Between Election Day and Inauguration Day, the New York Police Department spent $25.7 million “to protect Trump Tower and the First Family,” according to a letter from the department’s commissioner. That figure is down from the $35 million that was initially estimated in December. The costs associated with protecting President Donald Trump and his family for 75 days during the transition period differed greatly depending on whether Trump himself was in town.

Why was the initial estimate of $35 million nearly one-third higher than the actual cost? “The initial estimate to provide security for Trump Tower was calculated using anticipated costs,” an NYPD spokesperson told POLITICO. “Subsequently, modifications were made to the security plan, and the amount was recalculated using actual costs.”

The intent of the commissioner’s letter, which was sent on Tuesday, was to extract resources from the federal government to reimburse the city for protecting Trump and his family during the transition. Though New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, initially asked for $35 million (based on the NYPD’s initial estimate) to cover the costs, the federal government has paid the city $7 million so far.

Trump has yet to visit Trump Tower, or New York City, since Inauguration Day. When he does–he has suggested he would like to spend weekends in Manhattan–the same costs would likely apply, if not more. Regardless, the presence of his wife Melania and his son Barron at Trump Tower incurs heavy costs. It would cost $50 million over a year-long period to protect the two of them for a year (Melania and Barron are expected to stay through the school year). If Trump joins them on weekends, as he has indicated he will do, that will jump to $60 million per year.

In his letter, O’Neill also acknowledged the collateral effects of siphoning the city’s budget to protect the president and his family: “Trump Tower itself now presents a target to those who wish to commit acts of terror against our country, further straining our limited counterterrorism resources.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Does it Cost to Protect Trump Tower? appeared first on Law Street.

Putting an end to a nearly month-long stalemate on Monday, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina ceded the election to his Democratic opponent, Roy Cooper. McCrory lost the election last month by just over 10,000 votes, among the slimmest margins in the country. But McCrory demanded a recount, despite, as of his concession on Monday, no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

In a video statement on Monday, McCrory said:

Despite continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process, I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken and we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper.

McCrory was elected to his first term as governor in 2012, enjoying support from both sides of the aisle. But in March, McCrory’s attracted national attention, largely negative, for signing H.B. 2, the law that required people in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponded to the gender listed on their birth certificate. His stock quickly fell. The law ended up costing North Carolina important investments, as artists refused to perform there, and the NBA decided its All-Star game would take place in New Orleans, not Charlotte as originally planned.

McCrory finally conceded the NC governor’s race, proving even the most stubborn stains on our social fabric can be scrubbed out eventually.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) December 5, 2016

With McCrory’s loss, North Carolina’s governorship is one of the few bright spots for Democrats, as Republicans maintained their majority in both chambers of Congress, and President-elect Donald Trump won the White House. The GOP gained two governorships overall on November 8 and now hold 33 in total, up from 31 during the last term. And while Cooper’s win is a boost for Democrats, broadly and in North Carolina, the state legislature is still controlled by Republicans.

Roy Cooper, who has served as North Carolina’s attorney general since 2001, was able to breathe a sigh of relief on Monday. In a statement, Cooper stressed unity moving forward. “It will be the honor of my life to serve this great state,” he said. “While this was a divisive election season, I know still that there is more that unites us than divides us. Together, we can make North Carolina the shining beacon in the south by investing in our schools, supporting working families and building a state that works for everyone.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina Governor Race is Officially Over as McCrory Concedes Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

Officials in Maine on Monday morning began a recount of ballots from Election Day. Because the state’s recreational marijuana legalization measure, Question 1, passed by a narrow margin (about 4,000 votes), officials wanted to confirm the results of a measure that would have wide-ranging effects in the Pine Tree State. If the results are confirmed, Maine would join three other states–California, Massachusetts, and Nevada–that passed recreational legalization measures on November 8.

