Battle of the States

In the coming months, we will see two things in state politics:

1. States will be pursing economic recovery with Republican governors will be pushing fewer taxes and lower tax rates, while Democratic states (like Illinios) will increase taxes. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel looks at neighbors Wisconsin and Illinois for just such a divergence of policy.
2. We will also see just how interconnected our state and national economies really are.

It might be ugly, but it will be entertaining.

Democracy Might be Hijacked

The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8--you know that gay marriage ban that was passed with 52% of the vote.

I am pretty sure I have said this in the past, but despite my rather conservative nature on most things, on this matter I am really of a libertarian mind on this matter. I have to admit that my position on this score has changed in recent years/months. I may have been opposed at one time in the past.

The ban on gay marriage is premised upon the historical and religious notion the main purpose of marriage is the furtherance of teh species, i.e. to have kids. However in modern civil society, we generally have acknowledged that medical science can help traditional man/woman couples have children. In previous times, these families would have to adopt or simply accept their fate that they won't have kids. We as a society have also accepted the notion of gay couples adopting children (most conservatives don't like it and some religious institutions such as Catholic Charities refueses to place children in gay homes), but it is a part of our society now.

I can appreciate the religious and moral objections that many conservatives may have on this issue. However, there is no civil reason why gay couples can't get married. In civil society, marriage is simply a short cut for certain legal protections, most of which can be accomplished in other legal methods.

So that is my position on gay marriage. But having said that, I have a real problem with taking the matter to court. This was a proposition that was properly put on the ballot in California. It was voted on in the most direct manner possible, by the voters of the state. They have decided that it shall be the law that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. That is democracy at work. Now we have gay activists who are upset that they lost the fight at this point and want to hijack the democractic process that is the law of the land in California.

Therein lies the problem. Instead of trying to convince the electorate, gay activists are targeting a very small, unrepresentative sample of California--the Supreme Court--rather than attempting to convince the entire electorate. In doing so I will tell you what will happen the next time this issue comes up on the ballot--gay marriage will be defeated--resoundingly because voters will want to make a statement that they are the final arbiters of the issue--not the court.

California's Deceptive Proposition 4

Interesting Op-ed. On a fundamental basis, I do not like the idea that this could be a scenario:

A child comes into an emergency with a non-life threatening injury, say a broken arm and a young girl comes into an abortion clinic pregnant seeking an abortion.

Under the first scenario a doctor can do nothing without parental consent. The doctor migh proscribe a pain releiver and that is about all.

In the second, parental consent is not necessary for what is admittedly a medical procedure. How do we square that logically?

I generally don't buy the "parental abuse" argument but I will admit that it is possible. At that point, I am sure than an abortion provider is aware of how to navigate the legal channels. But I don't want just notification, but I want someone with authority to Consent to the procedure.

Ga.'s first all-girls charter school opens

Interesting.

On the flip side, a call for a all-boys charter school.

I say, the more the merrier.

Common Sense

This just goes to prove how far you have to go from DC to find actual, real, live common sense. Alaska Gov. Palin Sues Over Polar Bear Listing. If the number of polar bears has actually increased, why then are they being put on the threatened species list? Because some environmental egg-heads THINK the numbers will decline at some point in teh future.

Gov. Palin is challenging that classification (which then impacts a lot of work, industry and other matters that affect the state's economy).

Some Teachers Accused of Sexual Misconduct Merit Privacy, Washington State Court Rules

I saw this at The School Law Blog last week. In Washington State, some overzealous newspaper wanted to get the names and records of any teacher accused of sexual misconduct, whether such accusations proved true or not.

Of course sexual misconduct by teachers with students is a serious problem. Of couse, those who are found to have engaged in such misconduct should be disciplined and prosecuted accordingly. Of course, the public through the newspapers has a right to know about sexual misconduct by teachers.

However, the last time I looked (and apparently it is changing) we still live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. The mere accusation of misconduct would be enough to end an otherwise effective teaching career. Students are getting hip to the idea that the way to eliminate an unwanted to teacher is to accuse that teacher of sexual misconduct. To release the name would be tantamount to placing a scarlet P for pervert on that teacher--effectively ending their career forever.

The Washington State Supreme Court got this one right and the two dissenters are idiots.

