Breaking news and analysis of politics, the economy and activism.
In June of 2014, Senators Mark Udall, Ron Wyden and Rand Paul offered a rare show of election-year unanimity when they penned a joint statement arguing that “it is more important than ever to let Congress and the administration know that Americans will reject half-measures that could still allow the government to collect millions of Americans’ records without any individual suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing.”
Udall and Wyden, both Democrats, and Paul, a presumed contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, declared, “It is time to end the dragnet—and to affirm that we can keep our nation secure without trampling on and abandoning Americans’ constitutional rights.”
Essential to that initiative, the senators suggested, is “a groundswell of public support for reform.”
Just five months later, the strength of that groundswell will be tested in Colorado. Udall, the senior senator from that state, is in the fight of his political life with Republican Congressman Cory Gardner. It’s a brutal, high-stakes battle, and polls suggest Gardner has a slight advantage.
If Udall loses, “it would be a significant loss for the movement” to hold the NSA to account and to renew the privacy rights of Americans, says Laura Murphy, who heads the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“What Udall has is the institutional memory, and the relationships in the civil liberties community, in the Democratic Party and in the tech industry so that we don’t have to start over again with someone new,” Murphy told The Hill, which has highlighted concerns about what losing Udall would mean to the fight to restrain the NSA.
Constitution Project senior counsel Scott Roehm summed those concerns up when he said, “Were Senator Udall to lose, I think he would be sorely missed. He was one of the earliest voices for meaningful surveillance reform even before the Snowden leaks.”
Why so much concern about one senator?
It has a lot to do with the courage and consistency of Udall’s objections to NSA abuses. The Colorado senator has been a genuine watchdog: calling for Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan to resign after it was revealed that CIA operatives had been spying on the communications of Senate staffers, challenging his colleagues to establish effective oversight of intelligence agencies, demanding meaningful checks and balances and criticizing President Obama for failing to end the excesses of the Bush-Cheney era.
“Mass collection of our phone and Internet records started under a Republican president, continued under a Democratic one. I won’t tolerate it,” Udall tells voters. “As Coloradans, our rights include the freedom to be left alone.”
This willingness to defend privacy rights against abuses—no matter who is in power—distinguishes Udall and only a handful of others in the Senate. That’s why a writer for Reason magazine, the country’s essential libertarian publication, observed last week that a Udall loss “could be grim news for civil libertarians hoping to rein in the NSA.”
Grim news, indeed. So grim that it raises the question: Shouldn’t the preservation of Fourth Amendment protections be a high enough priority that responsible Republicans might want to put partisanship aside and defend a senator who has emerged as an essential advocate for the Bill of Rights? Shouldn’t Rand Paul be speaking up for Udall—if not with an explicit cross-party endorsement then at least with an acknowledgement of the principled positions taken by the senator from Colorado? Shouldn’t civil libertarians from across the poitical and ideological spectrums, Democrats and Republicans, Greens and Libertarians, recognize that the Colorado race is not just another contest in the jockeying for control of the Senate?
The idea of putting aside petty partisanship in order to speak up for a principled senator is not some radical new notion. In the 1960s, Oregon Democratic Senator Wayne Morse said he intended to vote for Oregon Republican US Senate candidate Mark Hatfield because they shared strong opposition to the war in Vietnam. In the 1990s, Arizona Senator John McCain, a conservative Republican, made no secret of his regard for progressive Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, because of their shared commitment to campaign finance reform.
The Fourth Amendment has too few defenders. Feingold, the sole senator to oppose the Patriot Act in 2001, was defeated in the Republican “wave” election of 2010. Now, the prospect of another Republican “wave” threatens Udall. Those who recognize that privacy rights must be preserved must recognize that the threat is not just to Udall but to the cause of the Constitution.
Barack Obama has had a rough fall. Six years into a hard presidency, he’s wrestling with global instability, a pandemic, an uneven recovery and gridlocked governance. His national approval ratings are down, and his Republican critics are absolutely determined to paint the president as a “toxic” element in the midterm mix. But Obama does not look toxic on the trail through the states where he has begun a final round of 2014 campaigning that is focused, energetic and potentially significant not just for Democrats in close and critical gubernatorial races but for a party that has failed at too many turns this fall to provide a coherent and consistent message.
Obama is actually trying to do something interesting on the trail. He is making a case that is antithetical to the crude, fear-based politics of 2014 by arguing not just for voting but for believing that voting matters. This is not abstraction. Midterm elections have significantly lower turnout rates than presidential elections, which tends to favor Republicans. Additionally, plenty of people who voted for the president and for other Democrats in 2008 and 2012 are now put off by the process, legitimately frustrated not just with obstructionist Republicans but with compromising and politically cautious Democrats.
Obama on the trail is acknowledging the frustration, recognizing widespread cynicism about whether voting matters and then pushing people to believe again—if not entirely in the prospect of changing Washington then at least in the prospect of changing their states.
“You just assume that there’s not much you can do with Springfield and Washington,” Obama argued when he campaigned earlier this month with Governor Pat Quinn in Illinois. “And each and every day you’re fed a message that what you think doesn’t really matter, that your experience doesn’t matter, that nothing you can do is going to make any difference, and both parties are in the tank… And you start being skeptical of every politician. And you start believing that it’s not worth voting. Well I’m here to tell you that that kind of cynicism is a choice you’ve made.”
That, argues Obama, is the wrong choice. “You have power,” he has told voters in Chicago and Milwaukee and will tell voters in Portland and Providence and Detroit and Bridgeport—and perhaps even a few more places before November 4.
There is in Obama’s focus on gubernatorial races an unspoken acknowledgement that 2014 election results are not at all likely to produce a Congress that is any more friendly to him or to his policies. But those results are likely to include big wins for popular Democratic governors such as Jerry Brown in California and Mark Dayton in Minnesota, as well as defeats for Republican governors in as many as a half dozens states.
Obama knows that governors have a role to play in critical decisions regarding the success or failure of his policies, and his party. That’s particularly true when it comes to acceptance of federal Medicaid funding for the expansion of healthcare initiatives, which in turn has an influence on the success of the Affordable Care Act. But it also true with regard to a host of federal transportation, communications and education initiatives.