The Maine secretary of state’s office has signaled that the recount could take up to a month. The recount–which is taking place in the state capital of Augusta–could cost at least $500,000. State police will be transferring ballots, locked away in password-protected boxes, from 503 towns across the state.

Question 1 would allow Maine residents who are at least 21 years old to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Home cultivation would be limited to up to six plants. If the measure passes, state officials would have nine months to construct a regulatory framework.

Governor Paul LePage, in a video released before the vote, said marijuana “can be deadly.” Likening it to heroin, he said, “we do not need to legalize a drug that could lead to more deaths.” LePage, a staunch opponent of the measure, added: “Before you vote, please educate yourself on this dangerous issue.”

The measure was passed by a slim margin, with 381,692 voters supporting Question 1, and 377,619 opposing it. LePage, a Republican, supports the recount, and has said that he would implore President-elect Donald Trump to enforce the federal ban on marijuana. If Trump did respect states’ wishes, however, LePage said he would respect that decision as well.

Election Day was a sizable victory for marijuana advocates, as eight states (nine if the Maine results are confirmed) passed marijuana measures in some form, though marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Maine residents will have to wait at least a few more weeks to see if their state joins the growing list of states that have legalized the drug since 2012. Maine legalized medical marijuana in 2009.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recount Begins for Maine’s Recreational Marijuana Ballot Measure appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin signaled that his state’s recently passed recreational marijuana legalization ballot measure, Question 4, could miss its targeted implementation date of December 15. Massachusetts, and seven other states, passed some form of marijuana legalization measures on Election Day, with Bay State voters overwhelmingly in support of a recreational marijuana legalization framework.

The eight-member Governor’s Council needs to sign off on the ballot measure, which 1.7 million people (54 percent) voted for, before it can be implemented. Galvin said he expects the council’s votes to be tallied on December 14, and said it’s a “50-50 proposition” that the law will go into effect, meaning Massachusetts citizens 21 and over can legally possess and use small amounts of pot. Stores will be allowed to start selling marijuana on January 1, 2018, though that date might also get pushed back.

“All those tokers can hold their breath a little longer, but they’ll be able to exhale,” Galvin said, adding that if it’s not passed in two weeks, it will be at the beginning of next year. He said a later than usual election, and the results not being a lock until November 18 were the primary reasons for the potential delay. Confirming the presidential election results are his number one priority, he said, and the work put into that takes precedence over the marijuana measure. “No one is trying to delay the marijuana question deliberately,” he added. “It’s just the presidency of the United States is more important than legalizing marijuana.”

Michael Albano, one of the eight members of the Governor’s Council, told The Boston Globe that he would be surprised if the passed ballot measure does not go into effect on the targeted date. “We meet every week so if it’s not ready on the 30th, we’ll be there on December 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th,” he said. Home cultivation–of up to 12 marijuana plants–is also expected to start on December 15, though that too would be pushed back if the council delays the implementation.

Will Luzier, a lawyer and prominent backer of Question 4, told the Globe he is surprised that there could be a delay, saying: “I would hope that the secretary of state errs on the positive side of that 50-50, and that he and the Governor’s Council would be able to certify given the deadline date.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Might Have to Wait a Little Longer for Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

The map above will be updated on election night to reflect the election results as they come in. All results will be based on the official Associated Press state projections. Scroll over the map to see when the polls close in each state as well as how many electoral votes are at stake.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 Election Results: State by State Map appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hundreds of Women are Honoring Susan B. Anthony’s Grave

Suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony tried to cast her vote in the election of 1872, but was arrested and fined $100. This election, hundreds of visitors, mainly women, have been lining up to put “I Voted” stickers on her gravestone. The graveyard, located in Rochester, New York, is even planning on staying open until 9 PM tonight instead of the normal 5:30 PM.

