The Washington Post is reporting that new U.S. Soccer Federation chief Sunil Gulati sees a return of a professional women's soccer league.
I love soccer, I grew up playing soccer and I believe it to be a sport worthy of being called the world's game. For decades American women have been at the forefront of this sport world-wide and the American men are making strides every year and the 2006 World Cup in Germany this summer will hopefully be a good year for the U.S.
I think with smart planning, the game will take off here, much more than people realize. Young women love the sport, where women of any size can play. With a built in audience and smart marketing, this is a league that can make serious money.
When the WUSA went under, only the WNBA, which is structurally an offshoot of the NBA remained the only professional women's league in the country. I would like to see more full-time professional women's leagues in operation and it is time for the WUSA to comeback.
Some say the WUSA was rushed too soon after the triumph of the 1999 Women's World Cup. That may be, but I also believe that so much pressure was put on the superstars of women's soccer, Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Joy Fawcett, and many others, that the league did a better job of promoting those women, and not enough of a job promoting the sport and the league.
As Gulati said, organizers have hopefully learned their lesson and will have a solid foundation in place.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
GOP Faces Voter Malaise?
Charlie Cook points to the GOP's Problem in 2006--voter malaise.
In a few places, the Republican base may be motivated, but it is because of state and local races that are important. For example, the GOP in MD is motivated both by the possible re-election of Gov. Bob Ehrlich, but aslo the Senate race featuring Michael Steele. Likewise, other states, like Pennsylvania and Illinois feather gubernatorial races that hold a great deal of promise. Thus, I don't necessarily agree fully with Cook's assessment.
On a national level, GOP voter apathy may be present, but we are not talking about a national election. We are talking about Congressional elections which, despite hopes by partisans on both sides, is rarely solely about national issues. Cook mentions some recent gaffs by the Bush administration, the Harriett Miers nomination, the ports deal, and the ongoing war in Iraq. But when people go to the polls in Congressioanl elections, these national issues do not play as much as role as many people, including experts, think. Congressional elections, despite their national impact, are still relatively local elections. Thus, congressional elections, despite hopes and strategies by the Democrats to make this a referendum on the Bush presidency, are rarely true referendums.
Are Democrats more motivated this year? As a national party, absolutely, but can that national motivation translate to action on the local level? In recent elections, Democrats have not demonstrated a great skill at the precinct level ground operation. Thus, while the Dems have the motivation, they may once again fall victim to the GOP's ground operation--just like they did in 2004. Then where will the Dems be?
Hat Tip: Real Clear Polictics
Historically, when parties have suffered unusually large losses in midterm elections, it has been when their voters were either complacent or disillusioned, and the other party was either hungry or angry. That turns tight races into tough losses and races that shouldn't be particularly close into nail-biters.I have to admit, that this particular assessment by Cook, who is stunningly good at this sort of stuff, is right on the mark.
Keep in mind that in presidential elections, roughly half of the voting-age population participates. In midterm elections, it is roughly a third. But the drop-off in participation is hardly uniform. Voter turnout among independents is far lower in midterm elections than in presidential years, and as a result, the election is determined pretty much by partisans, and which party does a better job of getting its base out. Some of this is mechanical, and indeed Republicans have in recent years done a better job than Democrats with the mechanics. But even great mechanics and organizational efforts are limited in their effectiveness when a party's base is not motivated.
In a few places, the Republican base may be motivated, but it is because of state and local races that are important. For example, the GOP in MD is motivated both by the possible re-election of Gov. Bob Ehrlich, but aslo the Senate race featuring Michael Steele. Likewise, other states, like Pennsylvania and Illinois feather gubernatorial races that hold a great deal of promise. Thus, I don't necessarily agree fully with Cook's assessment.
On a national level, GOP voter apathy may be present, but we are not talking about a national election. We are talking about Congressional elections which, despite hopes by partisans on both sides, is rarely solely about national issues. Cook mentions some recent gaffs by the Bush administration, the Harriett Miers nomination, the ports deal, and the ongoing war in Iraq. But when people go to the polls in Congressioanl elections, these national issues do not play as much as role as many people, including experts, think. Congressional elections, despite their national impact, are still relatively local elections. Thus, congressional elections, despite hopes and strategies by the Democrats to make this a referendum on the Bush presidency, are rarely true referendums.
Are Democrats more motivated this year? As a national party, absolutely, but can that national motivation translate to action on the local level? In recent elections, Democrats have not demonstrated a great skill at the precinct level ground operation. Thus, while the Dems have the motivation, they may once again fall victim to the GOP's ground operation--just like they did in 2004. Then where will the Dems be?
Hat Tip: Real Clear Polictics
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
A New focus for the GOP is Needed
Via RealClearPolitics
Yesterday on Real Clear Politics was a piece called Dem Focus on Unmarried Voters Ducks Their Problem. The lead reads like this
Today, in the Washington Post, Democratic pollster Mark Penn, notes that the swing voter still rules the roost on election day. When it comes to pitching to swing voters, the GOP is still the king. In 2002 and 2004 the issue was security and the GOP could capitalize on those concerns. In 2006, the Democrats may have a real shot at this issue, but if the GOP was smart it would turn a corner and start talking about domestic policy. Issues involving morality, abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, and the next civil rights issue, polygamy are going to play well. Not that morality is the only issue.
Education, or more accurately the continued decline of public education, and the incestuous relationship between the Democratic party and the teacher's unions, whom more and more people are blaming for the current state of education, can do wonders for the GOP. Even though the No Child Left Behind Act has been poorly implemented, at least people are talking about the issue in terms dictated by the GOP, accountibility and results. By pointing to the failed concepts of past Democratic administrations on education, and the near lock step adherence to public education by Democratic leaders, despite growing cries for alternatives, is a winning issue.
Finally, the economy is looking quite positive. Hispanic business ownership is on the rise, wholesale inflation has dropped by its biggest percentage in three years, record numbers of people are working, and my personal favorite, income tax refunds are getting bigger, all of these are positives for the Bush Administration that can be capitalized on by the GOP in November. By focusing so much on the war in Iraq, this economic goods news is being buried in an avalanche of war news.
If the Bush Administration can change its tune, the Democrats will be signing to the political equivalent of Ashlee Simpson on Saturday Night Live. All the rehtoric being foisted upon already saturated targeted ears will get lost in the catchy tune of your lot in life is a bit better than it was five years ago. Perhaps it is not morning in America again, but the sunrise is tainting the night skies.
Yesterday on Real Clear Politics was a piece called Dem Focus on Unmarried Voters Ducks Their Problem. The lead reads like this
Democrats lost the 2004 presidential election even though they met the party's goal of turning out more of their targeted voters.The story goes on to relate how the Democratic party is spending too much time talking to the same groups over and over again in the vain hope of picking up voters. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the Democratic party must surely be the most insane group of people on the planet.
Now they have decided to target a new demographic group. But, that group is made up of mostly the same people they have focused on over the years during which they lost their grip on the nation's political power.
Their new target: unmarried people, especially single women.
Today, in the Washington Post, Democratic pollster Mark Penn, notes that the swing voter still rules the roost on election day. When it comes to pitching to swing voters, the GOP is still the king. In 2002 and 2004 the issue was security and the GOP could capitalize on those concerns. In 2006, the Democrats may have a real shot at this issue, but if the GOP was smart it would turn a corner and start talking about domestic policy. Issues involving morality, abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, and the next civil rights issue, polygamy are going to play well. Not that morality is the only issue.
Education, or more accurately the continued decline of public education, and the incestuous relationship between the Democratic party and the teacher's unions, whom more and more people are blaming for the current state of education, can do wonders for the GOP. Even though the No Child Left Behind Act has been poorly implemented, at least people are talking about the issue in terms dictated by the GOP, accountibility and results. By pointing to the failed concepts of past Democratic administrations on education, and the near lock step adherence to public education by Democratic leaders, despite growing cries for alternatives, is a winning issue.
Finally, the economy is looking quite positive. Hispanic business ownership is on the rise, wholesale inflation has dropped by its biggest percentage in three years, record numbers of people are working, and my personal favorite, income tax refunds are getting bigger, all of these are positives for the Bush Administration that can be capitalized on by the GOP in November. By focusing so much on the war in Iraq, this economic goods news is being buried in an avalanche of war news.
If the Bush Administration can change its tune, the Democrats will be signing to the political equivalent of Ashlee Simpson on Saturday Night Live. All the rehtoric being foisted upon already saturated targeted ears will get lost in the catchy tune of your lot in life is a bit better than it was five years ago. Perhaps it is not morning in America again, but the sunrise is tainting the night skies.
Drowning in a Sea of Hypocrisy
Although I am sure that a number of people will be writing on this story about "helicopter parents," so far I have not seen anything that points out the inherent hypocrisy in this story.
The lead in the Washington Post article reads:
Next, I will readily admit that some parents go too far in trying to protect their kids. I will also admit that when my daughters start school, I will probably be a terror to teachers and principals, because I will demand accountibility, mutual respect, and responsiveness. I expect no less of my elected representatives and I demand no less of those whose salaries are paid with my tax money.
However, having said that, I want my girls to be savvy, indepedent women in their own right. It is bad enough that in 7 or 8 years I will be completely uncool and be relegated to serve only as their bank and taxi service, but I don't need to be needlessly involving myself in their every little mistake nor protesting the grades the earn.
Yet, when I read stories about how schools are having difficulty getting parents engaged in their child's education, I wonder, what could the schools be doing to make that happen or not happen. After reading some of the comments in this story by educators, I get a glimmer of understanding.
Schools want parents involved, but only to the extent that schools are willing to permit!! Anything beyond the "come to our parent/teacher conferences, show up at school events, make sure you kid does their homework, and sign you kid's report card" apparently becomes a burden upon the schools. It is an extension of the "nanny state" mentality, that the school system knows better than parents what is best for their kids and parents should just let the schools manage everything, except when it comes time for the limited parental involvement. The situations described in this story are most likely on the extreme side, but you cannot help but notice the hypocrisy dripping off the edges of this story like so much educratese molasses.
So what is really the source of the parental involvement. The story seems to indicate that it is function of the "symbolic value of children" that drives parents to be overly involved in their child's life. However, I wonder how much of it stems from the distrust that many American parents now have of our schools.
Distrust of the public school system in general seems to be driving this aspect of helicopter parental behavior. For decades we have been hearing that our schools are in decline, that they no longer effectively educate our children. Has that mentality (and I am a big purveyor of that position) finally taken root to the extent that parents now fight tooth and nail to make sure their kids get a decent education?
By the same token, the school system draws the line in the wrong place. When helicopter parents swoop in, how many schools will cave under the relentless pressure of out of bounds parents? How many principals and teachers will say, "you have a point about little Johnny and Jane, but your kids are the ones who did poorly on the test, or can't behave in class, or didn't do their homework. Their marks are a reflection of your child's effort and you lack of effort to police their activity." The answer, I fear is not nearly enough. the result, coddled kids who can't think for themselves, or live with the consequences of their actions, without parental intervention.
Whoa!! Quite a rant. I will leave it there for now.
The lead in the Washington Post article reads:
They are needy, overanxious and sometimes plain pesky -- and schools at every level are trying to find ways to deal with them.and continues thusly
No, not students. Parents -- specifically parents of today's "millennial generation" who, many educators are discovering, can't let their kids go.
To handle the modern breed of micromanaging parent, educators are devising programs to help them separate from their kids -- and they are taking a harder line on especially intrusive parents.I should note that no teacher or administrator should have to deal with an verbally abusive parent, but refusing to meet with such parents is not going to resolve the parent's issue. Simply have the meeting with several people present, including, if possible a lawyer. (Note: nothing smooths out abusive people than having an opposing lawyer present--it is amazing how well-mannered people get.)
At seminars, such as one in Phoenix last year titled "Managing Millennial Parents," they swap strategies on how to handle the "hovercrafts" or "helicopter parents," so dubbed because of a propensity to swoop in at the slightest crisis.
snip
Teachers and principals in the early grades began noticing changes in parents in the 1990s. Parents began spending more time in classrooms. Then they began calling teachers frequently. Then came e-mails, text messages -- sometimes both at once. Today schools are trying to figure out how to take back a measure of control.