So the president is betting on the gubernatorial races to provide some important wins on November 4. And gubernatorial candidates in some of the closest contests in the country are betting on him.
That makes political sense. Many of the governors elected in the Republican “wave” election of 2010 are vulnerable this year. Many of them are on the ballot in states that Obama won easily in 2012 and where he tends to retain a good measure of personal popularity: Maryland, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan and Connecticut.
A lot of Obama’s 2008 voters failed to show up in 2010. Now, he is trying to get his 2012 voters to show up in 2014. In the states where he is campaigning, he has good reason to believe that he can still make the connection with folks like 24-year-old Maryland voter Heather Conyers, who attended a rally for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown and told The Washington Post, “Since the president is behind him, I’ll be behind him.
The United States does not produce universal approval or disapproval ratings for its presidents. And that reality has always shaped strategies for midterm elections. There were states where Republicans wanted Ronald Reagan to campaign with them in the 1982 and 1986 midterm elections, and there were states where Republicans (especially in those days when the party still had a number of moderate and even liberal senators and governors) preferred that the president stay away. There were states where Bill Clinton was welcome as a campaigner, and there were states where local Democrats ran away from their president; notably, in 1998, it turned out that an impeachment-threatened Clinton actually had a lot more appeal than some of his partisan allies imagined.
The key in any election cycle is to achieve the right calculus. And some Democrats this year are making the calculation that Obama can and should play a significant role in their closing appeals for votes and for volunteers to get votes by making last-minute calls, knocking on doors and driving people to the polls. This is practical and potentially important, politics.
Despite the right-wing spin and silly punditry of the moment, there are Democrats in tight races who are ready and willing to appear with the president. And the president is giving them a lot more than a cursory tarmac tap. He is trying to move Democrats from the broad category of “registered voter” category to the narrower category of “likely voters.”
That will decide the elections in a lot of states, such as Wisconsin. Consider this: In the final Marquette Law School poll before Tuesday’s gubernatorial election, what has long been seen as a close contest between Governor Scott Walker and Democrat Mary Burke remained so among registered voters with Walker at 46 percent and Burke at 45 percent. However, among likely voters, it was Walker 50 to Burke 43. As the election approached, the percentage of Republicans who said they were “certain to vote” moved from a previous 82 percent to 93 percent. The percentage of Democrats who said they were “certain to vote” moved only from 80 percent to 82 percent.
Democrats need more registered voters to become likely voters. Obama knows this.
In Milwaukee Tuesday night, Obama rallied supporters of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Burke. The crowd of 3,500 greeted the president with great enthusiasm, broke into applause regularly and rocked the room with chants of “Obama.” No president, no political figure, objects to that sort of attention. But Obama steered the discussion toward Burke—highlighting her background and taking jabs at Walker that were rooted in the specific issues of the race and the evolving debate.
“Mary Burke doesn’t believe that the minimum wage ’serves no purpose,’ as one Republican said,” declared Obama, in reference to a remark Walker made earlier this month when asked about his administration’s controversial claim that $7.25-an-hour is a living wage.
“She wants to give Wisconsin a raise,” Obama said of Burke, who supports raising the minimum wage in Wisconsin to $10.10 an hour.
The president linked specific complaints about a conservative governor’s opposition to assuring that people who work forty hours a week will not live in poverty to a broader critique of Walker, who has fallen far short of keeping his promise to create 250,000 new jobs. “Wisconsin lags the rest of the country when it comes to job growth,” explained Obama. “So the country as a whole is doing better; Wisconsin is not doing so good. Over the next week, you have the chance to change that. You have a chance to choose a governor who doesn’t put political ideology first, who’s not thinking partisan first.”
Of course, there is a purpose to all this: getting potential Democratic voters excited about casting ballots for a Democratic candidate in a close race. But Obama recognizes that simply telling folks to grab a friend and head for the polls is insufficient, especially in a year where overall enthusiasm is low and turnout rates could dip below not just what was seen in 2012 but potentially below that of past midterm elections.
As the president travels this week, he isn’t just campaigning for Democratic gubernatorial candidates. He is campaigning against cynicism—and the apathy that extends from it.
“Cynicism is a choice, and hope is a better choice,” he says. “Hope is what gives young soldiers the courage to storm a beach. Hope is what gives young people the strength to march for women’s rights and civil rights and voting rights and gay rights and immigrant’s rights. Hope is the belief that there are better days …. That we can build up a middle class and can give back something to our communities and hand down something better for our kids. Hope is what built America, not cynicism.… Go out there and vote.”
Read Next: 7 GOP governors who may lose re-election
Scott Walker is, of course, running for president. The anti-labor governor of Wisconsin confirmed his candidacy in the clearest way possible last March. Despite the fact that he was getting heat at home for traveling too far and too wide from Wisconsin, he jetted to Las Vegas to participate—with other 2016 Republican presidential prospects—in what was dubbed the “Sheldon Adelson primary.”
Polls have made it clear that Wisconsinites do not want the anti-labor governor to run for president and that they do not think he can bid for the GOP nod and serve effectively as governor. So the Vegas run was risky.
But Walker appears to have hit the jackpot.
On October 23, Adelson inked a check for $650,000 to the Republican Party of Wisconsin. And, on October 23, the Republican Party of Wisconsin made a $450,000 “in-kind” contribution to Scott Walker’s re-election campaign.
Wisconsin, which bars individuals from donating more than $10,000 to a particular candidate in a particular election cycle, used to place strict limits on donations to political parties and transfers of money from parties to candidates. But, this year, Supreme Court and federal court rulings have deconstructed a lot of election law. And, in September, US District Judge Rudolph Randa issued a preliminary injunction that prevents Wisconsin election officials from enforcing limits on individual donations to political parties. That ruling, noted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “creates an easy way for donors to sidestep the limits they normally face when giving to candidates.”
Mike McCabe, the executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign was blunter, saying at the time of the ruling, “What’s being done here is empowering a tiny fraction of one percent of the population to have vastly more influence over elections and our government than they used to have.”