Denver ProComp Negotiations

The Quick and the Ed has a good summary about the economic principles, including incentives that go into designing a compensation system for teachers. The summary does a good job, but fails to account for one big mover--what is the market, i.e. the voters, willing to bear in terms of salaries.

But what the story does reflect is the tension between old-school union ideas of compensation and the package put together with teachers (as opposed to union officials or negotiators) providing imput.

That is why the political maneuvering in pay negotiations is far more important than the actual terms of the negotiation itself. Threatening a strike when thousands of Democratic activists are in town (many of them teachers or union supporters) makes the possiblity of a strike more palatable for the Denver teachers and less so for the city.

However, the City can pull an ace out of their hat--the voters--which supported the ProComp plan to the tune of cedeing $25 million to make it work. The City should not shy away from breaking out the big gun of public opinion.

This is where too many cities and school systems lose. They don't play the big guns. ProComp was negotiated and endorsed by the union, the school system and the voters. The City should just call the union on it and actually dare them to strike and shut the schools down.

The primary effect of the strike will be to put the union into the position of having to admit that their primary goal is protecting teachers. There is nothing wrong with this position, but the unions often couch their spin in terms of "good for the students." Striking is good for the teachers, not the students and such a position is clearly exposed when teachers strike.

Of course, you will also see a number of teachers cross the picket lines and the size of the line crossing contingent surely indicates the relative strength of the union.

A Nearly 30 Year Woman Evicted From Home Because She is Labeled A Sex Offender

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes:

Wendy Whitaker's name may be on Georgia's sex offender registry, but her offense suggests she is no predator.

At age 17, while a high school sophomore, Whitaker had oral sex with a 15-year-old male classmate. In 1997, she pleaded guilty to sodomy and got five years' probation. Whitaker, 28, has moved twice because of the sex offender law's restrictions that say an offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate. Whitaker was recently told by a sheriff she must move again because her home is within 1,000 feet of a church.

"It's a recurrent nightmare," Whitaker said Friday. "It's like a roller coaster. One minute, I'm OK. The next, I'm not. This time, I really thought everything was going to be all right."

Wendy Whitaker is a sex offender under Georgia's sex offender law because at age 17 she engaged in oral sex with a 15 year old boy and had the bad luck to get caught. Right now, I can all but guarantee you, there are teenagers in Georgia having sex. I am willing to be large, very large, sums of money on the notion. It does not make them sex offenders and certainly doesn't make them sex offenders for life.

Whitaker has been evicted from her home because 11 years ago she had sex as a teenager.

Such is the problem of bad legislation. The sex offender law was no doubt intended to prevent actual predatory sex offenders from being near children. But, as in Whitaker's case, the problem is exacerbated because the Georgia sex offender law labels anyone convicted of sex based offense as a sex offender, even if the sex was consensual between two teenagers.

I noted a similar story a couple of years ago, which may have been Whitaker's but the Post story doesn't say. I noted back then

So if two high school kids are caught having sex and charged with a sex crime, under this law not only are they not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, chruch or bus stop, apparently they would also be barred from attending their own high school.

How is that for an absurd result!!!



Whitaker is now suing alleging that the residency restrictions are unconstitutional and that the forced eviction is tantamount to a "taking."

I think the takings aspect is an interesting twist on the case. The sex offender residency restictions prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of where children congregate. But Whitaker and her husband own their home, bought in January 2006. The Georgia Supreme Court previously ruled that the sex offender residency restrictions amounted to a taking under the constitution if the sex offender owned a home within the exclusionary boundary. So the Georgia legislature passed a law that said any home bought prior to July 2006 wouldn't apply. The tickle is that Whitaker's name did not appear on the deed to the couple's home until 2007, triggering the local sheriff to give notice that she vacate the house within 48 hours. I would imagine that the reason why Whitaker's name wasn't on the deed was to prevent the triggering of the residency rules.

So the question becomes now, after July 1, 2006, if a sex offender buys a house that is outside the exclusionary zone and then a church, a school or a school bus stop is built or designated within 1,000 feet of the home, is it a taking? I would argue yes, although less so for the church since that is usually a private entity buying the land.

But this whole legal think leaves unaddressed, is Wendy Whitaker really a sex offender? Simply put, based on her past, no--she isn't. I think clearly there needs to be a provision in place where people can petition to be let off the list, particularly in cases like Wendy Whitaker, what really is her crime? Consensual oral sex as a teenager? She was on probation until she was 22, five years after her crime. Six years later, she is still paying for it? Is this really justice?