Susan B. Anthony head stone filling up with voting stickers at Mt.Hope Cemetery @DandC @SOrr1 pic.twitter.com/LoLyrREHc9

— Max Schulte (@maxrocphoto) November 8, 2016

Unfortunately, Anthony passed away 14 years before women earned the right to vote in 1920. Rochester’s mayor, who has the cool name Lovely A. Warren, placed a “thank you” plaque next to the grave after Clinton earned the Democratic nomination in July, and said yesterday that Anthony “would have wanted to be a part of the significant history this year’s election holds for women.”

This is not a line to vote; it’s a line to see Susan B. Anthony’s gravesite. #Election2016 pic.twitter.com/xUd44WpJgj

— Patrick Thornton (@pwthornton) November 8, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Talk Spanish To Me, Tim Kaine

As the election continues to make us groan, Tim Kaine continues to impress us. He can play the harmonica, he’s insanely charismatic and, get this…he can speak Spanish like a boss. Kaine made history by delivering a stump speech entirely in Spanish at a community center in Arizona.

After Trump’s “bad hombres” and constant alienation of bilingual and multilingual families, Tim Kaine sought to rally key voters by actually speaking their language and treating them with respect.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 4, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Black voters showed up in historically large numbers in 2008 and 2012 to help elect Barack Obama to the White House. Will that trend continue in 2016? If early voting numbers are any indication, black turnout will be a bit lower than in the previous two elections. And on Wednesday, President Obama, in an interview with radio host Tom Joyner, said African-American turnout is “not as solid as it needs to be,” for his preferred successor, Hillary Clinton.

“I need everybody to understand that everything we’ve done is dependent on me being able to pass the baton to somebody who believes in the same things I believe in,” he said, noting that Trump might even rip up Michelle Obama’s vegetable gardens.

Obama has been pushing this message in the weeks leading up to Election Day, and in the midst of the early voting period, when compared to 2012 numbers, the number of black voters casting ballots early has dipped slightly. For instance, in North Carolina, blacks have cast 23 percent of the state’s early votes, 111,000 less than at this point in 2012, when they made up 28 percent of early voters. Clinton is failing to muster Obama-level enthusiasm among black voters in Florida as well.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina tried to change the state’s voting laws, but a federal court struck down the measure because it “targeted black voters with surgical precision.” Obama told the audience at a rally in Chapel Hill on Wednesday as much, adding that it is now “easier to vote than ever” in North Carolina. “What’s our excuse?” he added.

Obama is not the only Clinton acolyte making an 11th hour pitch to black voters. Bill Clinton visited Detroit on Wednesday and met with black ministers. But Obama–who captured 95 percent of the black vote in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012–is Clinton’s most valuable and vocal supporter in the waning days of the election.

He warned voters on Wednesday of the implication a Trump White House could have on his legacy: “If we let this thing slip and I’ve got a situation where my last two months in office are preparing for a transition to Donald Trump, whose staff people have said that their primary agenda is to have him in the first couple of weeks sitting in the Oval Office and reverse every single thing that we’ve done.” 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Says Black Turnout “Not as Solid as it Needs to Be” appeared first on Law Street.

Nine states will be voting on marijuana legalization measures in some form next week–either recreational or medical–in what some pot advocates see as a tipping point in the federal classification of the drug. One key facet of state-level legalization that is seriously affected by the federal ban on marijuana is the banking sector. Because cannabis is illegal at the federal level, banks are hesitant to work with dispensaries, even in states where marijuana is entirely legal.

The U.S. Justice Department issued a new set of guidelines for banks in dealing with legal dispensaries in February 2014, saying banks and credit unions doing business with state-licensed businesses (in states where marijuana is legal, of course), would not be prosecuted, irrespective of the federal standing. Since the new practices were instituted, banks and unions working with marijuana businesses jumped from 51 to 301, as of April 2016.

But banks still hesitate to open accounts or issue credit for legal pot businesses, leaving many to operate in cash only. That can lead to some obvious obstacles. For instance, there have been 200 recorded robberies at marijuana dispensaries in Denver since Colorado fully implemented its marijuana legalization measure in 2014. New businesses looking to cut into the legal market struggle to find banks willing to lend them money. And some pot proprietors resort to filing their credit card charges under false pretenses, such as “spa service.”