Some parents who once had unlimited access to classrooms or school hallways are being kicked out, principals say. Teachers are refusing to meet with parents they consider abusive, some say. A number of private schools have added language in their enrollment contracts and handbooks warning that a student can be asked to leave as a result of a parent's behavior. Some have tossed out children because their parents became too difficult to work with.
Next, I will readily admit that some parents go too far in trying to protect their kids. I will also admit that when my daughters start school, I will probably be a terror to teachers and principals, because I will demand accountibility, mutual respect, and responsiveness. I expect no less of my elected representatives and I demand no less of those whose salaries are paid with my tax money.
However, having said that, I want my girls to be savvy, indepedent women in their own right. It is bad enough that in 7 or 8 years I will be completely uncool and be relegated to serve only as their bank and taxi service, but I don't need to be needlessly involving myself in their every little mistake nor protesting the grades the earn.
Yet, when I read stories about how schools are having difficulty getting parents engaged in their child's education, I wonder, what could the schools be doing to make that happen or not happen. After reading some of the comments in this story by educators, I get a glimmer of understanding.
Schools want parents involved, but only to the extent that schools are willing to permit!! Anything beyond the "come to our parent/teacher conferences, show up at school events, make sure you kid does their homework, and sign you kid's report card" apparently becomes a burden upon the schools. It is an extension of the "nanny state" mentality, that the school system knows better than parents what is best for their kids and parents should just let the schools manage everything, except when it comes time for the limited parental involvement. The situations described in this story are most likely on the extreme side, but you cannot help but notice the hypocrisy dripping off the edges of this story like so much educratese molasses.
So what is really the source of the parental involvement. The story seems to indicate that it is function of the "symbolic value of children" that drives parents to be overly involved in their child's life. However, I wonder how much of it stems from the distrust that many American parents now have of our schools.
Distrust of the public school system in general seems to be driving this aspect of helicopter parental behavior. For decades we have been hearing that our schools are in decline, that they no longer effectively educate our children. Has that mentality (and I am a big purveyor of that position) finally taken root to the extent that parents now fight tooth and nail to make sure their kids get a decent education?
By the same token, the school system draws the line in the wrong place. When helicopter parents swoop in, how many schools will cave under the relentless pressure of out of bounds parents? How many principals and teachers will say, "you have a point about little Johnny and Jane, but your kids are the ones who did poorly on the test, or can't behave in class, or didn't do their homework. Their marks are a reflection of your child's effort and you lack of effort to police their activity." The answer, I fear is not nearly enough. the result, coddled kids who can't think for themselves, or live with the consequences of their actions, without parental intervention.
Whoa!! Quite a rant. I will leave it there for now.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Risking a Ticket by Teaching
Yet another problem facing teachers in D.C.--parking.
This seems like such an easy fix and I wonder why the school administration, both at the school level and the district-wide administration can't make this happen?
This seems like such an easy fix and I wonder why the school administration, both at the school level and the district-wide administration can't make this happen?
Friday, March 17, 2006
A Debate Worth Watching
The EduWonk has a brilliant idea, let John Stossel and Randi Weingarten debate the issues presented in Stossel's 20/20 piece on schools.Eduwonk.com
I for one would dispense with an entire day of vacation to see such a debate live.
I for one would dispense with an entire day of vacation to see such a debate live.
The Most Unreported Story I Know
If, in the words of Michelle Malkin, you visit no other site today, go visit this one and just peruse through the document summaries. The link is to the Foriegn Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center which has posted dozens of documents regarding the link between Al-Queda and Iraq. Also, check out this document, a translation of Al Qaida's by-laws.
What is shocking to me is how little this is being covered in the media? Generally, I don't subscribe to the mass conspiracy of the mainstream media, but when a whole industry is ignoring these documents, it does make me wonder why?
Michelle has links to dozens of bloggers working their way through the documents.
We now return to our reguarly scheduled programming.
What is shocking to me is how little this is being covered in the media? Generally, I don't subscribe to the mass conspiracy of the mainstream media, but when a whole industry is ignoring these documents, it does make me wonder why?
Michelle has links to dozens of bloggers working their way through the documents.
We now return to our reguarly scheduled programming.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
�06 elections test political physics
Democratic pollster Mark Mellman makes note of a particular factor working against Democrats in 2006:
This is not to say that if the GOP doesn't get its head out, that the Democrats can't win the House back, but with recent efforts on the part of Congressional Republicans to stake out a position different than the President, they may be insulating themselves (to the extent possible) against charges of being a Bush "yes man."
Of course, time will tell if Mellman's theory is right. Mellman's piece is pretty good this week, go check it out.
One measure of political instability: the number of Republicans holding seats that vote Democratic for president and vice versa. When big political waves hit, that is precisely where much of the action is. In the two prior presidential elections, Bush (the father) or Reagan had won 30 of the 34 seats Democratic incumbents lost in ’94. Similarly, two-thirds of the Republican incumbents who lost in ’82 were running in districts presidential Democrats had won just previously.Thus, because there is less ticket splitting on the national and Congressional level, there is less likely to be a massive change in party control.
Today, though, there are fewer mismatched seats than at any point in recent history. Going into 1994, 53 Democrats held seats won by Bush in 1992. Today just 18 Republicans hold seats won by Kerry. So, while forces in the political environment push strongly in a Democratic direction, they are acting on a relatively stable structure: Hence the test.
This is not to say that if the GOP doesn't get its head out, that the Democrats can't win the House back, but with recent efforts on the part of Congressional Republicans to stake out a position different than the President, they may be insulating themselves (to the extent possible) against charges of being a Bush "yes man."
Of course, time will tell if Mellman's theory is right. Mellman's piece is pretty good this week, go check it out.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Stossel Responds to the Critics--Again
Via Real Clear Politics
John Stossel responds to the protetors angered over his "Stupid in America" story that appeared many weeks ago. Since doing Stupid in America, Stossel has authored a number of pieces on education that can be found here.
Among the many arguments and refutations in this article was this particular gem!!!
John Stossel responds to the protetors angered over his "Stupid in America" story that appeared many weeks ago. Since doing Stupid in America, Stossel has authored a number of pieces on education that can be found here.
Among the many arguments and refutations in this article was this particular gem!!!
And I was especially surprised by one history lesson they taught me: "Public schools are what distinguish democracies from every other system in the world," and a country without strong public schools "lends itself to authoritarian thinking."If you are looking for good arguments to refute the most commonly cited reasons that anti-choice advocates spout, Stossel's essay is a good starting point.
Fascinating. I guess the Communists all went to private school. And I guess having a unionized government monopoly running most of our schools, and forcing students to attend those schools regardless of whether they or their parents approve of what's taught there, will make sure that the government can never indoctrinate our children -- and neither can labor unions.
Illinois College Newspaper Editor Fired
CNN.com is reporting that Acton H. Gorton was fired for failing to discuss the publication of the cartoons depicting Mohammed in the University of Illinois' school newspaper. Obstensibly,
I find it unlikely that Gorton's ouster was because he failed to consult. Rather, I believe the Board of Directors chickened out because of the controversy. If I ran a newspaper (and I am probably too conservative to do so), then I would want editors like Mr. Gorton on staff. I don't want writers and editors to shy away from controversy. After all, they have a Constitutionally protected freedom of the press and I don't want press censored for the timid and faint of heart, I want to know what is going on in the world--even if it is ugly. The cartoons were newsworthy and deserved to be published.
If Muslims take offense, well that is just too bad. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is designed to protect the controversial, not the sterilized.
[t]he Illini Media Co. board of directors, which comprises students and faculty, voted unanimously to fire the editor after a review "found that Gorton violated Daily Illini policies about thoughtful discussion of and preparation for the publication of inflammatory material," according to a statement.I have a question about these policies. Is it not the editor's job to make decisions about publishing material? What if the inflammatory material had been about a racial incident on campus and Gorton decided to publish the statements made by the participants? What if the inflammatory material had been about a different subject? Would Gorton have been fired for failing to adhere to policies?
I find it unlikely that Gorton's ouster was because he failed to consult. Rather, I believe the Board of Directors chickened out because of the controversy. If I ran a newspaper (and I am probably too conservative to do so), then I would want editors like Mr. Gorton on staff. I don't want writers and editors to shy away from controversy. After all, they have a Constitutionally protected freedom of the press and I don't want press censored for the timid and faint of heart, I want to know what is going on in the world--even if it is ugly. The cartoons were newsworthy and deserved to be published.
If Muslims take offense, well that is just too bad. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is designed to protect the controversial, not the sterilized.
Education Carnivals--Go visit
The Carnival of Homeschooling is being hosted this week by The Common Room.
The Ed Wonks host this week's Carnival of Education.
The Ed Wonks host this week's Carnival of Education.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The Autonomy (or lack thereof) of Principals
Over the weekend, the Washington Post Outlook Section contained a piece entitledWhy Is Your School On This List?, a series of statements by a number of Washington area school principals explaining why their school is on the needs improvement list as required by NCLB.
Admittedly, at first, all I saw was excuses, mostly because I don't handle excuses well because I see them as a mechanism for dodging responsibility. All of the usual suspects were there, "NCLB is too inflexible" (all evidence to the contrary), "we need more money," "I have too many (poor, special ed, minority) students in my schoo." The litany seemed to go on and on. On the surface, I did not see one school leader stand up and say, "We are on the list because I didn't do enough. It was my responsibility to make sure these kids are taught their lessons and I failed." I have always admired people who own up to their mistakes. But I didn't see any of that and thus, initially, I was angry at these principals.
But on a second reading I began to wonder about a few structural issues. All the people interviewed are principals and thus would, at least in my world view, be given the responsibility and the power to make adjustments in resources to address those areas needing help. After all, the term principal impliedly contains the concept of policy making authority. But then I remembered, schools are run like rational organizations. School principals, at least it appears, are nothing more than automatons for the district administration (the micromanagers) and playthings for the unions, whose contracts tend to tie principals hands too much.
And so I began to ask myself these questions (not necessarily in this order):
But from what I read in this Post article principals appear to lack all authority to effect change at their schools. We intuitively hold principals accountable for the test results, otherwise we would not be asking principals why. So the question is this, if principals are held publicly accountable, how much autonomy do they have to address problems?
If the answer is not enough autonomy, then we need to give the autonomy and right damn now. If the principal does not, or cannot, have the power to effect changes, let us ditch them, retain their salary and put that money to better use. If a principal (a title which implies a certain policy-making authority) lacks the ability to effect change, they are a waste of time, space, money, and oxygen.
In reading a number of blogs by teachers, I am constantly amazed at the descriptions fo the ineptitude of principals, vice principals and other administrators. I know people like to complain about their job, their bosses, etc, but how much do these people really stand in the way of a good education system? How much of the inflexibility and intolerance apparently shown by administrators is a result of the administrator's incompetence and how much is a result of outside forces, like state law, regulations, union contracts and the like?
Anyone with answers, please let me know.
Admittedly, at first, all I saw was excuses, mostly because I don't handle excuses well because I see them as a mechanism for dodging responsibility. All of the usual suspects were there, "NCLB is too inflexible" (all evidence to the contrary), "we need more money," "I have too many (poor, special ed, minority) students in my schoo." The litany seemed to go on and on. On the surface, I did not see one school leader stand up and say, "We are on the list because I didn't do enough. It was my responsibility to make sure these kids are taught their lessons and I failed." I have always admired people who own up to their mistakes. But I didn't see any of that and thus, initially, I was angry at these principals.
But on a second reading I began to wonder about a few structural issues. All the people interviewed are principals and thus would, at least in my world view, be given the responsibility and the power to make adjustments in resources to address those areas needing help. After all, the term principal impliedly contains the concept of policy making authority. But then I remembered, schools are run like rational organizations. School principals, at least it appears, are nothing more than automatons for the district administration (the micromanagers) and playthings for the unions, whose contracts tend to tie principals hands too much.
And so I began to ask myself these questions (not necessarily in this order):
- What is the role and purpose of a principal?