Here's What I like About Michelle Rhee

This story, alhtough a few days old, points to the exact reason why Michelle Rhee may be the right person at the right time for DC Schools. Here are two quotes that highlight exactly the "reality check" vibe that Rhee puts out, and necessarily so. Rhee was appearing at Stevens Elementary School in the heart of downtown DC, a school whose enrollment has plummeted and been targeted by Rhee's team for closure.

Standing alone at the front of the classroom at Stevens without papers or aides, she listened but made it clear that she believed the time for talk was over.

"The bottom line is we are running too many schools," she said. "The dollars we spend are not being felt by the children because they are spread out over too many buildings."

For far too long, the issues of schools has been one of the most politically charged matters in DC, in part because it is one of the few areas where DC politicos can exert some patronage actions. But Rhee doesn't come from that background and to a large extent doesn't give a damn about past politics. She is, of course, politically sensitive, but when it comes to improving the DC public schools, Mayor Adrian Fenty has essentially given her a carte blanche. Simply put, DC schools spend in excess of $15,000 per pupil and a fair chunk of that coin is in the form of physical plant costs. Eliminate the maintenance and upkeep of the schools and you reduce the school budget without really eliminating actual expenses on education.

But Stevens occupies an interesting spot geographically, in that it is a school buidling on K Street, the home of Washington's Lobbying and Legal communities. The general conspiracy theory is that school will sold and demolished to take advantage of its real estate value, thus the sole reason for closing Stevens. Rhee rejects the notion:

"These decisions [to close schools] were not made about real estate and development," Rhee said flatly to Hackett at the meeting. "You can choose to believe me or not to believe me."

But let's assume that the school building will be sold. The real estate is probably worth millions. Why not sell it and plow the money back into the school system.

This is where sentiment crosses path with reality. I understand the desire to keep a school open for sentimental reasons. If the school was fully enrolled and its performance was acceptable, I would say keep the school open. But the fact of the matter is that the neighborhood around the school is largely business oriented and populated in large part by childless, young professionals and students attending George Washington University. Without a population to support the school, why keep it open.

I would like to see DCPS hold onto the building and turn it into a charter school or a continuing educaiton center (it is metro accessible). But unlike Rhee, I don't make those decisions.

More Dumb Union Objections to Charter Schools

I saw this item yesterday and thought great news. It seems that Newark, NJ mayor Cory Booker has solicited private funds to support Newark charter schools and why not since so many states seem bent on not providing the same funding for charter schools as they do for traditional public schools.

The Newark Charter School Fund has already raised $19 million, including $16 million from four national foundations that have joined together for the first time to fund a Newark institution.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Donald & Doris Fisher Fund, Robertson Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation have each pledged $4 million while three Newark-based foundations -- the Prudential Foundation, MCJ Amelior Foundation and Victoria Foundation -- have each pledged $1 million.

The newly formed fund is the latest in a string of philanthropic organizations that have been created in Newark since Mayor Cory Booker took office to provide private funds where the public funds fall short. (links in original omitted)

However, the teachers' unions and other charter opponents seem to be stuck on stupid with their message, witness:

But Newark Teacher's Union president Joseph Del Grosso said he is concerned about the fund creating new charters that would drain resources needed by Newark Public Schools.

According to state law, charter schools receive roughly 90 percent of the per pupil dollars used to fund traditional public schools, though charter advocates say they get much less than that amount.

"They're not working collaboratively with the public schools," Del Grosso said. "A human can only give up one to two pints of blood before they die. How many pints of blood will the district's budget give up before it collapses?"

So let's see, a charter school, which is by legal definition a public school, gets 90 percent of per pupil funding that a traditional school gets. To make up the shortfall, which may or may not be 10 percent, charters will be able to resort to a PRIVATE fund for assistance. I am not sure where the loss to traditional public schools is coming into the picture. Is Del Grosso upset that charters may be able to get more money than a traditional public school? I can see how that would be upsetting. But from what is reported in this story, it does not appear that traditional public schools would be blocked from seeking aid.