The campaign-finance watchdog explained that with the ruling the influence of super-wealthy super donors had “been magnified, and I think that comes at the expense of everyone else.”
Adelson is, indeed, super-wealthy. Estimates of his casino-fueled fortune run in the range of $40 billion—and rising.
Adelson is, indeed, a super donor. He gave in the range of $150 million to Republican candidates and causes in 2012, according to ProPublica. That, Politico noted, was more than anyone else has given in the history of American presidential politics.
He has also been a generous supporter of Scott Walker, using a special recall-election loophole to donate $250,000 to help the governor hold on to his post in a 2012 recall election. Now, he has found another way to influence Wisconsin politics in an election where Walker’s political future is at stake.
Under what remains of Wisconsin campaign finance law, Adelson cannot tell the Republican Party of Wisconsin what to do with his money. He can’t, for instance, designate Walker as the direct beneficiary of his largesse. The party can, however, spend money to help its priority candidates—and no one would question that re-electing Walker is the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s top priority.
That’s also a priority for Adelson, who gave a maximum direct donation of $10,000 to the Walker campaign earlier this year. In all, Walker’s campaign has raised roughly $25 million since early 2013. That’s a good deal more than his Democratic challenger, Mary Burke, who has raised roughly $15 million—including $5 million from her own fortune—according to the latest reports. And that’s not counting all the “independent” expenditures that have filled Wisconsin television screens with negative ads.
But, with polls showing him in a dead-heat race with Burke, Walker is griping about not having enough money this year. After all, if he loses this year in Wisconsin, he will have a hard time competing in the real “Sheldon Adelson primary” with all the Republican presidential prospects who will be looking for billionaire backing in 2016.
American politics is more diverse, more nuanced and more interesting than most media and political elites choose to note. This country elects Libertarians and Greens and Socialists and independents, along with Democrats and Republicans. And 2014 could produce results that put independents in a pivotal position in the US Senate.
But not all independents are alike. And this reality could have critical consequences for debates over the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a whole lot more, consequences that ought to understood by everyone who is playing the Senate-control numbers game. To be sure, there are Republicans in the Senate—and running for it—who have indicated a willingness to mess with vital programs. But don’t assume that a Senate where independents hold the balance of power would necessarily preserve those programs. It could be more prone to the mangling proposals of the Simpson-Bowles commission.
There is good reason to be concerned that some independents, led by Maine Senator Angus King, could use their newfound authority in a closely divided Senate to promote the sort of “grand bargain” that has long threatened Social Security as we know it.
With the 2014 Senate competition hurdling toward November 4—when control of the chamber may or may not be decided, depending on potential runoffs in Georgia and Louisiana—the focus on independent candidacies has spiked. If Democrats and Republicans finish with even numbers of senators, even if a party has a one-seat advantage, a couple of ambitious independents could become definitional players.
As of now, one independent contender is polling well enough to be considered a serious prospect for election to the Senate, while another looks to be competitive in a wildly unsettled race. Kansas independent Greg Orman has been running even with Republican Senator Pat Roberts in a contest where the Democrat dropped out. And Republican South Dakota Senator Larry Pressler, who served as a Republican but backed President Obama twice, has retained credible numbers in a multi-candidate field for his old seat.
In Kansas, Orman has received a great deal of support from Democrats since their party’s candidate dropped out, and he is certainly more progressive than Roberts. Pressler, on the other hand, is trying to find his way around conservative Republican Mike Rounds and populist Democrat Rick Weiland.
If either Orman or Pressler were to win, they would join two New England independents, King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in the 100-seat Senate.
This possibility has fueled fanciful talk about the prospect of developing a so-called “independent caucus,” which might try to leverage change in a tightly divided Senate. Similar legislative coalitions have developed in other countries, notably Ireland (where rural independents and urban anti-austerity radicals have gained increasing strength), and the prospect is intriguing. But it is not without peril.
King is a mixed-bag centrist who previously served as the independent governor of Maine. He caucuses with the Democrats currently, but says he might caucus with a Republican majority if he thought that was best for Maine. Notably, King has endorsed Maine’s Republican senator, Susan Collins, as well as Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, for re-election this year.
When asked which party he’d like to work with as the new Senate organizes, King is coy. “I’ll make that decision at the time based upon what I think is in the best interest of Maine,” is all he says.
King has counseled Orman and Pressler to be equally elusive, according to media reports that portray him as a something of an independent guru. It is not unreasonable to suggest that King and another independent (or two) might move as a block—perhaps into the caucus of one party or another, perhaps as a more genuinely independent swing caucus, perhaps as part of a broader “centrist caucus” including independents, Republicans such as Collins and Alexander and Democrats such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin.
King, who is not without ambition, could emerge as a definitional player in the next Senate—which, on some campaign and ethics reform issues (he backs of a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and address the overwhelming influence of money in politics) could be good.
Unfortunately, when it comes to budget issues, King has steered too frequently in the direction of the austerity agenda advanced by former Republican Senators Alan Simpson of Wyoming and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Simpson and Bowles both backed King’s 2012 campaign.
When he appeared with King in 2012, Bowles said, “I’m telling you I can use a bridge like this guy who can go between the two parties. It would make such a difference.”
At the same event, King announced that debt reduction needed to be the top priority of Congress and bluntly declared, “It’s going to involve some cuts in spending that people aren’t going to like.”
To justify the pain for working families and seniors, King echoed the most absurd of House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s rhetorical excesses, saying, “Do nothing and we’re Greece within 20 years.”
King does not back every aspect of the Simpson-Bowles commission—which proposes painful cuts that fall hardest on working families, the poor and the elderly, rather than a growth agenda, for balancing budgets. But The Portland Press Herald has written that “King has called the commission’s plan a good framework for congressional action.”
King’s Senate agenda praises Social Security and Medicare, but then goes on to say that he supports “enacting sensible, gradual reforms to ensure Social Security’s solvency,” an approach that includes “gradually increasing the retirement age, in order to protect the program for future beneficiaries.”