Twenty-five states (and the District of Columbia) have legalized marijuana in some form: medically, recreationally, or both. Five states, including California, a state with an already huge medical pot market, will be voting on recreational weed ballot measures on Election Day.

One California union, the Community Credit Union of Southern Humboldt, stopped issuing accounts to pot-related businesses because of the uncertainty, and the responsibility of having to ensure a marijuana client is legal and following all regulations and protocols. “We’re not being asked to go over to the gun dealer and ask them if they’re making appropriate background checks,” she told Reuters.

One credit union in Colorado, Partner Colorado Credit Union, is a model for banks who are willing to risk breaking federal law while adhering to state laws. For one, the union takes up to three weeks to vet any potential clients. Once a working relationship is established, the union uses armored trucks to transport cash from the dispensary to the Denver branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. “Our program is designed with eyes on the business, eyes on the owner, eyes on the money,” the union’s Chief Executive Sundie Seefried told Reuters.

Such scrupulous steps would hardly be necessary if federal and state governments could get on the same page on this issue. Next week’s results could lead to a step in that direction.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cash Only: Why are Banks Hesitant to Work with Legal Pot Businesses? appeared first on Law Street.

Did FBI Director James Comey break a federal law by sending a letter to Congress on Friday announcing the bureau’s renewed probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seems to think so. Reid sent a letter of his own to Comey on Sunday accusing the director of breaking the Hatch Act, a little known but commonly enforced statute that prohibits federal employees from meddling in an election. “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law,” Reid wrote.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong about Mr. Comey. https://t.co/7tHfOgxvCN

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) October 30, 2016

Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, disallowing federal employees to “use [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” The law has been repeatedly amended since, and the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 widened the scope of partisan participation granted to federal employees.

In July, the Office of Special Counsel–the agency that enforces the Hatch Act–found Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro in violation of the law. In an April interview with Katie Couric, Castro was asked about the coming election and his endorsement of Clinton. He responded: “Now, taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually, it is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for President that we have this year.” The OSC wrote that Castro violated the Hatch Act “by advocating for and against Presidential candidates.”

According to Reid, Comey’s withholding of information regarding Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, along with the timing of his letter (11 days before Election Day), was “intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group,” which is a breach of the Hatch Act and a clear “double-standard.” Reid writes:

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government–a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.

Aside from Reid’s statement, there is no evidence that Trump or his advisors have ties to the Russian government, though Trump has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin–even calling on him to double down his hacking of Clinton’s emails. U.S. officials have found evidence that Russia is behind the recent hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta.

Harry Reid is a disgrace to American politics, among worst men ever in Senate. He can’t go soon enough, & many Democrats privately agree. https://t.co/4lCKx5pKi4

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) October 30, 2016

By alerting Congress to the emergence of new evidence in the Clinton email case–emails were found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner–Comey may have roused enough partisan passions to affect the presidential race, though more likely, down-ballot congressional races. His letter shifted the spotlight off Trump. It reminded voters of Clinton’s weaknesses. It provided fodder for Republican lawmakers, and buoyed Trump’s spirits. But proving Comey intended to cause any of these effects with his actions does not seem likely.

After sending his letter to Congress, Comey sent a letter to FBI employees that offered more details regarding his decision to send a fairly vague letter in the first place. He wrote:

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

President Obama appointed Comey as director in 2013, and his ten-year term is set to end in 2023. In a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama does not think Comey is trying to influence the election. He also said Obama believes Comey is a “man of integrity and good character” and that he’s in a “tough spot.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did James Comey Break Federal Law with His Letter to Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

In key battleground states and some Republican strongholds, early voting trends appear more favorable to Democrats this year compared with the same time last cycle. With less than two weeks to Election Day, 13.4 million voters have cast ballots by mail or in person in 37 states. For starters, the early vote total is far higher than during the same period in 2012. Forty percent of the electorate, or 46 million people, are expected to vote before Election Day on November 8. Below are some takeaways from a handful of key states.