- What is the scope of the power of a principal in general?
- What are the limitations on that power?
- How did those limitations arise?
- What can school boards and legislators do to give more power and control to the principals?
- What can parents and citizens do to give principals more power to address school-level concerns?
But from what I read in this Post article principals appear to lack all authority to effect change at their schools. We intuitively hold principals accountable for the test results, otherwise we would not be asking principals why. So the question is this, if principals are held publicly accountable, how much autonomy do they have to address problems?
If the answer is not enough autonomy, then we need to give the autonomy and right damn now. If the principal does not, or cannot, have the power to effect changes, let us ditch them, retain their salary and put that money to better use. If a principal (a title which implies a certain policy-making authority) lacks the ability to effect change, they are a waste of time, space, money, and oxygen.
In reading a number of blogs by teachers, I am constantly amazed at the descriptions fo the ineptitude of principals, vice principals and other administrators. I know people like to complain about their job, their bosses, etc, but how much do these people really stand in the way of a good education system? How much of the inflexibility and intolerance apparently shown by administrators is a result of the administrator's incompetence and how much is a result of outside forces, like state law, regulations, union contracts and the like?
Anyone with answers, please let me know.
Watchdog's tax status, politics are questioned
The Hill News is reporting that activities undertaken by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are being scrutinized by the IRS.
It is important to note that despite their seemingly naked partisanship in terms of outcomes, just because the GOP has been CREW's target does not necessarily make them a partisan organziation--but it surely doesn't look good.
CREW’s activity could draw scrutiny from the IRS, which late last month issued new guidance on political activity by 501(c)3 tax-exempt groups. CREW is such a group, which means donations to it are tax-deductible.CREW has gained a name for itself by filing a number of complaints, reported at more than 20, against Republican Lawmakers. CREW's Chief, Melanie Sloan, is a former aide to Democratic lawmakers John Conyers (MI) and Chuck Schumer (NY). Other prominent Democratic operatives serve in key positions within the organization.
After finding that nearly 60 tax-exempt organizations engaged in some level of prohibited political activity during the 2004 election cycle, the agency reaffirmed its policy that “all Section 501(c)3 organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition) to any candidate for elective political office.”
The agency has announced: “With the 2006 campaign season approaching, the IRS is launching enhanced education and enforcement efforts, based on the findings and analysis of the 2004 election cycle.”
The IRS did not release the names of the organizations it found had engaged in political activity.
Groups that violate the policy are subject to hefty financial penalties or revocation of their tax status, several tax experts said. Republican Party officials say they are weighing a tax complaint against CREW for engaging in partisan activity.
It is important to note that despite their seemingly naked partisanship in terms of outcomes, just because the GOP has been CREW's target does not necessarily make them a partisan organziation--but it surely doesn't look good.
Blue State Extinction?
Via Real Clear Politics
In an op-ed yesterday, appearing in the USA Today, Phillip Longmannoted
Longerman continues in a similar vein
At any rate, Longerman makes a great case for why conservative, some would say patriarchal, but I don't think that is necessarily the case, society is on the rise. But in America, blue states are becoming extinct, literally.
In an op-ed yesterday, appearing in the USA Today, Phillip Longmannoted
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.If we assume for a moment that most children learn their politics from their parents, such a trend does not bode well for the Democrats in America. To say that liberal Democrats are a dying breed is not just rhetoric, it appears to be a fact.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.
Longerman continues in a similar vein
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.I currently have two daughters. I certainly would like a son (most fathers do, despite what we say about just wanting a healthy baby), but right now the jury is out in my family on having another child, particularly since my wife has endured a two pregnancies, niether of which was particularly kind, and a couple of traumatic miscarriages. I wonder where we fit into this equation. My wife is certainly more liberal than I and we do have a mixed household politically.
At any rate, Longerman makes a great case for why conservative, some would say patriarchal, but I don't think that is necessarily the case, society is on the rise. But in America, blue states are becoming extinct, literally.
This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.While religious fundamentalism may present some problems, I don't fear social conservatism in America. Social Conservatism believes in a moral line, there are somethings that are right and wrong. Morality is not a ethical variable.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Bin Laden's niece to star in reality show
This is how we will win the war against Bin Laden, make reality stars of his entire family--guaranteed that no one will care about him or his family ever again. MSNBC.com had this piece including a photo that has undoubtedly led the Taliban to call for her death and is decidedly un-Muslim.
Photo Courtesy of MSNBC.com
Hmm! Just so we are sure, here is another photo from the same GQ photo spread as the above photo:
Photo Courtesy of MSNBC.com
Hmm! Just so we are sure, here is another photo from the same GQ photo spread as the above photo:
Professors of Pretense
Last week, George Will added insult to injury for the Professors of Pretense, the law professors challenging the Solomon Amendment.
I wonder how many of these professors teach constitutional law? I vividly remember my Con Law professor saying that when it comes to the spending power, Congress can add pretty much any strings it wants to the money, including requiring recipients to do something. This is afterall how the drinking age got raised to 21 and how the speed limit was pegged at 55 for a while, Congress condititioned the receipt of federal highway money on the states taking those actions.
I wonder how many of these professors teach constitutional law? I vividly remember my Con Law professor saying that when it comes to the spending power, Congress can add pretty much any strings it wants to the money, including requiring recipients to do something. This is afterall how the drinking age got raised to 21 and how the speed limit was pegged at 55 for a while, Congress condititioned the receipt of federal highway money on the states taking those actions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who, during last December's oral argument, blandly said of the schools' desire to discriminate against the military, "You are perfectly free to do that, if you don't take the money." On Monday Roberts's shredding of the law schools' arguments included a tartness that betrayed impatience with law professors who cannot understand pertinent distinctions.
More From the Baltimore Schools Battleground
The Baltimore Sun reports on school closings in the west side of the city. If this mess doesn't get cleaned up and soon, the fallout could affect Mayor Martin O'Malley's bid for governor this year.
Two Campaign Funds, Mischief Likely
This is an interesting issue for campaign finance lawyers--what to do with state elected officials who have a state campaign fund, but are running for federal office. While mischief is not necessarily likely, it does present a potential problem. From the Roll Call report (subscription required):
Although this story is focused on two Maryland candidates, it is a question that has application across the country. Many current state officials often run for federal office and the campaign rules can vary widely. I tend to think this is relatively easy to track, any half-way competent auditor should be able to spot spending in accounts.
One of my favorite campaign finance reformers, Larry Noble get his two cents in:
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) and state Sen. Paula Hollinger (D), candidates in the Free State’s two most competitive and expensive Congressional races this year, have hundreds of thousands of dollars squirreled away in their state campaign accounts.An excellent question, but one that could work both ways, what if a Representative is running for Governor or something similar?
Although the overwhelming majority of financial activity since they became Congressional candidates has involved their newer, federal campaign accounts, their state funds are still open and active — raising questions about whether campaign money could be commingled, in violation of federal and state election laws.
Although this story is focused on two Maryland candidates, it is a question that has application across the country. Many current state officials often run for federal office and the campaign rules can vary widely. I tend to think this is relatively easy to track, any half-way competent auditor should be able to spot spending in accounts.
One of my favorite campaign finance reformers, Larry Noble get his two cents in:
"It’s a potential problem, and what it requires is very separate accounting and very separate enforcement, which doesn’t always happen," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.Let's assume for a moment that both candidates have made sure their state and federal reporting are according to the rules (and there is no indication that it has not been), then it seems to me the problem is with the reporting regulations, but Noble seems to imply both shady attemps by the candidates to evade the rules and a failure of the rules themselves.
Federal and Maryland election officials said that state expenditures such as the ones Steele and Hollinger made can be kosher, depending on what they were used for and when they were parceled out.
"The reality is, the way the reporting is done, you don’t always know what the expenditure is," Noble said.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Why Redistricting Reform Will Fail, pt. 2
In my last post on this subject, I discussed the concept of retrogression and how that judicial and legal interpretation will bring about the downfall of Rep. John Tanner's bill which would create independent redistricting commissions (IRCs) in the states to tackle the task of drawing the lines for Congressional districts after each census. This segment will deal with the legal claim of vote dilution.
Vote dilution is often described as the diminuation of the voting power of a bloc of voters, specifically minority voters. Unlike retrogression, vote dilution is not the reduction of a minority group within one district, but rather the spreading of minority voters across several districts. But this argument flies in the logical face of the fundamental basis of district, the one person, one vote doctrine. Not only that, the doctrine itself is inherently racist and particularly untenable given the subjective nature of districing. Finally, if an IRC model is to work effectively, maintaining the claim of vote dilution will only serve to undermine the purpose of the IRC.
Since the 1960's and the annunciation of the one person, one vote doctrine handed down by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr and its progeny, congressional and state legislative districts are expected to be as equal in terms of the number of people as practicable. In Congressional districts, strict numerical equality is all but a requirement, where only a slight deviation, usually deviations between districts that can be counted on two hands, is permitted. The standard makes no mention of outside criteria, such as the number of Republicans vs. Democrats, the number of citizens vs. aliens (legal or otherwise), the number of eligible voters vs. those not eligible to vote (i.e. children). No, the standard refers to numerical equality, but strict numerical equality in population is not necessarily one person, one vote since there is, within any given district, a certain, significant percentage of people who have no right to vote.
But aside from the convenient fiction that is modern redistricting, the legal standard of one person, one vote assigns an empirical value to each person's vote, one. The claim of vote dilution distorts this empirical value by trying to accomplish three mathematically impossible propositions, each of which is impossible in the real world.
Using very basic math, we can understand that x, which is the vote of a person, equals 1. Also in math, we can understand that x, a variable, can have one of three characteristics:
But when plaintiffs bring a vote dilution claim, they are arguing that X, the power of a citizen's vote is, at teh same time, less than and greater than the legal standard of one. When a plaintiff argues that a district has diluted their vote, they are implicitly saying, my vote has been made less than one. However, we can obviously see that the plaintiff's vote is not counted any differently than it was before the new district, their vote still counts as one.
However, vote dilution isn't really about one person's vote, but about many people's vote. Under a vote dilution claim, plaintiffs argue that because of their status as a minority, their individual vote is MORE valuable than one else's vote. Thus, the vote of minorities is greater than one.
In other words, a vote dilution claim argues that some votes are more valuable than others, so that they are deserving of an additional protection, that of not having their votes diluted by drawing lines that break up a voting bloc of racial minorities. At teh same time, the claim implicitly argues that the vote of a group of minorities is weaker than everyone elses and therefore must be aggregated together so that they can have an impact on the outcome of an election.
The arguement, in addition to being a logical fallacy, carries an inherent and almost explict tone of racism. Along with majority minority districts and retrogression, a vote dilution claim has ONLY been brought by a racial minority, i.e. blacks, hispanics or asians (although I know of no case involving vote dilution of an asian population). A minority of white voters, in urban New York, for example, are not likely to succeed on a claim of vote dilution if their numbers are spread across a number of districts. So a paternalistic law was passed to "protect" the power of minorities to "elect a candidate of their choice." The claim says that without the protection of the state, your one vote is not worth the same as other voters. So in order to give more power to you, we will, arbitrarily, give more weight to your vote, but only in certain circumstances. We will also prevent the government from breaking up your voting bloc.
But the vote dilution claim also forces minority voters into an electoral ghetto, one in which they cannot escape because the legal system will not allow a voting bloc to be broken down in any way. Either it is retrogression or vote dilution, or both. The electoral ghetto assumes that all members of a racial minority vote in the same way, an assumption we know to be false. Fully 40% of hispanics (and large in some communities like Cubans, voted Republican in 2004. A growing segment of black voters are also voting Republican, 11% in 2004, up from 9% in 2000. Thus, the claim of vote dilution, which is based on the idea of a cohesive voting bloc of minority voters, assumes a faulty presumption, that racial minorities vote as a bloc.