If a newly empowered King were to become the “bridge” Simpson and Bowles have been looking for, if he were to steer Congress toward a “grand compromise” that began to compromise Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the social safety net, the byproduct of the Maine senator’s increased influence could be far more damaging than the gridlock to which he so objects.
That’s why it matters that the longest-serving independent in the history of the US Congress, Vermont’s Sanders, shows far less interest in jockeying for position than in using whatever influence he has to protect seniors, help workers and assure that budgets are not balanced by taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
“I intend,” says Sanders,
to caucus with that party that will most likely support a major federal jobs program putting millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; supports overturning the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision; supports raising the minimum wage to a living wage; supports pay equity for women workers; supports a single-payer national health care program; ends our disastrous trade policies; addresses the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality; and is prepared to aggressively address the international crisis of global warming.
Sanders is realistic. Though he has since his election as Vermont’s sole representative to the US House in 1990 worked with Republicans on crucial issues such as trade policy, Sanders responds to questions about the party with which he might align by saying, “I could be wrong, but my guess is that will not be the Republican Party.”
Sanders gets it. It’s valuable to bust the boundaries of a broken two-party system. It’s meaningful when voters elect Greens, Libertarians, Socialists and independents. But if empowered independents turn an obsession with ending gridlock into an excuse for making unacceptable compromises and advancing bad policy, America is no better off.
Read Next: John Nichols on Chris Christie’s terrible idea to let GOP governors control voting
As the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and the self-appointed surrogate-in-chief for the Grand Old Party’s candidates for the top jobs in states across the country this fall, Chris Christie has plenty of reasons to want embattled governors like Florida’s Rick Scott and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker to be re-elected.
Yes, yes, Christie wants to elect governors who will stop all this talk about raising the minimum wage. Yes, yes, Christie wants to elect governors who will “start offending people”—like school teachers and their unions.
But that’s not all the New Jersey governor wants from his fellow Republican executives. Among the reasons he mentions for electing Republican governors, says Christie, is a desire to put the GOP in charge of the “voting mechanism” of likely 2016 presidential battleground states such as Florida and Wisconsin and Ohio..
In a remarkably candid speech to the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform this week, Christie acknowledged a fact that politicians often avoid: the governor of a state, particularly a governor with allies in the legislature and key statewide posts, can play a big role in deciding how easy or how hard it is for working people, minorities, seniors and students to vote.
The governor, who despite his many scandals still seems to imagine himself as a 2016 Republican presidential prospect, described the gubernatorial—and presidential—stakes to the friendly crowd.
“Would you rather have Rick Scott in Florida overseeing the voting mechanism, or Charlie Crist?” Christie announced, in remarks that referenced Democratic challengers to incumbent Republican governors. “Would you rather have Scott Walker in Wisconsin overseeing the voting mechanism, or would you rather have Mary Burke? Who would you rather have in Ohio, John Kasich or Ed FitzGerald?”
Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio are politically competitive states—contested by both parties in presidential years, often producing close finishes that are ultimately resolved by which side is better at getting its supporters to the polls and getting their votes counted. The Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan lost all three states in 2012, as they did most other battlegrounds. Two of these states, Florida and Wisconsin, have dead-heat gubernatorial contests this year. Races are close, as well, in battleground states such as Michigan and Colorado. And polls place a Democratic challenger well ahead of the incumbent Republican governor in the frequently competitive state of Pennsylvania.
These 2014 races are consequential for 2016, Christie told the Chamber group.
“The fact is it doesn’t matter if you don’t really care what happens in these states,” he said, “you’re going to care about who is running the state in November of 2016, what kind of political apparatus they’ve set up and what kind of governmental apparatus they’ve set up to ensure a full and fair election in 2016.”
“All of those things are incredibly important,” Christie concluded.
No one can argue with him on that point.
Battles over Republican proposals to alter the “voting mechanism” have rocked states across the country over the past several years. Hundreds of proposals that civil rights, voting rights and good government groups say could make it harder to vote have been advanced since the 2010 “Republican wave” election, and dozens have been implemented. Media reports tend to focus on Voter ID laws, and the legal wrangling over those initiatives extended deep into the 2014 election season—just as it could continue deep into the 2016 election season.
But requirements that citizens obtain and present particular forms of identification in order to cast ballots are only the beginning of the long list of voting mechanisms that governors can and do have influence over.
“Nationally there has been a real significant battle over the right to vote in a lot of states across the country, and in particular many Republican-controlled jurisdictions, particularly ones where there were highly competitive races, have passed new laws that make it harder for eligible citizens to vote,” Wendy R. Weiser, the director of the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program, explained to New Jersey’s Bergen County Record. “This is a fairly recent phenomenon; it really stepped up in 2011 after the 2010 election when there was a real shift in partisan control across the country, and it has continued.”
The laws take many forms, but, explained Weiser, “one thing that they appear to all have in common is that they do all fall more harshly on minority voters, low-income voters, seniors and young voters.”
Consider Wisconsin, a state Christie referenced. Since his election in 2010, Republican Governor Walker has advocated for, signed and defended laws—passed by a Republican legislature which reponds to his “jump” command by shouting in unison “how high?”—that include:
* A radical gerrymandering of congressional and legislative district lines that has also been challenged in the courts and that in 2012 produced a circumstance where substantially more ballots were cast for Democratic legislative candidates but Republicans remained firmly in control.
* A shift in the primary election date so that primaries were moved from September to the peak vacation month of August—when many Wisconsinites are away from home and college students are generally on break.
Walker, himself a 2016 presidential prospect, still finds himself in a very tight race this year. That may explain why the governor and his allies fought so hard to implement their voter ID agenda—with the Republican attorney general even saying after the Supreme Court blocked implementation of the law that he was still looking for ways to put restrictions in place this year. (He finally backed off two weeks before election day, but there are still fears about confusion and complexity.)
Walker’s legislative allies are now openly condemning the state’s nonpartisan Government Accountability Board—which is charged with overseeing elections—and talking about taking steps to force its director out.