North Carolina

Republican Mitt Romney won this vital battleground state in 2012. But if current trends hold, it seems the state could swing to the left. Fewer people have voted early in North Carolina this year compared to 2012, but of those who have, 46 percent are Democrats and 29 percent are Republicans.

According to a CNN analysis of the early votes, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, will need a strong turnout from African-American voters to capture the state. Their share of the electorate is down five percent from 2012. In the most recent poll, Clinton leads Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, by seven points.

Florida

The Sunshine State went to Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Democrats seem poised to repeat their victory there on November 8. Two million ballots have been cast in Florida so far, with the two major parties in a dead heat, each garnering 41 percent of the voters. This bodes well for Democrats: at the same point in 2008 (the most recent available data) Republican voters cast 113,222 more votes than Democrats, according to CNN.

This could be due to changing demographics: the Hispanic portion of the electorate is up four percent in Florida from 2008, while the share of whites has dropped from 82 percent in 2008 to roughly 77 percent this year. But the most recent poll shows Trump edging Clinton by two percentage points in Florida.

Red to Blue?

Some traditionally purple states are showing signs of turning blue, including Nevada and Colorado. Democrats have cast 46 percent of the ballots in Nevada thus far, compared to 35 percent for the GOP. In Colorado, over 400,000 people have cast early ballots, 40 percent Democrats and 34 percent Republicans. CNN’s analysis of the early vote data shows the Democrats with a 15,000 vote lead, which is slightly more than they had in 2012. Obama won Nevada in 2012, though recent polls show a tie between Clinton and Trump.

Historically, Nevada is not necessarily a Republican shoo-in. Bill Clinton won there in 1992 and 1996. George W. Bush won there in 2000 and 2004. And President Obama won in 2008 and 2012. The past two decades or so in Colorado are nearly identical, aside from the 1996 election, when Bob Dole picked up its eight electoral votes.

Obama won Colorado in 2012, but compared to the same early voting period, Republicans held a slight lead. This year, Democrats are up by about 10,000 votes, according to CNN.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Road to 270: A Look at Early Voting Trends in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

With just over two weeks until Americans vote for their next president, Donald Trump may have lost a key member of his campaign: National Political Director Jim Murphy said he will “take a step back from the campaign.” In a short statement to Politico, he attributed his decision to “personal reasons” while making clear that he has “not resigned.” Campaign aides said Murphy has been absent in recent days.

Internal clashes and international scandals have rocked Trump’s campaign since its inception. Murphy joined Trump’s campaign in June, succeeding Rick Wiley, who clashed with Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, a position now held by Kellyanne Conway. Paul Manafort resigned as campaign chairman in August following intense pressure surrounding his lobbying work for the pro-Russian former president of Ukraine.

A career lobbyist, Murphy was a key waypoint between Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee. He also helped build field operations in battleground states, and oversaw the floor operations at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. It’s quite late in the game for such a vital piece of a presidential campaign to “step back,” especially considering Trump’s recent self-inflicted wounds and falling poll numbers.

Murphy’s stint with the Trump campaign–which, if he is on hiatus, might still be ongoing–is not his first foray into politics. In 1988, he worked on Bob Dole’s unsuccessful White House bid. Murphy and Manafort worked together for Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign as well.

There are 18 days until Election Day, and Trump has seemingly lost his national political director. How this affects the logistics of his campaign’s final push is unclear at this point, but certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Trump’s National Political Director, Jim Murphy, Just Quit? appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, I wrote a breakdown of some of the top races to watch on election day 2015. Here are the results of these contentious votes:

Virginia’s General Assembly

Why we should have watched it: With just a few key races promising to decide the lean of the state Senate overall, and Governor Terry McAuliffe pushing hard for a Democratic Senate, it was certainly a race to watch. Given that Virginia promises to be a hotly contested swing state in 2016, seeing just how purple the state has become is always interesting.