Returning to the dilemma faced by an Independent Redistricting Commission, if the IRC makes a line drawing choice, entirely logical upon its face and in keeping with the procedural mandates it must operate under, any dilution of a minority bloc runs the risk of invalidating the map. For example, if State B has one large city that cannot be accomodated in one congressional district, the IRC must decide how to divide the city. Assume a river, a natural boundary that can be respected for districting purposes, runs through the center of the city. The population on each side of the city happens to be roughly equal. So the IRC says everyone on the north side of the river is put into District 1 and everyone on the south side of the river into district 2. But a large black community straddles the river on the east side of the city, by dividing the city in the way it did, the IRC runs the risk of having the plan invalidated.
Once again, the dictates of a Voting Rights Act interpretation will eviscerate the power of the IRC to draw lines to find strict numerical equality. Tanner's bill, while noble in cause, and probably practical (assuming it survives constitutional challenge) cannot operate in an atmosphere where inane VRA challenges, like vote dilution, can void the effort of the IRC. Tanner and redistricting refomers would be far better off insulating IRCs from these pressures, perhaps by banning the vote dilution claim altogether.
Next Time: Recommendations for Improvement.
Vote dilution is often described as the diminuation of the voting power of a bloc of voters, specifically minority voters. Unlike retrogression, vote dilution is not the reduction of a minority group within one district, but rather the spreading of minority voters across several districts. But this argument flies in the logical face of the fundamental basis of district, the one person, one vote doctrine. Not only that, the doctrine itself is inherently racist and particularly untenable given the subjective nature of districing. Finally, if an IRC model is to work effectively, maintaining the claim of vote dilution will only serve to undermine the purpose of the IRC.
Since the 1960's and the annunciation of the one person, one vote doctrine handed down by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr and its progeny, congressional and state legislative districts are expected to be as equal in terms of the number of people as practicable. In Congressional districts, strict numerical equality is all but a requirement, where only a slight deviation, usually deviations between districts that can be counted on two hands, is permitted. The standard makes no mention of outside criteria, such as the number of Republicans vs. Democrats, the number of citizens vs. aliens (legal or otherwise), the number of eligible voters vs. those not eligible to vote (i.e. children). No, the standard refers to numerical equality, but strict numerical equality in population is not necessarily one person, one vote since there is, within any given district, a certain, significant percentage of people who have no right to vote.
But aside from the convenient fiction that is modern redistricting, the legal standard of one person, one vote assigns an empirical value to each person's vote, one. The claim of vote dilution distorts this empirical value by trying to accomplish three mathematically impossible propositions, each of which is impossible in the real world.
Using very basic math, we can understand that x, which is the vote of a person, equals 1. Also in math, we can understand that x, a variable, can have one of three characteristics:
- X can be less than 1,
- X can equal 1, or
- X can be greater than 1
But when plaintiffs bring a vote dilution claim, they are arguing that X, the power of a citizen's vote is, at teh same time, less than and greater than the legal standard of one. When a plaintiff argues that a district has diluted their vote, they are implicitly saying, my vote has been made less than one. However, we can obviously see that the plaintiff's vote is not counted any differently than it was before the new district, their vote still counts as one.
However, vote dilution isn't really about one person's vote, but about many people's vote. Under a vote dilution claim, plaintiffs argue that because of their status as a minority, their individual vote is MORE valuable than one else's vote. Thus, the vote of minorities is greater than one.
In other words, a vote dilution claim argues that some votes are more valuable than others, so that they are deserving of an additional protection, that of not having their votes diluted by drawing lines that break up a voting bloc of racial minorities. At teh same time, the claim implicitly argues that the vote of a group of minorities is weaker than everyone elses and therefore must be aggregated together so that they can have an impact on the outcome of an election.
The arguement, in addition to being a logical fallacy, carries an inherent and almost explict tone of racism. Along with majority minority districts and retrogression, a vote dilution claim has ONLY been brought by a racial minority, i.e. blacks, hispanics or asians (although I know of no case involving vote dilution of an asian population). A minority of white voters, in urban New York, for example, are not likely to succeed on a claim of vote dilution if their numbers are spread across a number of districts. So a paternalistic law was passed to "protect" the power of minorities to "elect a candidate of their choice." The claim says that without the protection of the state, your one vote is not worth the same as other voters. So in order to give more power to you, we will, arbitrarily, give more weight to your vote, but only in certain circumstances. We will also prevent the government from breaking up your voting bloc.
But the vote dilution claim also forces minority voters into an electoral ghetto, one in which they cannot escape because the legal system will not allow a voting bloc to be broken down in any way. Either it is retrogression or vote dilution, or both. The electoral ghetto assumes that all members of a racial minority vote in the same way, an assumption we know to be false. Fully 40% of hispanics (and large in some communities like Cubans, voted Republican in 2004. A growing segment of black voters are also voting Republican, 11% in 2004, up from 9% in 2000. Thus, the claim of vote dilution, which is based on the idea of a cohesive voting bloc of minority voters, assumes a faulty presumption, that racial minorities vote as a bloc.
Returning to the dilemma faced by an Independent Redistricting Commission, if the IRC makes a line drawing choice, entirely logical upon its face and in keeping with the procedural mandates it must operate under, any dilution of a minority bloc runs the risk of invalidating the map. For example, if State B has one large city that cannot be accomodated in one congressional district, the IRC must decide how to divide the city. Assume a river, a natural boundary that can be respected for districting purposes, runs through the center of the city. The population on each side of the city happens to be roughly equal. So the IRC says everyone on the north side of the river is put into District 1 and everyone on the south side of the river into district 2. But a large black community straddles the river on the east side of the city, by dividing the city in the way it did, the IRC runs the risk of having the plan invalidated.
Once again, the dictates of a Voting Rights Act interpretation will eviscerate the power of the IRC to draw lines to find strict numerical equality. Tanner's bill, while noble in cause, and probably practical (assuming it survives constitutional challenge) cannot operate in an atmosphere where inane VRA challenges, like vote dilution, can void the effort of the IRC. Tanner and redistricting refomers would be far better off insulating IRCs from these pressures, perhaps by banning the vote dilution claim altogether.
Next Time: Recommendations for Improvement.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Presidential Race Field Set? More or Less
Is the 2008 presidential race already down to 7 or 8 real candidates, even in early 2006? Stu Rothenberg, writing in Roll Call seems to think so:
If I’m right that the fundamentals of a presidential race have made it more difficult for long shots to pull off surprise victories, then we already have a pretty good idea who the 2008 White House nominees will be.
The GOP will nominate Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) or George Allen (Va.) or Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The Democrats will nominate Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Evan Bayh (Ind.), former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner or former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). That’s it. The odds are very, very good that two of those seven hopefuls will be on the ballot for president in November 2008. One or two others may be in the No. 2 slot.
snip
Even though the next president will come from a group of six or seven people we can now identify, that is no reason to ignore other hopefuls at this point. As a sitting governor, Huckabee surely deserves the opportunity to make his case to the public, and a surprisingly strong effort could credential him as someone’s vice presidential running mate.
Moreover, long shots in one election cycle can become top-tier contenders four years later, as Reagan found out.
But we shouldn’t ignore the fact that long shots have an increasingly miniscule chance of winning a presidential nomination — no matter how much we journalists and political junkies hold onto the romantic notion of a deadlocked convention or a dark horse nipping one of the favorites at the wire.
Why Redistricting Reform Will Fail, pt. 1
Last week, the issue of redistricting was on the minds of the Washington elite and election law practitioners across the country as the Supreme Court heard arguments, in an unusual two hour session, in the Texas mid-decade redistricting case. The plaintiffs argument in the case was that the only reason the unusual redistricting was done was for purely political reasons. As a result of the Texas case and the 2004 Vieth case which dealt with partisan gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, a renewed interest in the methodology of drawing district lines has become fashionable in certain circles. Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) has introduced in the House of Representatives, the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (H.R. 2642). It will be an utter and abject failure because it fails to legislatively retract what has become the greatest intellectual fraud in voting rights litigation, the claim of vote dilution and retrogression under the Voting Right Act.
This article has gotten quite long and thus will come in three parts. This first part deals mainly with retrogression. The second part will deal with vote dilution. Finally, in a third and final part, I will argue that redistricting reform is possible, but not without a major rebuttal of the VRA as it is currently interpreted.
Tanner's bill, which includes a provision that would require states to create an bipartisan, independent redistricting commission modeled on the Arizona model created in by constitutional amendment in 2000 for the drawing of congressional districts. The commission would be composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats named by the majority and minority leaders of each state's legislatures who then name a chairman who would act as a tie-breaker. Each member of the commission cannot be an officer holder, a staff member or officer in a political party and cannot run for office in the districts the commission will draw--thus they have to wait 10 years to run for office.
All of this structure is well and good, but it fails to account for challenges under the Voting Right Act. In 2002, the first plan put forward by Arizona's redistricting commission failed Justice Department review because the plan reduced by a couple of percentage points the number of Hispanics in a couple of districts. (See, for example, Rhonda Barnes' article in the Arizona State Law Journal, Redistricting in Arizona Under the Proposition 106 Provisions: Retrogression, Representation and Regret, (35 Ariz. St. L.J. 575 (2003) for more details). Essentially, the "retorgression" or reduction in the number of Hispanic voters in a couple of districts invalidated an otherwise legitimate and accepted plan.
The Voting Rights Act has done much to improve access to voting for minorities in this country, and the basic premise of the law remains sound and should be renewed next year. However, the problem with the VRA as it has been interpreted to include remedies for retrogression and vote dilution. Retrogression describes the result of reducing the number or percentage of minority voters in a district, particularly a majority minority district, exactly what happened in Arizona.
The logical fallacy of retrogression is that once a decision is made to create a majority minority district, you can't go back without running a legal gauntlet, the presumption of which is against the state. If a state, trying to comply with the dictates of the Voting Rights Act as currently interpreted, creates a majority minority district, it cannot undo the district, but under the doctrine of retrogression must continue, at a minimum, to maintain that district, even if it means drawing tortured district lines (which is what we are trying to avoid) in order to maintain the district as a majority minority district.
For example, state A has a population large enough for five U.S. representatives. The state is 45% white, 20% black, 30% Hispanic, and 5% other races. In order to satisfy the dictates of the Voting Rights Act, state A in 2000 created a majority black district, where 55% of the district is black and a majority Hispanic district, where 58% of the district is Hispanic. As a result of these district lines, the state's House delegation is made up of two white, one black, one Latino, and one Asian representatives. The black and Latino representatives serve in the black and Hispanic districts respectively.
In 2010, in response to the Tanner bill, State A creates an independent redistricting commission (IRC). The commission begins its work and follows the rules and regulations laid out by Congress and the Election Assistance Commission. Demographic and labor forces have dispersed the population of state A in various ways. An influx of Asians has entered the state and a large percentage of blacks have moved out. The population in State A today is 40% white, 15% black, 35% Hispanic, and 10% Asian. Using the criteria laid out in the Tanner bill, the independent commission submits a plan which contains five compact districts, two of which are majority white, one is majority Hispanic and the remaining two have no racial majority at all. Political scientists in the state believe three of the districts to be highly competitive, a fourth moderately competitive, and the fifth to be safely Democratic in nature. The IRC sends the plan to the legislature, which, very happy with the result of the IRC's work, adopts the plan on the first vote. Everyone is happy, right?
Not so fast, because of the reduction of the black population and the dispersal of that population group within the state, the black majority minority district no longer exists. The dispersal of the Hispanic population is such that while the Hispanic majority minority district still exists, only now with 52% Hispanic population. No elections have been held, but in the now requisite lawsuit, a federal district court rules that the state cannot reduce the percentage of Hispanic voters in the Hispanic district and cannot eliminate the black majority minority district. The court invalidates the plan and orders the sate and the IRC to come up with a new plan.
In order to satisfy the concerns of the VRA, a state is all but compelled to create majority minority districts when possible. While I disagree with the necessity, that is a policy decision left to the legislature. But the drawback is, once done, the state is chained to that idea, they cannot easily escape the bonds that such a policy decision creates.