Chris Christie has been campaigning hard for Walker, despite the fact that the men are potential rivals for their party’s 2016 presidential nomination, Next week, the New Jersey governor will make his second visit this fall to Wisconsin and the RGA just upped its pro-Walker TV ad buy to $2 million, after polls showed the anti-labor incumbent is struggling. The RGA is all in, as well, for Scott in Florida and for Republicans running in battleground states across the country. That’s smart politics for Christie, as it puts him in the spotlight and allows him to get on the good side of Republicans in key states. And if those Republicans happen to be in charge of the “voting mechanisms” of those states in 2016, Christie reminds us, that could be “incredibly important.”
Read Next: John Nichols on seven GOP governors who may lose their re-election bids
Hillary Clinton is never going to be confused for an economic populist. Her record as a key player in Bill Clinton’s administration, as a United States senator, as secretary of state and as a favorite on the corporate speaking circuit in recent years bends a lot more toward Wall Street than Main Street.
But Hillary Clinton understands something important—make that vital—about the politics of 2014.
Clinton recognizes that the issue that matters in 2014 is the economy (number one in the latest Gallup Poll) and that voters want “good jobs” that pay a family-supporting wage (number two in the latest Gallup survey). And Clinton knows that the clearest policy connection between where the economy is today and where it needs to be is made via support for a substantial hike in the minimum wage.
So when the presumed Democratic front-runner in 2016 swept into Kentucky this week to muscle up the US Senate campaign of Clinton-family favorite Alison Lundergan Grimes, Clinton was on message—far more on message, in fact, than most prominent Democrats who have hit the trail this month in an effort to save the Senate, win governorships and generally prevent the 2014 midterms from going the way of the 2010 midterms.
Clinton devoted a substantial portion of her speech in Kentucky—as she has other speeches on a busy schedule of appearances on behalf of Democrats in tight races—to specific and aggressive appeals for voters to cast their ballots with an eye toward increasing the minimum wage.
Mitch McConnell, Grimes’s opponent, has made his opposition to hiking wages for the lowest-paid workers in Kentucky and across the country abundantly clear. When he met with the Koch brothers and their allies at a supposedly secret gathering in California last June, the Kentuckian said that if Republicans take charge of the Senate after the November election, “we’re not going to be debating all these gosh-darn proposals…things like raising the minimum wage.”
Grimes is different. She supports federal proposals to raise the wage to $10.10 an hour. And that’s the stance that Clinton highlighted in her Kentucky swing on behalf of Grimes.
Noting, correctly, that the “scales are weighted against working families,” Clinton told a huge crowd in Louisville, “The truth is not that raising the minimum wage destroys jobs. That has not happened. My husband raised the minimum wage when he was president. I voted to raise the minimum wage when I was a senator. Why? Not only to help minimum wage workers but the ripple effect of raising the minimum wage will add hundreds of millions of dollars to this state’s economy and lift thousands of Kentucky families out of poverty.”
Clinton wove the minimum-hike appeal into her speech at various points, reminding the crowd, “Many of those women, single moms, a lot of them are working two, three jobs just to keep their families afloat. Don’t you think they need a little understanding and support? Don’t you think they deserve a senator who will fight to give them the boost they need?”
Clinton also made it clear that McConnell is not that senator.
“If we are going to make sure that the workers across Kentucky finally get an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage of $10.10 an hour and get rid of one who’s voted against it 17 times,” the former senator from New York said, “it takes Kentucky.”
Of course, raising the minimum wage is smart economic policy.
But it is also smart politics.
Fresh data on the political potency of appeals for a wage-hike comes from the NELP (National Employment Law Project) Action Fund, which commissioned surveys in six battleground states by Public Policy Polling. The polling found that there is “strong support for increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and that Republican candidates could face backlash for their opposition to the raise.”
“A majority of voters in every state supports increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, by margins ranging from 14 to 28 points,” according to an analysis by the pollster. “On average more than 80% of Democrats support the increase, as do at least a plurality of independents and an average of about 30% of Republicans in each state.”
In Kentucky, voters favored a substantial increase in the federal minimum wage by a 56-35 margin.
Seventy-four percent of Kentuckians said they could not live on the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
Most importantly, from a political standpoint, 39 percent of Kentuckians said that if they knew a Republican candidate was opposed to raising the minimum wage, they would be less likely to vote for that candidate.
The numbers from the Senate battleground states of Iowa, Louisiana and North Carolina were strikingly similar, as were the numbers from the gubernatorial battleground states of Illinois and Wisconsin.
The bottom line is this: Hillary Clinton may not be a populist, but she is a savvy politician. And she recognizes a reality: Americans are ready and willing to vote for a dramatically higher minimum wage—and for the candidates who support it.
Read Next: “Scott Walker Thinks $7.25 Is a Living Wage—He’s Wrong .”
Reasonable people may differ on the precise definition of a living wage. But the consensus is that $7.25 an hour does not come close to the standard for assuring that someone who works full time can earn enough to live above the poverty line.
Unfortunately, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s administration has formally rejected that consensus view and is now arguing that $7.25 an hour is a living wage.
Walker disdain for the minimum wage is well established. When a Wisconsin reporter asked the governor this week to clarify his stance with regard to setting a base wage, he explained, "I don't think it serves a purpose."
Walker avows that he is not currently angling to repeal Wisconsin's $7.25 an hour wage rate. But raise it? No way. Indeed, it is now the policy of his administration to say that workers earning that wage are taking home a "sufficent" amount of money to get by.
As with so many economic issues, the virulently anti-labor governor—who is seeking re-election this year and preparing for a 2016 Republican presidential run—is wrong on the facts. He is also at odds with the long-held values of Wisconsin, a state that once led the nation is establishing protections for low-wage workers.
Let’s begin with the facts:
In his groundbreaking book, A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of Consumer Society, the historian Lawrence Glickman explains a living wage as “a wage level that offers workers the ability to support families, to maintain self-respect, and to have both the means and the leisure to participate in the civic life of the nation.”
According to the “Harvard Living Wage Fact Sheet,” “Although living wage standards do, by definition, vary by region, they are all considerably higher than the federal minimum wage.” The fact sheet continues, “This is because the minimum wage does not begin to meet the needs of working people or families anywhere in the country: in fact, it puts a parent with one child below the federal poverty line. A living wage aims to correct this by establishing, at a local level, a more reasonable minimum wage.”