What happened: The GOP retained control of the state senate, and therefore the General Assembly as a whole. This leaves McAuliffe still without allies, and may indicate an uphill battle for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee for 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

Why we should have watched it: San Francisco voters were offered a sort of referendum on Airbnb’s model of short-term rentals. Proposition F promised to levy some serious restrictions on the company. Add to that Airbnb’s $8 million dollar investment in fighting against the proposition, and a series of weird ads that certainly turned San Francisco voters off, and it became a tense race from start to finish.

What happened: Airbnb’s massive investment paid off, as voters rejected Proposition F. So, Airbnb will continue business as usual in the city where it is headquartered, but it was still a very expensive fight. As other cities may try to create similar restrictions, Airbnb might not want to make spending that kind of cash a precedent.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Why we should have watched it: The Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway faced off against tea party candidate and businessman Matt Bevin. This was an incredibly hotly contested race; recent polls actually showed Conway in the lead. Bevin last year tried to primary Mitch McConnell, and was almost successful, and then beat a more establishment Republican for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

What happened: Bevin won, marking the first time in a while that a Republican has taken the governorship in Kentucky. Moreover, he showed that tea party wins aren’t a thing of the past. His successful rallying against the establishment may indicate who Kentucky will vote for in 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Why we should have watched it: There were a lot of weird aspects to Ohio’s attempt to legalize marijuana. For one, it would have been the first state to legalize recreational marijuana having not first legalized medical marijuana. Moreover, there were concerns of a “marijuana oligopoly,” given that only 10 facilities backed by a group of investors would receive licenses to grow it. So, some that rallied against it were more fighting against the threat of a restricted market than the legalization of weed itself.

What happened: The initiative failed, so weed won’t be legalized in Ohio. However, it’s unclear whether it was rejected because of the oligopoly fears, or because Ohioans actually didn’t want to legalize weed. If it’s the former, we should expect to see another measure up for vote soon that allows a wider market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Why we should have watched it: The city of Houston, Texas voted on an equal rights ordinance that would have included protections for the LGBTQ community, including on the basis of gender identity. However, the entire thing became a nasty firefight when groups that opposed the ordinance began suggesting that it would allow predators to enter women’s bathrooms.

What happened: The fear-mongering paid off, and the ordinance didn’t pass. The opponents focused on one incorrect assumption, and were successful. Although the U.S. is doing a little better on LGBTQ rights in the wake of Obergefell, the resounding defeat of the ordinance in a relatively liberal city run by Annise Parker, one of the most high profile openly gay mayors in the United States, isn’t a great sign.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Results are in: Election Day 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Check out the infographic below, based on information from Measure 91 in Oregon, Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and Ballot Initiative 71 in DC.

Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia aren’t the only places considering marijuana legalization today. The cities of Lewistown and South Portland, Maine, are going to vote on whether or not to legalize it — Portland, Maine has already made it legal for adults to own less than an ounce of the substance. In addition, votes continue on legalizing medical marijuana. If the initiative currently up for a vote in Florida passes, it would make the Sunshine State the twenty-fourth to legalize marijuana, as well as the first southern state.

Regardless of how these particular measures do, there’s a good chance that we’ll see more states starting to legalize marijuana in the very near future. The national opinion on marijuana has changed rapidly. Polls fluctuate, but the amount of Americans who believe legalizing marijuana would be in the best interest of the nation hovers around 50 percent. In addition, most Americans don’t think that jail time should be served for small amounts of marijuana, which is now very much a “soft” drug; it doesn’t receive the same kind of punishment as more addictive and harmful drugs.