The doctrine of retrogression prevents states from addressing both internal and external population shifts, that is people moving within the state and people moving in and out of the state. If the purpose of districting is to ensure, as close as possible, numeric equality between districts, then the states must be free to address those issues with the presumption of validity. Independent redistricting commissions must have the presumption of validity in their plans, if the process is properly followed, regardless of the outcome. Otherwise, these IRCs will constantly be bombarded with claims that this racial group or that racial group has been slighted because the number of minority voters has gone down.
The stated purpose of the Tanner bill is to insulate the redistricting process from partisan interference to the extent possible. But without freeing the IRCs of the retrogression restrictions imposed upon them, the IRCs will be hamstrung by the decisions of past redistricting efforts and unable to draw lines in a manner required by the Tanner bill, that is compact, contiguous, and within the confines of the VRA.
Next up: Vote Dilution.
This article has gotten quite long and thus will come in three parts. This first part deals mainly with retrogression. The second part will deal with vote dilution. Finally, in a third and final part, I will argue that redistricting reform is possible, but not without a major rebuttal of the VRA as it is currently interpreted.
Tanner's bill, which includes a provision that would require states to create an bipartisan, independent redistricting commission modeled on the Arizona model created in by constitutional amendment in 2000 for the drawing of congressional districts. The commission would be composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats named by the majority and minority leaders of each state's legislatures who then name a chairman who would act as a tie-breaker. Each member of the commission cannot be an officer holder, a staff member or officer in a political party and cannot run for office in the districts the commission will draw--thus they have to wait 10 years to run for office.
All of this structure is well and good, but it fails to account for challenges under the Voting Right Act. In 2002, the first plan put forward by Arizona's redistricting commission failed Justice Department review because the plan reduced by a couple of percentage points the number of Hispanics in a couple of districts. (See, for example, Rhonda Barnes' article in the Arizona State Law Journal, Redistricting in Arizona Under the Proposition 106 Provisions: Retrogression, Representation and Regret, (35 Ariz. St. L.J. 575 (2003) for more details). Essentially, the "retorgression" or reduction in the number of Hispanic voters in a couple of districts invalidated an otherwise legitimate and accepted plan.
The Voting Rights Act has done much to improve access to voting for minorities in this country, and the basic premise of the law remains sound and should be renewed next year. However, the problem with the VRA as it has been interpreted to include remedies for retrogression and vote dilution. Retrogression describes the result of reducing the number or percentage of minority voters in a district, particularly a majority minority district, exactly what happened in Arizona.
The logical fallacy of retrogression is that once a decision is made to create a majority minority district, you can't go back without running a legal gauntlet, the presumption of which is against the state. If a state, trying to comply with the dictates of the Voting Rights Act as currently interpreted, creates a majority minority district, it cannot undo the district, but under the doctrine of retrogression must continue, at a minimum, to maintain that district, even if it means drawing tortured district lines (which is what we are trying to avoid) in order to maintain the district as a majority minority district.
For example, state A has a population large enough for five U.S. representatives. The state is 45% white, 20% black, 30% Hispanic, and 5% other races. In order to satisfy the dictates of the Voting Rights Act, state A in 2000 created a majority black district, where 55% of the district is black and a majority Hispanic district, where 58% of the district is Hispanic. As a result of these district lines, the state's House delegation is made up of two white, one black, one Latino, and one Asian representatives. The black and Latino representatives serve in the black and Hispanic districts respectively.
In 2010, in response to the Tanner bill, State A creates an independent redistricting commission (IRC). The commission begins its work and follows the rules and regulations laid out by Congress and the Election Assistance Commission. Demographic and labor forces have dispersed the population of state A in various ways. An influx of Asians has entered the state and a large percentage of blacks have moved out. The population in State A today is 40% white, 15% black, 35% Hispanic, and 10% Asian. Using the criteria laid out in the Tanner bill, the independent commission submits a plan which contains five compact districts, two of which are majority white, one is majority Hispanic and the remaining two have no racial majority at all. Political scientists in the state believe three of the districts to be highly competitive, a fourth moderately competitive, and the fifth to be safely Democratic in nature. The IRC sends the plan to the legislature, which, very happy with the result of the IRC's work, adopts the plan on the first vote. Everyone is happy, right?
Not so fast, because of the reduction of the black population and the dispersal of that population group within the state, the black majority minority district no longer exists. The dispersal of the Hispanic population is such that while the Hispanic majority minority district still exists, only now with 52% Hispanic population. No elections have been held, but in the now requisite lawsuit, a federal district court rules that the state cannot reduce the percentage of Hispanic voters in the Hispanic district and cannot eliminate the black majority minority district. The court invalidates the plan and orders the sate and the IRC to come up with a new plan.
In order to satisfy the concerns of the VRA, a state is all but compelled to create majority minority districts when possible. While I disagree with the necessity, that is a policy decision left to the legislature. But the drawback is, once done, the state is chained to that idea, they cannot easily escape the bonds that such a policy decision creates.
The doctrine of retrogression prevents states from addressing both internal and external population shifts, that is people moving within the state and people moving in and out of the state. If the purpose of districting is to ensure, as close as possible, numeric equality between districts, then the states must be free to address those issues with the presumption of validity. Independent redistricting commissions must have the presumption of validity in their plans, if the process is properly followed, regardless of the outcome. Otherwise, these IRCs will constantly be bombarded with claims that this racial group or that racial group has been slighted because the number of minority voters has gone down.
The stated purpose of the Tanner bill is to insulate the redistricting process from partisan interference to the extent possible. But without freeing the IRCs of the retrogression restrictions imposed upon them, the IRCs will be hamstrung by the decisions of past redistricting efforts and unable to draw lines in a manner required by the Tanner bill, that is compact, contiguous, and within the confines of the VRA.
Next up: Vote Dilution.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Charlie Cook on Candidate Recruitment
Charlie Cook, one of the most respect election analysts around, takes a look at candidate recruitment so far--and finds both parties wanting:
I have long believed the while President Bush is no longer acting like a conservative, even a compassionate conservative, I had thought that the base of the GOP was strongly united on just a few core principals of limited government, personal responsibility, lower taxes and business is good for the economy. The Democratic party cannot seem to unite on a core philosophy--which is leading to their downfall. As Michael Goodwin writes in the New York Daily News:
Speaking as a Republican, that is a bad idea. We need opposition to fuel innovation and ideas. I don't like Democratic politics, but a bad choice is better than no choice.
Hat tip: Real Clear Politics for a lot of the links
There is little doubt that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois has made recruiting a top priority. Republican incumbents like Reps. John Sweeney of New York and Deborah Pryce of Ohio find themselves facing serious challengers for the first time since they were elected.Cook's analysis is usually dead on and I can't help but think that the lack of a clear agenda for the Democrats hurts their chances a great deal. Nearly everything is going their way but the Democratic party still can't come to an agreement on what their agenda will be, beyond being against anything the Bush Administration does.
But it is also true that Democrats have missed a number of opportunities.
snip
For their part, Republicans have been less successful at getting serious candidates to run against potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents such as Reps. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Jim Matheson of Utah, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota. Democrats have kept their vulnerable open seats to a minimum. Just one seat is in serious jeopardy, thanks in large part to the boneheaded move of their highly touted candidate, state Sen. Charlie Wilson, in Ohio. Wilson's inability to get 50 valid signatures on his nominating petitions means he now must win his party's nomination as a write-in candidate this May.
I have long believed the while President Bush is no longer acting like a conservative, even a compassionate conservative, I had thought that the base of the GOP was strongly united on just a few core principals of limited government, personal responsibility, lower taxes and business is good for the economy. The Democratic party cannot seem to unite on a core philosophy--which is leading to their downfall. As Michael Goodwin writes in the New York Daily News:
That belief system is still clearly a work in progress. As reporters Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington recounted, Reid and Nancy Pelosi, his House counterpart, met with Dem governors who appealed for help in crafting a message that emphasized "just two or three core ideas." Sources told the paper Reid offered six ideas, and so did Pelosi - though they weren't the same six. Uh-oh.Despite some moderate successes at recruiting this year, the Democratic bench is getting a little thin. State legislatures and city government have always been a place were future congressional candidates are born and bred, but if Cook is right, a Democratic party without a core philosophy and a roster of minor leaguers ready for the majors, the GOP is going to be running things for a long time to come.
snip
The disarray is a sign of the chickens coming home to roost. For years, Democrats have been more of a collection of disparate interest groups than people united around a political philosophy. Attempts to identify core beliefs inevitably end up either offending some of the interest groups or being so wacky that swing voters run in the other direction. This inability of Dems to broaden their base explains why Republicans have won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.
Speaking as a Republican, that is a bad idea. We need opposition to fuel innovation and ideas. I don't like Democratic politics, but a bad choice is better than no choice.
Hat tip: Real Clear Politics for a lot of the links
Carnival of Education is Open
Check it out over at MathandText.
Must reads for this week include:
The political scientist in me loves this post by Lori Mortimer at Educated Doubt, the difference between the Iraqi Democracy and the American Democracy is that Iraqi care enough to vote, even when threatened with their lives. Nearly 50% of Americans don't vote and we're threatened only by annoying exit pollers." What does it have to do with education--read the post to learn more about "democratic schools."
Moebius Stripper takes on Math and Social Justice--honestly, I never thought those two concepts would appear in a book and MS does me a favor by debunking the book, even without having read it--thankfully, MS didn't waste time or money on that fool's errand.
Ironman, over at Political Calcualtions, takes on the concept of the teachers' unions opposition to bringing math and science practitioners into the classrooms to teach, well math and science. This quote is indicative of the rapier logic used by Ironman (and this is not even the best one): The
Must reads for this week include:
The political scientist in me loves this post by Lori Mortimer at Educated Doubt, the difference between the Iraqi Democracy and the American Democracy is that Iraqi care enough to vote, even when threatened with their lives. Nearly 50% of Americans don't vote and we're threatened only by annoying exit pollers." What does it have to do with education--read the post to learn more about "democratic schools."
Moebius Stripper takes on Math and Social Justice--honestly, I never thought those two concepts would appear in a book and MS does me a favor by debunking the book, even without having read it--thankfully, MS didn't waste time or money on that fool's errand.
Ironman, over at Political Calcualtions, takes on the concept of the teachers' unions opposition to bringing math and science practitioners into the classrooms to teach, well math and science. This quote is indicative of the rapier logic used by Ironman (and this is not even the best one): The
performance of U.S. students on standardized math and science exams and evaluations shows that compared to other students in the world, the U.S. does well (average or better) up through the eighth grade and falls off considerably afterward. In other words, the problem is not the kids - it's the teaching. In particular, the teaching at the upper grade levels where much more advanced math and science concepts are introduced in secondary school curriculums. Since the teachers' unions have used their political influence to restrict who may teach in a classroom to those with education degrees by law in many states, they and their political agents are solely responsible for this outcome.My general feeling is that the teachers unions have a Pavlovian response to oppose anything proposed by this Administration, even if it makes sense and may increase their membership. But that is just the poltiical animal in me talking.
Another Milestone
Earlier today, a reader from Miami, FL became the 10,000 visitor to my humble little site. Clicking in at 7:06 this morning, this reader sadly did not stay long, but I hope their visit was enjoyable.
Truth be told, I may have passed the 10,000th visitor sometime ago, but I nonly started a site meter in May of last year.
Thanks to everyone who has stopped by. If you liked it, tell your friends.
Truth be told, I may have passed the 10,000th visitor sometime ago, but I nonly started a site meter in May of last year.
Thanks to everyone who has stopped by. If you liked it, tell your friends.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Calif. School Suspends 20 Who Saw Web Site
This is from last week, but this is a troubling development in terms of freedom of speech and thought by internet users. In Costa Mesa, California, 20 studnets who visited a website that contained an alleged hateful posting were suspended for two days.
Twenty kids who went to a website, just visited a website that contained a threat against another student. Some parents are rightfully concerned that the school is interfering with students' out of school activities. This school has suspended students, not for actually MAKING a threat, but for READING a threat.
Assuming the miscreant who actually wrote the offending post is found to have made a threat--which it is not clear to me that he did, this is what the AP quoted:
What is clearly not a violation is reading this threat. Let us assume that this student stood in the middle of the local shopping mall and made the same comments in the presence of these 20 students. Would we suspend them because they heard the threat? No, such an action is ridiculous on its face, yet that is exactly what the school has done to students reading text in the privacy of their own home.