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s “Living Wage Calculator” allows Americans to calculate what that might mean in cities, villages and towns across the United States. In Milwaukee, for instance, the living wage for a single working adult is $9.48 an hour, while the family-friendly living wage—for a single working parent with a child—is $20.85 an hour. In Racine, it’s $8.75 an hour for a working adult and $19.97 an hour for a working parent with a child. In Madison, it’s 9.54 an hour for a working adult and $21.17 an hour for a working parent with a child.
The numbers may vary a bit, but the pattern is clear. And officials and voters in states across the country have begun to respond by hiking minimum-wage rates. Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota will vote this fall on proposals for significant wage increases, and Illinois will vote on an advisory measure on the issue. Additionally, Democratic and Republican candidates in this year’s mid-term elections are expressing support for legislative remedies.
But don’t count Scott Walker in their number.
As Wisconsin’s governor, Walker is uniquely positioned among all governors in the nation to address the concerns of low-wage workers. Unlike most other states, where governors have little or no authority to help low-wage workers, Wisconsin governors can act.
A century ago, when Wisconsin served as the nation’s “laboratory of democracy,” the state’s progressive leaders enacted legislation to address the issue. Wisconsin Statute Sec. 104.02 declares, “Every wage paid or agreed to be paid by any employer to any employee (except in narrowly-defined circumstances for student learners and workers in sheltered workshops) shall be not less than a living wage.”
According to the law, when a governor’s administration receives “a verified complaint of any person setting forth that the wages paid to any employee in any occupation are not sufficient to enable the employee to maintain himself or herself under conditions consistent with his or her welfare,” the complaint must be investigated within twenty days and a determination must be made on “whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the wage paid to any employee is not a living wage.”
If there is a finding “that there is reasonable cause to believe that the wages paid to any employee are not a living wage,” the governor can move to address the issue. A wage council selected to fairly represent employers, employees and the public can be charged with setting a living wage for all workers in the class of employees who are not being adequately compensated.
This is the law. It is also the standard that Wisconsin has lived by since 1913, a standard that recognizes fair compensation for workers is good for the state’s economy and for the state’s democracy. When workers earn a living wage, they are freer to participate more easily and more fully in society.
Support for a living wage was always understood by Wisconsin leaders as being about more than money. It was essential to creating a civil, fair and functional society. That’s why Republicans initiated the state’s living-wage law a century ago, and why Republican and Democratic governors have embraced the law practically and idealistically.
Wisconsin’s living-wage law is not a historical relic. As state Representative Chris Taylor’s office notes, “Recent Democratic and Republican Governors, including Governor Jim Doyle and Tommy Thompson, used their authority under Wisconsin law to increase wages.” And groups such as the Raise Wisconsin coalition of community and labor groups and Wisconsin Jobs Now! have focused on the option as a vehicle to quickly and effectively begin responding to income inequality.
Yet now Scott Walker and his appointees are refusing to take the law seriously.
When a legitimate complaint was presented to Walker’s administration last month, it was quickly rejected—with scant review and an absurd assertion that Wisconsin’s living-wage standard is being met.
Worse yet, when the governor was asked about the issue in the first gubernatorial debate last Friday, he avoided responding to the issue. Pressed a second time by the panelist who had asked the initial question, Walker again refused to address the living-wage law or issues relating to it. He did not even acknowledge what his own administration had just done.
There are many matters on which Scott Walker has broken faith with Wisconsin. But few are so chilling, so deeply unsettling, as his disregard for the condition of the Wisconsinites who work full-time but live in poverty.
This is about much more than politics; Republicans and Democrats have historically respected Wisconsin’s living-wage standard, and it has served the state and its citizens well. Walker’s disregard for it marks him as a political careerist who is more interested in pleasing billionaire campaign donors from Kansas and New York than keeping his oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge the duties” of his position.
Read Next: John Nichols on why Scott Walker will never be president
With Sunday’s confirmation that an ICU nurse at a Dallas hospital that cared for a dying Ebola patient has tested positive for the deadly virus, President Obama ordered federal authorities to “take immediate additional steps to ensure hospitals and healthcare providers nationwide are prepared to follow protocols should they encounter an Ebola patient.”
That’s appropriate, as is the growing sense of urgency with regard to the level of readiness not just for the potential spread of Ebola but for other disease outbreaks.
This is not a time to panic. It is a time to get things right.
“Ebola is dangerous, and our No. 1 responsibility is to keep our people safe,” says Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “But we want to be very careful that we are following the recommendations of the scientific community. We want to use best science here. That’s how we’ll keep ourselves safe. So for me, part of this is the reminder it is powerfully important to make long-term investments, particularly in medical research.”
Warren has not been shy about noting that “with all the spending cutbacks and all the pressure on the National Institute of Health, much of that research has been shelved.”
Warren is right; according to The Hill, “The sequester resulted in a $195 million cut that year to the National Centers for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, a CDC program that tries to prevent illness and death from infectious disease.”
Research is essential, but so too is basic preparedness.
The best way to determine if our hospitals are ready to respond is by asking a nurse. Or, to be more precise, nurses.
The answer, unfortunately, is that our hospitals are not up to speed.
Describing training and preparations as “woefully insufficient,” Castillo says, “We have to continue to sound the alarm. There is the potential for many more Dallases if hospitals are not mandated and do not commit to more vigorous standards. We see potential gaping holes for this to spread.”
Those gaps need to be closed. Resources must be made available to do the address real concerns, and budgets cannot be nickle-and-dimed by austerity-obsessed officials.
“The time to act is long overdue,” says RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of NNU, the nation’s largest nurses union.
NNU leaders have from the start of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa been outspoken regarding the need to provide immediate support for healthcare personnel in Liberia, Sierra Leone and other countries. The union has raised money and offered support for those initiatives.
At the same time, the union has focused attention on the need for greater preparation by US hospitals.