The progress in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia might not mean that we suddenly see a large wave of marijuana legalization across the country — it will still be illegal under federal law. But it will be interesting to see if any other states join Colorado and Washington this year.

Editor’s note: The infographic in this article was updated November 5, 2014 to reflect each vote’s outcome.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States to Watch Today: Marijuana Laws On the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, DC appeared first on Law Street.

America is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy, but can it possibly live up to that promise if its people don’t vote? This article attempts to explain which Americans vote, which don’t, how Congress can fix the issue, and why they probably won’t anytime soon.

Who votes?

If you are rich, old, white, have a college degree, and go to church often, you probably vote. This is the demographic that is most likely to turn up to the polls on Tuesday. According to the Pew Research Center, whites are disproportionately represented at the polls: 37 percent of white people are voters, as opposed to only 29 percent of non-whites. Forty-two percent of those who are over the age of 50 vote, while only 22 percent of those between 18-29 regularly vote. Almost half of all college degree holders vote, while those without degrees turn out at a measly 28 percent. Strangely enough, attending church makes you eight percent more likely to vote.

While the youth vote is low, it has been on the rise recently. Forty-four percent of young people voted in the 2008 election, the highest turnout since 1972. While that number did go down slightly in 2012, it was a still a higher turnout than 2000.

Find more information about who votes from this infographic couresty of Takepart.com.

Via: TakePart.com

How many Americans vote overall?

Not that many– in the 2012 election, only 58.2 percent of the nation voted for President. To put that in perspective, the turnout in the most recent Afghani election was about the same. Even though, the Taliban was threatening to blow up polling stations and conducted suicide bombings two months before Election Day.

In the 2010 midterm elections, it was even worse with only 41 percent of voter turnout. Less than a majority of American citizens voted for their representation in Congress in 2010.

The United States is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to voter turnout. Between 1945 and 2001, American voter turnout averaged at 66.5 percent. This means we ranked 120 out of 169 countries. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Hungary all had higher voter turnouts than United States.

More embarrassingly, as this video points out, America has the lowest voter turnout amongst developed nations:

Why don’t more people vote?

A plurality of non-voters cite apathy as the main cause. According to the Census Bureau, 26.4 percent of those who did not vote in 2008 chose not to exercise this right because they were uninterested in either candidate. This means that four million registered voters were not going to the polls no matter how easy it was to vote.

However, a significant number of registered voters did not make it to a polling station even though they wanted to vote. Almost 18 percent of registered voters did not cast a ballot because they were too busy, most likely because they were at work that Tuesday.

Why does the Constitution require Election Day to be on a Tuesday?

A video from the appropriately named organization “Why Tuesday” explains this odd rule:

It all goes back to the days of horse and buggy. There was no national electoral date until 1845, when Congress passed a law making it Tuesday. You see, Election Day could not be on Monday, because that would require voters to travel to the polls on horse and buggy on Sunday, which was the Sabbath day. And since Wednesdays were Market Days for farmers, Tuesday was the date that made the most sense.

There have been efforts to change the date, however, there has not been enough support. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-D) has introduced the Weekend Voting Act in multiple Congresses. In the 113th Congress (the current Congress), there has been no meaningful action on the bill and it only has four cosponsors.

So why are no leaders supporting a change? There is a policy explanation and a political explanation.

The policy explanation comes in the form of a study that shows that a change to weekend elections does not significantly improve voter turnout. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), early voting would, at most, improve voter turnout by only four percent. The GAO admitted that reporting on potential benefits and downsides of weekend voting was difficult since there was no American case to study, but they did go over 24 independent studies on the topic.

The report also included quotes from state and local officials expressing concern that they might not be able to find volunteers to work the polls if they have to compete with fun weekend activities.

Of course, like all things in Washington, there is a political aspect to this issue.

Weekend voting would disproportionately help the poor get to the polls. Single parents and those who work multiple would benefit from the move to the weekend. So, what’s wrong with that? Well, poor people tend to vote for the Democratic Party, making Republicans unlikely to pass any legislation that would make it easier for them to vote.