To me this is just another example of the nanny state run wild.
Twenty middle-schoolers were suspended for two days after viewing a boy's posting on the MySpace.com Web site that contained an alleged threat, school officials said.So let us analyze this action by the school for a few minutes.
Police are investigating the boy's comments about his classmate as a possible hate crime, and the district is trying to expel the boy from TeWinkle Middle School.
According to three parents of the suspended students, the invitation to join the boy's MySpace group gave no indication of the alleged threat. They said the MySpace social group name's was "I hate (girl's name)" and included an expletive and an anti-Semitic reference.
Twenty kids who went to a website, just visited a website that contained a threat against another student. Some parents are rightfully concerned that the school is interfering with students' out of school activities. This school has suspended students, not for actually MAKING a threat, but for READING a threat.
Assuming the miscreant who actually wrote the offending post is found to have made a threat--which it is not clear to me that he did, this is what the AP quoted:
"Who here in the (group name) wants to take a shotgun and blast her in the head over a thousand times?"The post also carried an expletive and an anti-semitic epitaph. Rational people can disagree as to whether these constitute a threat--they certainly do NOT constitute a hate crime--which is just a stupid category anyway.
What is clearly not a violation is reading this threat. Let us assume that this student stood in the middle of the local shopping mall and made the same comments in the presence of these 20 students. Would we suspend them because they heard the threat? No, such an action is ridiculous on its face, yet that is exactly what the school has done to students reading text in the privacy of their own home.
To me this is just another example of the nanny state run wild.
A Publicly Funded Boarding School In Maryland
I didn't know there was a boarding school for at risk kids in DC, but according to the Baltimore Sun, at least one student is happy there is such a school:
Durrell Lewis, in his navy blazer and tie and his big plans for college, told state lawmakers yesterday that he is living proof of why Maryland needs a public boarding school.Balitmore is asking the Maryland House of Delegates to appropriate money to build a similar school to help students in the city's troubled school system. Apparently, the concept is getting a warm reception in Annapolis:
Lewis, a senior at Washington's SEED School, the nation's first boarding program for at-risk youths, urged a House committee to pass a bill that would pave the way for a second school in Baltimore.
Delegates on the House Ways and Means Committee warmly embraced the costly pitch that would bring the celebrated SEED program to Baltimore in 2009.What I find surprising is the willingness of political leaders to acceed to a publicly funded boarding school.
Washington's SEED school, which opened in 1998, enrolls 320 students in the seventh through 12th grades. Students are chosen for the program through a lottery.Of course, any small school with limited enrollement means that students who don't win in the lottery are stuck in a poor school system. Such is the tragedy behind the limited experiments with school choice, only a lucky few get the opportunity, particularly in Maryland where the charter school law is only a couple of years old and the number of charters can be counted on two hands. But any move in a positive direction is a good move.
SEED is short for Schools for Educational Evolution and Development.
Mayor Martin O'Malley has wanted to bring such a school to Baltimore ever since he visited the Washington institution, Deputy Mayor Jean Hitchcock said yesterday.
The SEED Foundation spent the past year developing a plan for the Baltimore expansion with a grant from the Abell Foundation.
"Tears came to my eyes when I saw the school," Hitchcock told the committee, adding that the program has found a way to turn "burdens to society" into "wonderful human beings."
FBI Probes Use of Funds by Ex-FEC Aide
From Roll Call (subscription req) comes this report that seems to be the impetus behind the departures of several high profile staff members, including long-timer staff director James Perkhom.
Um...yeah nothing to add.
The FBI is investigating allegations that a former top official at the Federal Election Commission tried to settle a sexual harassment complaint from a female staffer by attempting to misappropriate $100,000 in taxpayer funds last fall.Adding insult to injury, the FEC is operating in the red
The investigation has embroiled at least a handful of FEC employees, each of whom has been put on administrative leave or no longer works for the agency, leaving vacancies in critical posts heading into the campaign season.
In addition, according to an internal management plan privately unveiled two weeks ago, the FEC is facing a $2.6 million shortfall — out of an original $54 million 2006 budget — that was caused in large part because of an overstaffing problem and has prompted the interim FEC staff director to recommend a hiring freeze. More than 20 percent of that shortfall was caused because of “settlement and legal services” costs associated with the employment discrimination case and the ensuing FBI investigation, according to the internal FEC memo.Allison Hayward links to the FBI search warrant on Political Moneyline.
Um...yeah nothing to add.
10th Carnival of Homeschooling - PalmTree Pundit
Check out the Carnival of Homeschooling, hosted this week by PalmTree Pundit, of whom I an wholly envious--living in Hawaii.
Laying out their demands
Last week, students in Baltimore, MD staged a creative protest against the school system:
The students are not protesting simply the closure of the schools, but the conditions of the remaining schools, which appear to be grossly overcrowded. According to the story:
Granted, the school system is under pressure from the state to operate more efficiently, but you can be sure that no one has thought about ways to do that, rather they simply see the dollar signs associated with closing some buildings without thinking about other impacts. Efficient operations does not mean simply closing buildings, but operating with a little common sense.
So here are my questions. First, what genius decided on the current course of action without actually thinking about the consequences? Second, whose job is it to make facilities safe, habitable and useable as educational institutions? Because that person and their entire staff needs to be fired, right down the janitors at the schools. Third, who is in charge of assigning children to schools? That person needs to have their head examined as well as their math credentials because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have space for 125,000 students, cramming 35 or 40 students into one math class is not an efficient use of space and time. Fourth, what on earth is the school administration thinking about, because it surely is not the education of the students in their charge.
Finally, where are these students' parents??!! Their kids on a school strike, but where are the parents, the taxpaying, voting parents. While the kids make a dramatic point, the undeniably sad fact is that they will not be heard as well as 400 kids and their 800 parents and their 1600 neighbors and their 3000 friends.
Good luck to these kids and their efforts.
Young bodies sprawled out across the cold sidewalk on West Baltimore Street yesterday. There were at least 400 of them in all, Baltimore public school students, lying still as if they were dead.The students were protesting a move to close school buildings in a system with a capacity for 125,000 students but only 85,000 enrolled. Thus, with a surplus of space for 40,000 students, it makes sense to close a few buildings, or offer the buildings to other government agencies or even charter schools.
They hoped the officials across the street and safely inside at the Maryland State Department of Education would hear their cry:
"No education, no life."
It was Day 1 of a three-day student strike, protesting the impending closure of several Baltimore school buildings.
The students are not protesting simply the closure of the schools, but the conditions of the remaining schools, which appear to be grossly overcrowded. According to the story:
Wayne Washington, a junior at Heritage High School in the Lake Clifton High School complex, said he has 37 to 40 students in each of his classes. Learning anything, he said, is "real hard." He said class-size reduction would be impossible if the school system moves Hamilton Middle and Laurence G. Paquin Middle/High School into the Lake Clifton building as proposed because there wouldn't be any extra classrooms.Previously, I have advocated for parents (and by extension students) need to get a little confrontational with school systems to make their voices heard. Such activity is necessary in order to prevent stupidity and stupid management decisions. While I don't necessarily see small class sizes as a panacea to school ills, having 35 plus kids in a classroom and school with a rodent and insect problem, with security issues and lack of supplies is clearly not even an acceptable situation, let alone an ideal situation.
A group of girls from Thurgood Marshall High School described a school in chaos. They said they don't have adequate heat, drinking water, books or toilet paper. They said the school has mice and a serious roach problem, including in the cafeteria.
Granted, the school system is under pressure from the state to operate more efficiently, but you can be sure that no one has thought about ways to do that, rather they simply see the dollar signs associated with closing some buildings without thinking about other impacts. Efficient operations does not mean simply closing buildings, but operating with a little common sense.
So here are my questions. First, what genius decided on the current course of action without actually thinking about the consequences? Second, whose job is it to make facilities safe, habitable and useable as educational institutions? Because that person and their entire staff needs to be fired, right down the janitors at the schools. Third, who is in charge of assigning children to schools? That person needs to have their head examined as well as their math credentials because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have space for 125,000 students, cramming 35 or 40 students into one math class is not an efficient use of space and time. Fourth, what on earth is the school administration thinking about, because it surely is not the education of the students in their charge.
Finally, where are these students' parents??!! Their kids on a school strike, but where are the parents, the taxpaying, voting parents. While the kids make a dramatic point, the undeniably sad fact is that they will not be heard as well as 400 kids and their 800 parents and their 1600 neighbors and their 3000 friends.
Good luck to these kids and their efforts.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Affirmative Action for Elections
Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Texas mid-decade redistricting case, a dispute with far reaching implications on how state legislatures will determine the lines of Congressional and state legislative districts going forward. The law surrounding the drawing of districts lines has a long and complicated history since the days in the mid-1960's when the Court declared the "one person, one vote" doctrine that demands equality in the size of districts. Court made law is difficult at best to deal with and redistricting law is further complicated by the Voting Rights Act, which as it is interpreted by the Justice Department and the Courts in relation to redistricting, amounts to little more than Affirmative Action for elections in America, and like all affirmative action programs, actually disadvantages the minorities it is supposedly designed to help.
One aspect of the VRA interpretation has been the creation of so-called "majority-minority" districts, Congressional and/or state legislative districts drawn in such a way as to create districts where the population is made up primarily of a particular minority, usually a racial minority, such as Hispanics or African American. To be sure some districts are naturally majority-minority districts simply as a result of the close population, for example Charlie Rangel's 15th District in New York, which is comprised mostly of Harlem neighborhoods. However, many states have drawn majority minority districts in furtherance of a goal of allowing minorities to elect "a candidate of their choice," which should be read as a minority candidate.
As a result of these legal interpretations, a number of majority-minority districts created in the 1980's and 1990's yielded a large influx of minority Representatives in those decades, generally to a positive impact on national politics. But the problem is that these Representatives, despite their years of experience have not been able to make the leap to the next level of governmental power, whether that be moving from the state legislature to the U.S. Congress, or the U.S. Senate or a governor's chair, or even the Presidency/Vice Presidency. Some will blame racism, but I don't buy such charges as the foundation of why otherwise talented people cannot make the leap. Rather, the reason can be blamed on the very VRA by-product which provided them with the opportunity to be a Representative, majority minority districts, has denied them the skill and experience necessary to build a winning coalition at the next level.
Politics is a rough and tumble blood sport, with a few winners and a great many losers. A political campaign is a test of stamina, smarts, and Herculean task of convincing a large number of people who do not know you personally to trust you enough to vote you into office. The latter is the toughest test of leadership ability extant. Successful politicians build winning coalitions as a path to election. Those coalitions, in most districts, are an amalgamation of interest groups, voting blocs, and sheer force of charisma. In short, winning coalitions represent a diverse group of people. Once elected, the talented politician must continue to tend to the care and feeding of that coalition while, at the same time representing the whole district. Hopefully, a good politician and elected official will be able to expand on her winning coalition over time.
However, when looking at majority minority district, the rough and tumble of politics is short-circuited by a racial identification, practically short-hand for worth as a candidate. Representatives of majority-minority districts are not incapable of being good Representatives, in fact many are very talented politicians with one major shortcoming--they don't have the political campaign experience necessary to build winning coalitions in a district larger than or distinct from their majority-minority district.
The primary determinant, in most cases, of who wins in a majority-minority district is based almost exclusively on racial identification. Thus in a majority black district, the determination of who wins is dependent on whether the candidate is black or not. Thus, because a candidate is of the dominant racial category, he/she need not build as large or diverse a winning coalition, it is assumed by everyone inside and outside the district that the minority candidate is, per se, capable of representing that racial minority. (This feature also has some implications for a representative democracy but that is another post all together).
So a representative, whether state or U.S., who represents a majority minority district has little incentive to build a district-wide winning coaltion beyond the dominant racial group. After all, the candidate who wins the "race" primary almost invariably wins the election. Thus, when it comes time to step up to the next rung on the government ladder, these candidates have not had to run the political gauntlet inherent in the winning of other, non-majority minority districts. (This can obviously be said of districts so overwhelming partisan as well, but again, a topic for another post). The "political combat" skills are therefore atrophied to the point where they cannot survive in an atmosphere distinct from a majority minority district.