Recruiting, teacher training and retention, implementation of improvement plans for under-performing schools, are among the areas that will be targeted, Leschly said. The fund could also help create new charters. Leschly added Newark Public Schools might also benefit from the initiatives, particularly the recruitment and retention piece.

Hmm, recruiting and retention is a district wide problem, it would clearly seem that the district would benefit from such programs. Helping to improve poor performing schools? Who could object to that? (Aside from Del Grosso).

Mayor Booker has made a name for himself by looking beyond simply the government to provide answers. That Mr. Booker does not wed himself to any one idea for school improvement just goes to show that some leaders on the local level are getting disgruntled with the politics as usual in school issues and is willing, indeed actively searching for ways to break out of the old mode.

What strikes me as most odd is the recalcitrant stance of the unions on the issue of charter schools. While they clearly don't like, charter schools are here to stay. The public demand and bipartisan support (Booker is a Democrat) for the idea has assured that charters will be a part of the educational landscape and will no doubt continue to grow in size and importance. Yet, the unions are fighting a 10 year old battle they lost.

But the beauty of a charter school is that all the risk is taking by the students and their families. A charter may or may not fulfill its stated goals. If it doesn't it gets closed (something that never happens in a traditional public school for academic reasons). Who loses out in such a situation. Not the traditional schools, but the charter students.

As noted in the Newark story, charter schools actually save the school district money. So the charter operates with a smaller budget and must make their own budgetary decisions. The school district is without budgetary loss and they are not held directly responsible for what happens at a charter school. The district, to a certain extent has plausible deniability.

So who has the most to lose in a charter school? The students.

New Mexico Fines Photographer For Not Photographing Same-Sex Ceremony

When I saw this post, I simply don't get what the premise of this ruling is.

Assuming that this is a case solely about commerce (it isn't really since there is an issue of art in commerce). Why can't the photographer simply refuse to take that business and not offer any grounds for it?

I have to assume that the photographer said that she won't photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony and that reason led to the complaint to the state. If that is not correct, then this post is going to be off a bit.

the first question is why not simply decline to take the business. Cite no reason or if pushed say that the time is previously booked. Why cite the same-sex issue?

Second, when did photography become a "public accomodation?" Hotels, restaurants, etc. are accomodations, but not photography.

Third and finally, when did it become the norm for the state to say that a businessman or businesswoman is incapable of determining who will be their clients and who will not. Business owners routinely turn down business for all sorts of reasons. Who is the state to say that a business can or cannot refuse service to someone.

Lots of good stuff at Volokh Conspiracy on this one.

The New Fad--Taxing Millionaires

I have to admit, I have wanted to be rich all my life. I have dreamed of having a bank balance that has seven figures to the left of teh decimal point and a salary to boot. But the latest fad in tax policy puts a great deal of disincentive into that dream. But with Maryland having a new a millionaire's tax bracket, it seems as though the dream is not worth the price I have to pay to Uncle Marty.

The new rate puts Maryland - which boasts the nation's highest median income, according to the Census Bureau - among the states with the highest income taxes at top earning levels if county "piggyback" taxes are included. Even with those included, Maryland still falls well short of Rhode Island's 9.9 percent top rate.

To join the Maryland club, you have to be a real millionaire - earning $1 million a year you can't offset with deductions. Just owning a big house that's appreciated won't cut it. Some sole proprietorships, limited liability corporations and other small businesses will pay, however.

What is the point in trying to become a millionaire (and pay more in terms of real dollars in taxes) when the General Assembly just takes more money?

What is it with the hatred for rich people? Do we just assume they don't deserve their money?

This Is Why Bobby Jindal Will Be President

From Redstate.

What? Well At Least They are Asking to Search

But the fallout from this story will no doubt be a lawsuit saying that some people were intimidated into permitting the search.

D.C. police are going door-to-door Monday in one of the city's crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal contraband.

The program, called the Safe Homes Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing any contraband found by police.

The program is aimed at removing guns and drugs kept by children and young adults in their parents' homes. The homeowners will be asked to sign a form, consenting to the search.

Pretty flimsy excuse for the searches though and full-on Nanny Statism.

Detroit Democrat Mayor Faces Perjury

Unlike the AP, I put Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's name in the Headline. It took them five paragraphs:

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was charged with perjury and other offenses Monday — and got a stern lecture about the importance of telling the truth — after a trove of raunchy text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with his chief aide.