Weeks ago, NNU leaders and members began to sound the alarm—highlighting what Castillo described in September as “the critical need for planning, preparedness and protection at the highest level in hospitals throughout the nation.” And the union took action, launching a national survey of hospital preparedness.
So far, 2,000 registered nurses at more 750 facilities in forty-six states and the District of Columbia have weighed in, providing evidence of serious gaps in readiness.
• “76 percent of those surveyed say their hospital has not communicated to them any policy regarding potential admission of patients infected by Ebola”
• “85 percent say their hospital has not provided education on Ebola with the ability for the nurses to interact and ask questions”
• “37 percent say their hospital has insufficient current supplies of eye protection (face shields or side shields with goggles) for daily use on their unit; 36 percent say there are insufficient supplies of fluid resistant/impermeable gowns in their hospital”
• “39 percent say their hospital does not have plans to equip isolation rooms with plastic covered mattresses and pillows and discard all linens after use; only 8 percent said they were aware their hospital does have such a plan in place.”
NNU leaders have also outlined a response agenda.
The “full emergency preparedness plan” they propose includes a call for:
• “Full training of hospital personnel, along with proper protocols and training materials for responding to outbreaks, with the ability for nurses to interact and ask questions.”
• “Adequate supplies of Hazmat suits and other personal protective equipment.”
• “Properly equipped isolation rooms to assure patient, visitor, and staff safety.”
• “Proper procedures for disposal of medical waste and linens after use.”
The emphasis on the need for rigorous training is echoed by other unions that have a major presence in the nation’s hospitals. Service Employees International Union occupational health and safety director Mark Catlin told Politico that even when medical facilities have protocols, “it’s not clear how well facilities implement them.”
This lack of clarity is the issue that must be addressed.
NNU’s DeMoro warns, “There is no standard short of optimal in protective equipment and hands-on-training that is acceptable.”
It has been suggested that the recipients of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize are “safe choices” because they advocate for the rights of children and for the fair and respectful treatment of girls and women.
Advocacy for an end to child labor, for universal education, for strong trade unions, for economic justice and social democracy, and for an end to war and violence should not be controversial.
But it should be noted that this year’s recipients of the world’s most prestigious prize—India’s Kailash Satyarthi and Pakistan’s Malala Yousafzai—are not mild reformers. They are both bold, challenging and, yes, radical, in their language and their approaches. It is necessary to point this out, because all too frequently the citizen recipients of the Peace Prize are presented in soft focus, without a sense of the stances and actions that have gained them global recognition as peacemakers who address the root causes of violence.
Campaigns for the rights of children, for universal access to education, for an end to child slavery and exploitation are radical initiatives that challenge existing political and economic orders—as when Satyarthi, the founder of Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood Movement), rejected simplistic narratives about child labor.
“Children are employed not just because of parental poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, failure of development and education programmes, but quite essentially due to the fact that employers benefit immensely from child labour as children come across as the cheapest option sometimes even for free,” argues Satyarthi, whose organizing, mass marches and long-term work with the International Labour Organization, with the International Labor Rights Forum and trade union movements in India are credited with freeing tens of thousands of children from modern-day slavery. “When a child is bonded to a street restaurant, the employer is usually an ordinary person of some remote village or town,” he explains, in an analysis that invariably brings global trade and the supply chains of multinational corporations into the debate. “But when children are employed in carpet weaving, or the glass industry or the brassware industry, the employers are ‘big’ people. They generate a lot of foreign exchange through exports and are always considered favorably by the government.”
Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai are engaged activists who have not hesitated to challenge the most powerful political and economic elites in their own countries—and to challenge international leaders. Remember that, when a then–16-year-old Malala Yousafzai met with President Obama, she did not merely accept the “Bravest Girl in the World” accolade she has been accorded since she was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman seeking to silence her campaigning for the education of girls in Pakistan. She told the president that the drone strikes he was authorizing were wrongheaded. And she made sure that everyone knew about it, releasing a statement that noted, “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.”
Later, in a much-less-noted session organized by the World Bank, she extended her remarks to say:
If I talk really from my heart and if I look at the United States of America, only to the government of the United States of America, you all know that people in suffering countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, are really angry with United States.
I think the best way to fight terrorism is not through guns. If you want to end a war through a war, it’s never going to end….
Much of the money is spent on making tanks, on making guns. Much of the money is spent on soldiers. We need to spend the same money on books, on pens, on teachers, and on schools. So, the governments must take an action. It’s the duty of the government. It’s their duty. We want them not to [simply] take a decision according to their views and according to their ideas. We want them to listen to us. We want them to listen to what we say, and we ask them now, that [they] work for education of every child. And do not fight through guns, fight through pens and through books. And take education serious.
So, I think that the governments must take an action.
In her autobiography, Malala Yousafzai recalls coming of age in an intellectually adventurous and politically active Pashtun family, with anticolonialist roots. Her grandfather “would rail against the class system, the continuing power of the khans and the gap between the haves and have-nots.” Her father was inspired by activists who “talked a lot of sense, particularly about wanting to end the feudal and capitalist systems in our country, where the same big families had controlled things for years while the poor got poorer.”
She explains that her father entertained debates about “secularism and socialism on one side and militant Islam on the other.” In 2013, when Pakistani socialists gathered in Lahore for an annual conference, reports on the conference highlighted the moment when a Pakistani from Britain announced that he had a statement from a recovering Malala Yousafzai, which concluded, “I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.”
Those may not sound like “safe choice” words to everyone. But it is worth noting that other recipients of the Nobel Prize for Peace have made statements that were heard at the time—and even now—as radical.
The 1964 recipient of the prize avowed that “we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society.”
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. continued in his historic “Where Do We Go From Here?” address:
There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?” You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?” You begin to ask the question, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two-thirds water?” These are words that must be said.
Ultimately, however, King’s most radical words were his calls for for peace, especially his anti–Vietnam War declarations. Influenced by the advocates of nonviolence Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai hail as their inspirations, King proclaimed:
I’m concerned about a better world. I’m concerned about justice; I’m concerned about brotherhood; I’m concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about that, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can’t murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate through violence. (Darkness cannot put out darkness; only light can do that.