Majority minority districts, in short, prevents candidates cultivated in such a climate from being the best politician they can be. They are brought forth in an environment artificially free of many of the competitive obstacles present in other districts. The reduced competitive level, remember brought about by a desire to have minorities elect a candidate of their choice, dooms those candidates to that level of government and not much more. The majority minority-raised candidates, when faced with competition brought up in a rougher "league," are disadvantaged because the message and politics which brought them to their current station generally does not play well beyond the insular group which first elected them. Voters not of that district or racial group tend to look at such candidates with a health dose of skepticism about their ability to lead beyond the majority minority district.
If minorities truly want to succeed in politics, they must compete in full contact politics, without the artificially created majority minority districts. Minorities must compete on a playing field beyond the majority minority districts if they are to succeed on any playing field that has not been parternalistically created for their race. Thus, the continuing insistence on majority minority districts will result not in greater diversity in our elected ranks, but in a kind of quota system. Allowed to continue, the majority minority district schemes will result in a relatively fixed number of "Hispanic" or "Black" or "Asian" seats, as if the only determinant of a districts representative is the racial identification of the candidate, which sounds awfully similar to the results of Affirmative Action programs--a set aside for those groups who had experienced discrimination in the past.
The consequences of this Affirmative Action for Elections is the maintenance of that quota of majority minority districts, and a class of politicians who are not forced to build their coalition building skills to move to the next step. The loss will not just be that of the minority communities, but of the entire nation, because we continue to classify certain races, despite our noble rhetoric, as somehow incapable of competing on the same level as the big boys.
One aspect of the VRA interpretation has been the creation of so-called "majority-minority" districts, Congressional and/or state legislative districts drawn in such a way as to create districts where the population is made up primarily of a particular minority, usually a racial minority, such as Hispanics or African American. To be sure some districts are naturally majority-minority districts simply as a result of the close population, for example Charlie Rangel's 15th District in New York, which is comprised mostly of Harlem neighborhoods. However, many states have drawn majority minority districts in furtherance of a goal of allowing minorities to elect "a candidate of their choice," which should be read as a minority candidate.
As a result of these legal interpretations, a number of majority-minority districts created in the 1980's and 1990's yielded a large influx of minority Representatives in those decades, generally to a positive impact on national politics. But the problem is that these Representatives, despite their years of experience have not been able to make the leap to the next level of governmental power, whether that be moving from the state legislature to the U.S. Congress, or the U.S. Senate or a governor's chair, or even the Presidency/Vice Presidency. Some will blame racism, but I don't buy such charges as the foundation of why otherwise talented people cannot make the leap. Rather, the reason can be blamed on the very VRA by-product which provided them with the opportunity to be a Representative, majority minority districts, has denied them the skill and experience necessary to build a winning coalition at the next level.
Politics is a rough and tumble blood sport, with a few winners and a great many losers. A political campaign is a test of stamina, smarts, and Herculean task of convincing a large number of people who do not know you personally to trust you enough to vote you into office. The latter is the toughest test of leadership ability extant. Successful politicians build winning coalitions as a path to election. Those coalitions, in most districts, are an amalgamation of interest groups, voting blocs, and sheer force of charisma. In short, winning coalitions represent a diverse group of people. Once elected, the talented politician must continue to tend to the care and feeding of that coalition while, at the same time representing the whole district. Hopefully, a good politician and elected official will be able to expand on her winning coalition over time.
However, when looking at majority minority district, the rough and tumble of politics is short-circuited by a racial identification, practically short-hand for worth as a candidate. Representatives of majority-minority districts are not incapable of being good Representatives, in fact many are very talented politicians with one major shortcoming--they don't have the political campaign experience necessary to build winning coalitions in a district larger than or distinct from their majority-minority district.
The primary determinant, in most cases, of who wins in a majority-minority district is based almost exclusively on racial identification. Thus in a majority black district, the determination of who wins is dependent on whether the candidate is black or not. Thus, because a candidate is of the dominant racial category, he/she need not build as large or diverse a winning coalition, it is assumed by everyone inside and outside the district that the minority candidate is, per se, capable of representing that racial minority. (This feature also has some implications for a representative democracy but that is another post all together).
So a representative, whether state or U.S., who represents a majority minority district has little incentive to build a district-wide winning coaltion beyond the dominant racial group. After all, the candidate who wins the "race" primary almost invariably wins the election. Thus, when it comes time to step up to the next rung on the government ladder, these candidates have not had to run the political gauntlet inherent in the winning of other, non-majority minority districts. (This can obviously be said of districts so overwhelming partisan as well, but again, a topic for another post). The "political combat" skills are therefore atrophied to the point where they cannot survive in an atmosphere distinct from a majority minority district.
Majority minority districts, in short, prevents candidates cultivated in such a climate from being the best politician they can be. They are brought forth in an environment artificially free of many of the competitive obstacles present in other districts. The reduced competitive level, remember brought about by a desire to have minorities elect a candidate of their choice, dooms those candidates to that level of government and not much more. The majority minority-raised candidates, when faced with competition brought up in a rougher "league," are disadvantaged because the message and politics which brought them to their current station generally does not play well beyond the insular group which first elected them. Voters not of that district or racial group tend to look at such candidates with a health dose of skepticism about their ability to lead beyond the majority minority district.
If minorities truly want to succeed in politics, they must compete in full contact politics, without the artificially created majority minority districts. Minorities must compete on a playing field beyond the majority minority districts if they are to succeed on any playing field that has not been parternalistically created for their race. Thus, the continuing insistence on majority minority districts will result not in greater diversity in our elected ranks, but in a kind of quota system. Allowed to continue, the majority minority district schemes will result in a relatively fixed number of "Hispanic" or "Black" or "Asian" seats, as if the only determinant of a districts representative is the racial identification of the candidate, which sounds awfully similar to the results of Affirmative Action programs--a set aside for those groups who had experienced discrimination in the past.
The consequences of this Affirmative Action for Elections is the maintenance of that quota of majority minority districts, and a class of politicians who are not forced to build their coalition building skills to move to the next step. The loss will not just be that of the minority communities, but of the entire nation, because we continue to classify certain races, despite our noble rhetoric, as somehow incapable of competing on the same level as the big boys.
Rise in Online Fundraising Changed Face of Campaign Donors
The Washington Post today carried this story about the demographics of campaign contributors in the single most expensive campaign ever, the 2004 elections.
A big small donor base does two things for candidates. Frist, it becomes a much more reliable indicator of support, particularly if those donors are within the district. Only a small percentage of political supporters are willing to part with hard earned money to support a candidate. Thus if only 1 person in 100 supporters is willing to give money, have 1000 small donors in your district means that you probably have on the order 100,000 supporters.
Second, small donors can be asked for more money as the campaign wears on. Someone who contributes the legal maximum cannot give the campaign more money. But someone who contributes $50 in January, can be asked for $50 in March, $100 in May, another $100 in August, etc. Small donors can be asked again and again, usually with only some reduction in response rate.
The surging number of campaign contributors in 2004, especially the small donors who gave online, changed the character of one of the most important constituencies in U.S. politics, the people who finance presidential elections. This key group has become more reflective of the middle class, has a higher percentage of women and is far more willing to contribute without being directly solicited.The little known secret, outside of political fundraising circles, is that small donors, those who contribute less than $200 is generally the fundamental building block of a successful campaign.
The new small donors, who played a much bigger role in 2004 than in the past, are polarized on ideological, cultural and economic issues in much the same way that large givers are, according to a survey by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University of all donors, both those using the Internet and those who did not. (emphasis added)
A big small donor base does two things for candidates. Frist, it becomes a much more reliable indicator of support, particularly if those donors are within the district. Only a small percentage of political supporters are willing to part with hard earned money to support a candidate. Thus if only 1 person in 100 supporters is willing to give money, have 1000 small donors in your district means that you probably have on the order 100,000 supporters.
Second, small donors can be asked for more money as the campaign wears on. Someone who contributes the legal maximum cannot give the campaign more money. But someone who contributes $50 in January, can be asked for $50 in March, $100 in May, another $100 in August, etc. Small donors can be asked again and again, usually with only some reduction in response rate.
[Study author Joseph] Graf and his three co-authors -- Grant Reeher of Syracuse University, Campaign Finance Institute Director Michael Malbin and Yale post-doctoral fellow Costas Panagopoulos -- said the trends in 2004 are beneficial to the political system, further democratizing the elite-dominated world of campaign finance.This is a good trend, and a much more stable reform than anything offered up by the reform committee.
They wrote: "The Internet has helped level the playing field between large donors and small donors. Online political activism diminishes the tremendous fundraising advantage enjoyed by long-term, large donors who move in social circles of donors close to the campaign and lobby on behalf of their candidate. The Internet has helped small, less experienced donors broaden their reach, and hence their influence with others."
Friday, March 03, 2006
Bipartisanship Alive and Well on Capitol Hill
Hmph!! Not that I expected anything different but a Senate Panel has rejected legislation for an independent ethics panel.
Interestingly, an independent ethics panel may actually face a constitutional challenge as the Constitution in Article I gives the power to discipline and regulate its members to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The question would be whether delegating the duty to a third party would be proper. One the one side, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Senate may try and impeached judge using a committee to make recommendations to the full Senate. Thus, it may be possible that the Court would approve the creation of an independent panel. Furthermore, the Court could just declare the matter a non-justiciable matter for Congress to handle (probably a more prudent course of action).
But the death of this measure should come as no surprise. In reality, most members of Congress, Senators and lobbyists operate above board and in the clear. As the Wahsington Post story points out, current ethics reform legislation that has any chance of success is based on better and more timely disclosure. Such enforcement focused measures have a more realistic chance of passage and don't really impact matters related to constitutional rights or the privileges of Members.
Of course, the greatest disclosure rules in the world mean nothing if violators can't be punished. To be certain, any bill Congress passes needs to include penalities for late or non-compliant filing of reports, either by lobbyists or by the Members themselves. Without any such provisions, any ethics reform bill is likely to be nothing more than a paper tiger.
Over time, though, the American voters have a pretty good sense of when politicians have become corrupt beyond repair--and we may be approaching such a time now. However, it is nice to see Congress work together on something--even if it is something they should have voted in favor of rather than defeating.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted 11 to 5 to defeat a proposal by its chairman, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and its ranking Democrat, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), that would have created an office of public integrity to toughen enforcement and combat the loss of reputation Congress has suffered after the guilty plea in January of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Democrats joined Republicans in killing the measure.To be honest, I don't know the details of this plan, although Allison Hayward volunteered to serve on the panel, and to be honest I would too. But, assuming this panel was created, it was sure to have no real budget, no real investigative power and certainly no real enforcement power. There is simply too much at stake for Congress empower an independent panel to conduct ethics enforcement.
Interestingly, an independent ethics panel may actually face a constitutional challenge as the Constitution in Article I gives the power to discipline and regulate its members to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The question would be whether delegating the duty to a third party would be proper. One the one side, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Senate may try and impeached judge using a committee to make recommendations to the full Senate. Thus, it may be possible that the Court would approve the creation of an independent panel. Furthermore, the Court could just declare the matter a non-justiciable matter for Congress to handle (probably a more prudent course of action).
But the death of this measure should come as no surprise. In reality, most members of Congress, Senators and lobbyists operate above board and in the clear. As the Wahsington Post story points out, current ethics reform legislation that has any chance of success is based on better and more timely disclosure. Such enforcement focused measures have a more realistic chance of passage and don't really impact matters related to constitutional rights or the privileges of Members.
Of course, the greatest disclosure rules in the world mean nothing if violators can't be punished. To be certain, any bill Congress passes needs to include penalities for late or non-compliant filing of reports, either by lobbyists or by the Members themselves. Without any such provisions, any ethics reform bill is likely to be nothing more than a paper tiger.