The 37-year-old "Hip-Hop Mayor" who brought youth and vitality to the job in this struggling city of 900,000 could get up to 15 years in prison for perjury alone and would be automatically expelled from office if convicted.

Ignoring mounting demands that he step down, Kilpatrick said: "I look forward to complete exoneration once all the facts have been brought forth. I will remain focused on moving this city forward."

Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy brought charges of perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and misconduct against the popular but polarizing mayor. In announcing the charges, she delivered something of a civics lesson on the importance of telling the truth under oath.

"Some have suggested that the issues in this case are personal or private," said Worthy, a Democrat like the mayor. "Our investigation has clearly shown that public dollars were used, people's lives were ruined, the justice system severely mocked and the public trust trampled on."

Eventually your affair is going to be found out, why deny it under oath. Deny in the press if you like, but lying under oath is worse than the affair. You can bounce back from an affair, you can't bounce back from a perjury conviction.

New York Gov. Used Cocaine

Does any one vet their candidates first anymore? New York Gov. Paterson admits past cocaine use. While he does not appear to be snorting anymore, weren't these questions asked.

What do you think of the pre-revelation damage control out of Albany these days?

They say the government we have is the government we deserve. While past drug use doesn't really bother me that much, it does make me wonder what the heck we have done to ourselves.

Gov. Paterson and his Wife Admit to Affairs

With the words of his oath of office literally hanging in the air, New York Gov. David Paterson AND his wife admitted to extramarital affairs.

In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.

In the course of several interviews in the past few days, Paterson said he maintained a relationship for two or three years with "a woman other than my wife," beginning in 1999.

Damage control or just plain smart. Of course, it is not like Paterson is going to get tossed from office today.

Interesting move though.

Jindal Rumors Won't Die

I had talked about this before, where where some people think newly elected Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal would make a tood running mate for McCain. The rumor won't die.

Look, barring gross incometence as the governor, Jindal will be on the national GOP ticket, probably in 2012. I will be lining up to support him then. But I am not sold on Jindal for the ticket now. I do think he needs more seasoning as the point executive (his experiences in prior exective positions notwithstanding) in a state that literally cries out for a rebirth. Furthermore, I am not a big fan of McCain (and only a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could make me vote for McCain) and I don't want Jindal tainted with McCain.

I don't think that Jindal himself would want this role now. The differences between Jindal and McCain are so numerous, it boggles the mind. Jindal has been at the forefront of efforts on Medicare reform, a state wide health care system, a state wide university system, undistinguished but solid performance in Congress and now Governor, all before his 40th Birthday. When John McCain was first elected to the Senate, Jindal was in grade school. In short, Jindal, in his short life, has more executive experience in his little finger that John McCain has in his entire career. Why mess with that?

Jindal is a largely classic conservative, a fiscal hawk and socially conservative although not archly so. The child of legal immigrants, he has the insight into the immigration problem that McCain doesn't. Jindal is probably a walking encyclopedia on the matter of entitlement reform. Let's not ruin what will might be the First Gen X president by tainting is reputation with running on a ticket with John McCain, who still hasn't done enough to convince conservatives that he is worthy of his support rather than worthy of an anti-Democrat vote (like me).

Let Jindal fix Louisiana (if he can in four years). Until then, I remain unconvinced that Jindal is the right man for the GOP number 2 slot.

Could the Voting Rights Act Kill the National Popular Vote Plan?

I have never been a fan of the National Popular Vote Plan, where states agree to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote--no matter what their state electorate may have votes. California and Maryland have implemented the plan and if a group of states comprising a majority of the electoral votes implement the plan it will take effect. One perverse result might be that a state like Maryland, which generally votes Democratic could have their state results ignored if a Repubican wins the national popular vote. Put in real context, lets say Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama wins Maryland by 15 percentage points. but John McCain wins the national vote by one percentage point, under the National Popular Vote Plan, Maryland would cede all of its electoral votes to John McCain. Thus, the will of the people of Maryland would have been subverted by everyone else in the country.

Well, David Gringer, in a student note for the Columbia Law Review argues that Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act may present a problem for the National Popular Vote plan. It is a pretty good article.

Hat Tip: Prof. Hasen.

This Is Probably Not the Picutre in the Spitzer Household Today

Unless of course, her hands are moving to his throat.