If we can’t change the date of Election Day, how else can we boost turnout?

Make Election Day a holiday

Instead of moving Election Day to the weekend, Congress could just declare Election Day a federal holiday, giving everyone the day off of work so that they can vote.

Rainn Wilson from The Office supports that idea in this weird video featuring a 19th century sharecropper voting in modern day America

On the flip side, making Election Day a federally recognized holiday solves none of the problems associated with moving Election Day to a weekend (makes it difficult to attract poll workers, doesn’t guarantee turnout), and it creates the problem of losing a workday in the middle of the week.

Mandate Voting

Congress could also use its taxing power to mandate voting. Australia, the country that boasts the highest voter turnouts, fines anyone who does not go to the polls. While the fine is only A$20 ($18), that is still enough to convince most people to go to the polls.

Mandated voting could also have the added benefit of forcing candidates to run towards the center of American politics as opposed to attracting radicals. If everyone is voting, it makes little sense to try and appeal to people on the far end of the political spectrum. This phenomenon is explained in this video:

Of course, the American people aren’t the biggest fans of mandates recently, so it is unlikely that this will ever happen.

What other challenges do voters face at the polls?

Speaking of voting not being easy, it has actually become more difficult to vote in just the past few years. Here are a few ways that politicians and judges have curtailed access to the polls.

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. The law outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests, but, most importantly, it places the election laws of specific states and counties under the purview of the federal government. A list of these jurisdictions can be found here. That means that, if any of those states or counties passes a law altering their election format, the Department of Justice has the ability to step in and overturn the law if it is found to be discriminatory.

Well, it used to have this ability. In June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned section four of the law, which determined which states and counties had to get their laws approved by the federal government. The majority opinion stated that the country has changed dramatically since 1965 and that racism in election laws is basically over.

As a result, those jurisdictions are now allowed to make their own election laws without the review of the Department of Justice.

This report from SCOTUSblog shows what happened in Pasadena, Texas after this ruling took place.

Voter ID Laws

As a reaction to this ruling, literally days after it was passed down, states across the country started passing and implementing voter ID laws. These are laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has put together an interactive map that shows which states now require or request a photo ID at the polling booth.

Supporters claim that these laws are necessary in order to fight voter fraud. The problem? A News21 analysis shows that there have only been 10 cases of voter impersonation since 2000. That’s one out-of-fifteen million voters during that time period. This form of vote tampering has impacted exactly zero elections.

Opponents argue that these laws are thinly veiled attempts to stop poor people and minorities from voting. 11 percent of US citizens do not have a photo ID, and 25 percent of African Americans do not have voter ID. Since photo ID requires a purchase in most states, the new law prevents poor voters from voting.

Why is it important to get more people to vote?

I’ll let P. Diddy and then-Senate candidate Barack Obama from 2004 take this one:

Conclusion

Americans currently face many obstacles at the polls, and Congress seems to have little interest or stake in solving them. As long as Election Day is still a workday and states pass restrictive voting laws, voter turnout will remain low.

Resources

Primary

Census: Voting and Registration Information From the Census Bureau in 2008

Congress: The Weekend Voting Act

GAO: Improving Voter Turnout

Additional

Pew: Who Votes and Who Doesn’t?

Child Trends: Trends in Young Vote

IDEA: Voter Turnout Rates From a Comparative Perspective

Washington Post: Census Bureau Findings

NPR: Why Do We Vote on Tuesday?

ABC: Democrats Eye a New Election Day

CNN: Election Day Should be a Federal Holiday

BBC: How Australia’s Voting Mandate Works

Guardian: The Supreme Court Guts the VRA…Since Racism is Over

NCSL: Map of States That Have Voter ID Laws

ACLU: Voter ID Laws

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Elections: Americans Don’t Rock the Vote and Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.