Malala Yousafzai echoed Dr. King when she appeared at the United Nations in 2013. Recalling the attack that nearly killed her, she said, “Even if there was a gun in my hand and he was standing in front of me, I would not shoot him. This is the compassion I have learned from Mohamed, the prophet of mercy, Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha. This the legacy of change I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. This is the philosophy of nonviolence that I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa. And this is the forgiveness that I have learned from my father and from my mother. This is what my soul is telling me: be peaceful and love everyone.”
Read Next: “The Malalas You Don’t See”
With a decision to block implementation of Wisconsin’s controversial voter ID law for the 2014 election, the United States Supreme Court has opted for common sense and democracy over chaos and disenfranchisement.
After a wild judicial ride that saw the Wisconsin law rejected by a federal judge, approved by an appeals court panel, wrangled over by the full appeals court and then finally moved toward an unexpected and rapid process of implementation in time for the state’s high-stakes November 4 election, the Supreme Court pulled the brakes. In an emergency ruling, the High Court’s 6-3 decision vacated the appeals court ruling, preventing the law from going into effect before it can be reviewed. (The only dissents came from rigidly conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.)
Walker, who is seeking re-election this year (even as he prepares to campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination), has steadily defended the voter ID law, just as he has counted on its implementation in time for the November 4 election. For the governor, the High Court ruling is a serious political and policy setback.
For civil rights and voting rights activists, however, it a striking victory. They welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling as recognition of a reality stated by League of Women Voters of Wisconsin executive director Andrea Kaminski: “Clearly there was not enough time for election officials to educate voters, prepare new materials and implement the law in the short time before the November 4 election.”
Legal and practical concerns about last-minute disruption of the voting process may explain what would otherwise seem to be a confusing pattern of decisions by the High Court, which on Wednesday voted to reinstate voting restrictions in North Carolina. (Another decision, on Thursday evening, by US District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, struck down the Texas Voter ID law, which the jurist dismissed as a “poll tax” that would create “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote”—especially for Latino and African-American citizens.)
The United States has uneven voting rules and regulations from state to state, and even within states. This invites abuse and disenfranchisement, and the courts and Congress have a broad responsibility to address dysfunctional and discriminatory electoral practices. That responsibility becomes even greater when late-breaking rule changes upset the orderly conduct of elections.
Concerns about chaos in Wisconsin this fall were real—and widespread.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose the sort of voter ID laws that make the simple process of registering and voting more costly and complicated for students, the elderly and people of color. But the chaos factor provided a unique reason for opposing the implementation of Wisconsin’s requirement that voters show government-issued photo identification in order to vote: the chaos factor.
Against strenuous objections from the state’s civil rights, voting rights and good government groups, and from responsible legislators in both parties, Governor Scott Walker and his allies developed one of the most restrictive voter ID laws in the nation. But it got tripped up in the courts and was finally struck down by US District Judge Lynn Adelman.
In a seventy-page decision that was broadly hailed by voting rights activists and legal scholars, the Milwaukee-based federal jurist ripped the law as not just unnecessary but damaging to democracy.
“There is no way to determine exactly how many people Act 23 [the voter ID law] will prevent or deter from voting without considering the individual circumstances of each of the 300,000 plus citizens who lack an ID,” wrote Adelman, a former Wisconsin state legislator with a deep knowledge of the state and its electoral rules and political values. “But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes.”
That should have been the end of voter ID in Wisconsin. But then a three-judge panel of conservative Seventh Circuit appeals court judges reinstated the law and declared, “The State of Wisconsin may, if it wishes…enforce the photo ID requirement in this November’s elections.”
The state so wished, and chaos ensured. Plans to mail absentee ballots were suspended. University officials scrambled to figure out which student identification cards were valid for voting, and which were not—and to figure out if additional paperwork was required for those seeking to cast ballots. State and county officials made emergency demands for resources to implement a radical change in voting procedures in a state that has traditionally erred on the side of making voting quick and easy. State agencies were inundated with questions about what sort of ID was needed. Officials in major cities made preparations for long lines and a confusing, chaotic and frustrating Election Day. Civil rights activists worried—even as they scrambled to address the mess—that state Representative JoCasta Zamarripa, D-Milwaukee, would be proven right in her assertion that “this ruling will disenfranchise Wisconsin voters and lower voter turnout in this fall’s election.”
At every community event or forum where I spoke in Wisconsin during the last weeks of September, I was asked questions about the voter ID law. What I said was that no matter how people felt about the law, they should be opposed to its last-minute implementation in so chaotic and dysfunctional a manner. While other states had time to prepare for the implementation of new voter ID requirements imposed by Republican legislators and governors, Wisconsin had not, since the assumption was that Judge Adelman’s highly praised ruling would carry the day.
Congresswoman Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin, implored the state’s Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections, to delay implementation of the new law until after the November 4 election—arguing that to rush implementation would “create widespread confusion for voters and election officials.”
Walker and his allies rejected the common-sense proposal for a delay.
But the US Supreme Court accepted the logic of the appeals for a delay, with an emergency intervention that Lisa Subeck, the executive director of the activist group United Wisconsin, hailed for preventing voter suppression.
“In a blatantly desperate political move, Walker made last-minute administrative changes to the process of obtaining an ID and nearly succeeded in suppressing the votes of hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites who lack the required photo identification,” explained Subeck, a Madison city council member who is expected to be elected to the state legislature in November.
“Wisconsin’s law, considered one of the strictest in the nation, is the centerpiece of the Walker administration’s war on voting, and aims to stifle the voices of senior citizens, low-income and minority voters, and students at the ballot box,” added Subeck. “With less than four weeks until election day, the Supreme Court has put the rule of law ahead of the Scott Walker’s political gamesmanship. Tonight’s decision ensures that the right to vote in Wisconsin’s upcoming gubernatorial election will not be infringed upon by an unfair and unconstitutional voter ID law. And I fully expect that Wisconsin voters are now more galvanized than ever to put an end to Walker’s war on voting by making their voices heard in the voting booth on election day.”