odious Rep. Mary Bono Mack.Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet announced Thursday he will not seek to unseat Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Palm Springs, in the 2012 election.Instead, Pougnet told friends and supporters at the Hyatt Regency Suites that he wants to focus on finishing his job as the city’s mayor.“The new congressional district is one that a Democrat can win," Pougnet told Patch. "There are some wonderful things happening here in the city of Palm Springs.”
 |
| Jacquelyn Lacey is the front runner to become the first female (and first African-American) District Attorney of Los Angeles County |
Colorado went blue in the 2008 presidential election and currently has a Democratic Governor and two Democratic United States Senators. Republicans hold the lower state House by 1 vote (out of 65) and Democrats control the state Senate by 5 (out of 35).Palacio, a sixth-generation Coloradan from Pueblo, received more than 50 percent of the vote from members of the state central committee of the Colorado Democratic Party at its biennial reorganizational meeting.
He defeated Polly Baca, a former state senator, and Adam Bowen, the former Larimer County Democratic chairman.
"I'm very excited," Palacio said after the vote. "I'm excited for our party. We have a lot of work ahead of us as Democrats. I look forward to working with Democrats from all 64 different counties to make sure that we succeed in 2012."
Palacio, who will resign his current position as deputy director of member services for U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said it's also important to ensure that all divergent opinions within the party are heard so Democrats can all move forward in the same direction.
Colorado Democratic brass were among the 450 people who attended the morning event. Gov. John Hickenlooper, [Sen. Michael] Bennet and fellow Sen. Mark Udall all gave rousing speeches, trying to energize the base on a day of new beginnings for the state's Democratic Party.
Missoula's Democratic legislators were infuriated by the passage of House Bill 516, by Rep. Kristin Hansen, R-Havre. Her bill passed 60-39 and faces a final House vote before heading to the Senate.
Sixty Republicans voted for it. All 32 Democrats voted opposed it, joined by seven Republicans. One Republican was absent.
[...]
As sponsor, Hansen said HB516 would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances or policies that seek to protect residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender as Missoula did through an ordinance and Bozeman through a policy.
She said the Missoula City Council adopted the ordinance and provided an enforcement mechanism that fell outside of that in the Montana Human Rights Act.
"It would apply retroactively to the city of Missoula's ordinance in order to keep all businesses and all entities on a level playing field," Hansen said. "All discrimination claims will have to go through the human rights procedures as designated by the Montana Human Rights (Commission)."
[...]
"Our community is filled with possibly the biggest gay and lesbian population in the state," said Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula. "We are a community with the University of Montana. We have a lot of young people. We passed this ordinance because we wanted to protect our own citizens, our own people. You don't have to agree with it."
Sands said she is proud to be part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and told the House: "There are thousands of ‘us' living in Montana. We are your neighbors, your work colleagues, we are part of your families, we sit in the pew next to you at church, and we serve in elective offices with you."
Along with other LGBT Montanans and their families, Sands said she was claiming her constitutional right to equality and justice under Montana's constitutional provision that says: "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws."
"It doesn't say, except for gay people," she said.The bill is reminiscent of Colorado's Amendment 2 which was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans by a 6-3 vote in 1996. However, that was an anti-gay voter initiative (which overturned local gay rights ordinances in Boulder, Aspen and Denver) while this is a legislatively enacted measure which still needs to go through the upper body and be signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. The notion that the state is trying to enact a uniform enforcement procedure for discrimination is a transparent fiction. Obviously, the Montana Human Rights Act does NOT include sexual orientation and gender identity and the same Republicans voted to kill a measure which would have added those characteristics. Presumably, Schweitzer will veto the measure if it reaches his desk but has not made a public statement on the measure so far.
Steve Cooley (Rep) 3,518,918 46.0% Kamala D. Harris (Dem) 3,496,101 45.7% Diane Beall Templin (AI) 133,186 1.7% Peter Allen (Grn) 195,921 2.5% Timothy J. Hannan (Lib) 192,018 2.5% Robert J. Evans (P&F) 123,197 1.6%
| Candidate | Votes | Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kamala D. Harris (Dem) | 3,307,599 | 45.9% | |
| Steve Cooley (Rep) | 3,298,235 | 45.8% | |
| Diane Beall Templin (AI) | 125,507 | 1.7% | |
| Peter Allen (Grn) | 185,729 | 2.5% | |
| Timothy J. Hannan (Lib) | 180,682 | 2.5% | |
| Robert J. Evans (P&F) | 117,303 | 1.6% | |
Kamala D. Harris DEM 3,292,836 45.9% Steve Cooley REP 3,277,998 45.7% Timothy J. Hannan LIB 179,594 2.5% Peter Allen GRN 184,841 2.6% Diane Beall Templin AI 124,841 1.7% Robert J. Evans PF 116,690 1.6%
It was our great privilege to serve the people of Iowa for many years. Throughout our judicial service we endeavored to serve the people of Iowa by always adhering to the rule of law, making decisions fairly and impartially according to the law, and faithfully upholding the constitution.
We wish to thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain us for another term. Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa's high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.
Finally, we hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa's merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state's fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.
Chief Justice Marsha Ternus
Associate Justice Michael Streit
Associate Justice David BakerVery sad news.