Over time, though, the American voters have a pretty good sense of when politicians have become corrupt beyond repair--and we may be approaching such a time now. However, it is nice to see Congress work together on something--even if it is something they should have voted in favor of rather than defeating.
W.Va. Police Chief Denied Gay Man CPR
If true, this is disturbing. If not, this has to be one of the most frivolous lawsuits imaginable.
BREITBART.COM - Suit: W.Va. Police Chief Denied Gay Man CPR
BREITBART.COM - Suit: W.Va. Police Chief Denied Gay Man CPR
Teen Lynched by Mob over 100 Years Ago Honored in Wash. State
I have no particular opinion about this news bitTeen Lynched by Mob Honored in Wash. State. However, this is a state that will not honor one of the most decorated Marines from Washington, WWII Ace Greg "Pappy" Boyington--who attended the the University of Washington and was part Sioux Indian, was denied by the school's
The State Senate recently voted to honor Boyington by a resolution sponsored by U of W alum, Sen. Luke Esser.
student Senate triggered a firestorm three weeks ago after rejecting by one vote a resolution to create a campus memorial for Boyington. Radio talk shows and Internet blogs quickly chastised the students for the decision..
Debating the issue, UW senior Ashley Miller said the university already had enough monuments to rich white men, according to meeting minutes. Jill Edwards, a UW sophomore, questioned whether a member of the Marine Corps was the type of person the school wanted to produce.
The State Senate recently voted to honor Boyington by a resolution sponsored by U of W alum, Sen. Luke Esser.
Brad Smith on Campaign Finance Reformers
Former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith tag teams with Allison Hayward and does his own little body slam on the campaign finance reformers views of HR 1606, the On-line Freedom of Speech Act.
Like Allison and Brad, I believe the reform groups, in the words of Shakespeare, "doth protest too much."
Spending a great deal of time in this medium as I do, I have no worries about the "corrupting influence" of the internet and the freedom of speech on the internet.
The "reform" groups write, "''Our groups strongly support the free speech rights of bloggers and believe that the Internet is an important and positive development for political discourse and activities, and for increasing the number of small donors in politics.'' But that's for public consumption.
In their briefs to the Court, represented by lawyers working for at least two of the groups now claiming to "believe that the internet is a ... positive development," they described (or approvingly quoted others describing) anything less than a fully regulated internet as, "a loophole;" "a step backwards;" "a poison pill;" and "anti-reform." (See page 25 of brief.) They specifically rejected the notion that the internet's inexpensive nature made it different from other forms of communication, and they specifically called for the FEC to regulate email communications (see page 23 of brief). So let us not put too much trust in their protestations of fondness for the net.
Like Allison and Brad, I believe the reform groups, in the words of Shakespeare, "doth protest too much."
Spending a great deal of time in this medium as I do, I have no worries about the "corrupting influence" of the internet and the freedom of speech on the internet.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
The Unintended Consequences of Regulating Political Speech
Gary Andres, writing in the Washington Times, provides a little history lesson for those groups seeking to reform lobbying and campaign finance rules.
I love this line:
I love this line:
Like the water balloon of American politics, squeezing First Amendment practices doesn't make them disappear; they just pop out somewhere else.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Demolishing Democracy 21--Again
Allison Hayward takes on, yet again, the taks of fisking Democracy 21. Allison attacks their latest press release, with gusto, along with a dash of exasperation.
Competition Works
Another reason for me to like John Stossel--he agrees with me!!! Writing about competition in schools, Stossel notes
I trust markets and I trust competition of ideas, services and delivery. I do NOT trust government to provide solutions.
We do know that competition works. It works because it gives people the chance to be creative. Educational experts, freed from the massive regulations that snarl the public schools, can come up with new and better ideas for teaching. Competition works because it gives people incentives to produce -- it inspires them to work constantly at trying to find better ways to please their customers. The bad producers lose their jobs -- but the best ones gain new customers. Bad schools will close and better schools will open.With educators like Cameron, it is no wonder education does not improve.
And the better schools won't all be the same.
snip
So many students want to get into charter schools like those, many have to hold lotteries. The winners get a shot at a better future; the losers are generally stuck with whatever the bureaucrats deign to give them. Why should kids have to win their future possibilities in a lottery? If school money were attached to individual students in the form of vouchers, every parent could take their child to new schools.
This winter's Florida court ruling against school choice came after former teacher Ruth Holmes Cameron brought a suit. "To say that competition is going to improve education -- it's just not going to work," she said. "You know, competition is not for children. It's not for human beings, it's not for public education". (emphasis added)
I trust markets and I trust competition of ideas, services and delivery. I do NOT trust government to provide solutions.
Education Too Important To Be Left To the Status Quo
Via RealClearPolitics Rueben Navarette, Jr. writes regarding the battle of NCLB foes
To be certain, the Bush Administration's centerpiece has been poorly implemented, particularly if school systems are finding ways around the law. But for the first time in decades those arguing about the quality of schools now have really hard data, comparable data to look at. In that regard, NCLB has succeed. Of course what we do with the hard data is now the real question. Concluding, Navarette writes
It's easy to see why those who prefer the status quo detest No Child Left Behind. Under the law, children in every racial and demographic group in every public school must improve their scores on standardized tests in math and science. No excuses. Schools that fall short of that goal can be shut down, and their students can transfer to another public school.Seems to me you can't have it both ways, you can't complain about the law's lack of flexibility and then complain when some school districts with better or more creative lawyers find some flexibility.
The critics hate requirements like that for one reason -- because good tests not only tell you if kids are learning but also if teachers and administrators are holding up their end. If the truth comes out, disgruntled parents might go from demanding accountability from schools to demanding it from the individuals who work in them.
The critics are nothing if not versatile. First they insisted that No Child Left Behind was unfair to schools because it was a one-size-fits-all approach with no flexibility. Then they said the law was unfair to teachers because it tied them to student performance when not all children learn at the same pace.
Now they're insisting the law is unfair to some students because it benefits middle-class white kids and hurts Latinos and African-Americans. At least that is the conclusion of a troubling new study by the deceptively named Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
To be certain, the Bush Administration's centerpiece has been poorly implemented, particularly if school systems are finding ways around the law. But for the first time in decades those arguing about the quality of schools now have really hard data, comparable data to look at. In that regard, NCLB has succeed. Of course what we do with the hard data is now the real question. Concluding, Navarette writes
I suspect that the Harvard study is right about one thing -- that some schools, including those that educate white and middle-class children, have come up with creative ways to skirt the law by taking advantage of waivers and the like.At this point, education is too important to be left to adults currently running the system.
But so what? The schools that resort to such maneuvers are only hurting the kids they're supposed to be teaching. Minority students, far from being disenfranchised, are much better off for being held accountable with no exceptions and no excuses.
That can be messy. But whom are we kidding? It's nothing compared to the mess that the special interests have made of the educational system.
Wall Street Journal on the Real Motivation of Wal-Mart Bills
Brendan Miniter, writing in the Wall Street Journal reveals the real motive behind state legislatures considering Wal-Mart bills, bills designed to force the retailing giant to pay more in health care benefits.
Over the weekend, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott urged governors attending the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, DC to stop playing politics with business. He urged the states' chief executives to join with Wal-Mart to set up a business-government partnership to expand health care. This proposal by Scott comes on the heels of announcements by his company that Wal-Mart will expand health coverage for employees and to open in-store clinics
Could Wal-Mart be looking to get a share of government subsidies for treating the poor? Sure, and why not. The government certainly does not do a good job regulating the delivery of care, as evidenced by the hundreds of Medicaid and Medicare fraud cases that are prosecuted each year. Wal-Mart will no doubt do it better, and cheaper, than the government. But I suspect the Wal-Mart's motive, profit, will make it a villian in this arena too, since it is a tenant of liberal faith that you cannot profit on health care.
If state legislatures want to expand Medicaid, fine. They need to do so in teh open so that every reasonable voter in the state can make sure that those legislators are voted out of office as soon as possible.
What Maryland's Delegate James Hubbard, a Democrat from Prince George's County, had to say was revealing of both why he backed his state's "Wal-Mart bill" and what this fight is really about: expanding Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded health-care entitlements.Hubbard has recently introduced another bill to force all employers, regardless of size to pay at least 4.5% of their payroll on health care benefits. That means someone, like a pizza parlor, which employs part-time workers almost exclusively, would have to either spend 4.5% of his payroll on health care benefits he currently doesn't provide or pay into the state's Medicaid fund.
Let's first understand that the drive to enact anti-Wal-Mart legislation has very little to do with the retail giant except in two respects: dipping into its very deep pockets, and using the controversy surrounding the company to mask the larger agenda of expanding already-bankrupt entitlement programs. Of course, in this war legislators have a ready made ally in the AFL-CIO, which has its own reasons for going after the nonunionized company.
With that, let's turn to Mr. Hubbard. He began our conversation by pointing out that the Wal-Mart bill--which forces companies with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care or pay the state the difference--was always intended to be just the first step. Four years ago, he made his intentions clear by introducing legislation to increase cigarette taxes and to use the tax code to compel employers to provide health insurance. Under his legislation the revenue from these taxes would be dumped into a new state fund that would then be used to expand Medicaid eligibility to families with incomes up to 300% of the poverty line (up from 200% now). But even in a legislature with large Democratic majorities, his bill stalled.
Over the weekend, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott urged governors attending the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, DC to stop playing politics with business. He urged the states' chief executives to join with Wal-Mart to set up a business-government partnership to expand health care. This proposal by Scott comes on the heels of announcements by his company that Wal-Mart will expand health coverage for employees and to open in-store clinics
Run by third parties, the clinics are open to shoppers and employees, and are staffed by doctors who can treat non-emergency illnesses such as strep throat. Costs average between $45 and $50 per visit, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams said.Wal-Mart's effort, and its cost consciousness, make their solutions much better for the working poor in America than a government solution funded by taxpayers.
Wal-Mart said many of the patients who used the clinics in an initial nine-store pilot were uninsured, and would have gone to a hospital emergency room to be treated instead.
The national average cost for a doctor's visit is about $60, while an emergency room visit averages $383, according to insurer BlueCross BlueShield. More than 40 million Americans have no insurance, and often turn to emergency rooms for care.
Could Wal-Mart be looking to get a share of government subsidies for treating the poor? Sure, and why not. The government certainly does not do a good job regulating the delivery of care, as evidenced by the hundreds of Medicaid and Medicare fraud cases that are prosecuted each year. Wal-Mart will no doubt do it better, and cheaper, than the government. But I suspect the Wal-Mart's motive, profit, will make it a villian in this arena too, since it is a tenant of liberal faith that you cannot profit on health care.
If state legislatures want to expand Medicaid, fine. They need to do so in teh open so that every reasonable voter in the state can make sure that those legislators are voted out of office as soon as possible.
What Happens When You Obey the Law
The Instapundit points us to an amazing experiement of Civil Obedience called Meditation on the Speed Limit.
An amazing five minute video.
An amazing five minute video.
Whether to Laugh or Cry
According to MSNBC.com, more Americans can name members of the Simpsons cartoon family than name rights found in the First Amendment.
Can you name all five rights found in the First Amendment? Most people I know can get two or three.
Can you name all five rights found in the First Amendment? Most people I know can get two or three.
Carnival of Education is Up
Lots of good stuff to read. In keeping with my pesonal views on education, check out the following posts:
the Liberty Papers argues that government should get out of the business of education. A noble thought, but one that would require amending every state constitution, which provides for public education. Nonetheless a very compelling argument.
The Unrepentant Individual argues that teachers unions are as big a threat to our national security as Islamist terrorists. (I will have more on this post later).
This post by A History Teacher, reminds me and hopefully everyone, the impact a single teacher can make on a given student.
the Liberty Papers argues that government should get out of the business of education. A noble thought, but one that would require amending every state constitution, which provides for public education. Nonetheless a very compelling argument.
The Unrepentant Individual argues that teachers unions are as big a threat to our national security as Islamist terrorists. (I will have more on this post later).
This post by A History Teacher, reminds me and hopefully everyone, the impact a single teacher can make on a given student.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)