After essentially defeating Theresa May’s attempted Brexit referendum disguised as a special election, British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn has decided to bask in the glory of his newfound popularity by joining the demographic that most supported his movement–the youth. He chose a place in which you’re most likely to find them in the summer: a music festival.

No, Corbyn won’t be performing alongside headliners Radiohead, Foo Fighters, and Ed Sheeran. Instead, he will be introducing American rap group Run the Jewels (RTJ), known for their lyrics about social issues and left wing politics, onto the main stage. This was a welcome surprise to Killer Mike, the MC of RTJ, who seemed to find out about the announcement just this morning.

Having a Wow moment: https://t.co/lZYRhW3CGe ✊✊✊✊✊

— Killer Mike (@KillerMike) June 16, 2017

During the American election season and Democratic primaries, Killer Mike put his support behind Bernie Sanders, who he considers a close friend and famously interviewed in a barbershop in Atlanta. The use of his platform for political advocacy has now gone beyond the borders of the United States. At London’s Field Day festival earlier this month, the MC encouraged the crowd to vote Labour in support of Jeremy Corbyn.

This should come as no surprise to those who have followed Corbyn’s campaigning closely. Before the election, he received support from UK grime MCs Stormzy, Novelist, and JME, was pictured on the cover of Kerrang! alongside British bands Creeper and Architects, and made an appearance on stage during Reverend and the Makers’ set at Wirral Live music festival.

Corbyn was scheduled to appear at the festival last year, but the vote for Brexit unfortunately derailed that cameo. To commemorate his return, Michael Eavis, the 81-year-old founder of Glastonbury Festival, will be joining the leader of Labour on stage. Eavis is a strong supporter of Corbyn’s stances on nuclear disarmament and anti-austerity, and is just a fan of the man in general.

“We’re Corbyn fans, that’s the thing,” Eavis told the Guardian. “He’s got something new and precious, and people are excited about it. He really is the hero of the hour.”

Even though they will be the ones actually performing, Run the Jewels might have a tough time following the support the Labour leader will probably receive on stage, according to exit polls. NBC News’ British partner, ITV News, estimated youth turnout was at 72 percent, well above the 43 percent that showed up to vote in 2015. Online polling site YouGov found that approximately 64 percent of those surveyed between 18-29 voted for Labour, as opposed to 36 percent in 2015.

Corbyn’s campaign might have even inspired more young people to vote for the first time. Just before the deadline for voter registration in 2015, 137,400 signed up, while 246,487 did so this year. Many of those attending the festival will be looking forward to cheering on their candidate of choice after an election that was referred to by some as “the revenge of the young on the old.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jeremy Corbyn to Introduce Run the Jewels at Glastonbury appeared first on Law Street.

During a concert Thursday night in San Jose, California, Kanye West stunned fans by announcing he didn’t vote in the presidential election, but if he had, he would have voted for Donald Trump.

“I told you all I didn’t vote right? … But if I were to have voted, I would have voted on Trump,” West said.

“I would’ve voted for Trump” – @kanyewest pic.twitter.com/XtyUteCgUZ

— albertoreyes (@albertoreyes) November 18, 2016

Fans immediately began booing West, and some even began to throw things at him from the crowd.

His announcement came as a huge shock to many, especially since:

1. In 2005, he famously called out then-President George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina, saying Bush didn’t “care about black people.”
2. His wife, Kim Kardashian West, endorsed Hillary Clinton by posting a selfie with the Democratic hopeful (which included Kanye).
3. As Pitchfork points out, he’s made four contributions to Democratic campaigns since 2012. Not only did he donate to both of Obama’s campaigns, but he also gave $15,000 to the DNC in October 2014 and $2,700 to Hillary for America in July 2015.

However, the two men do have a few things in common. They’re both rich, have huge egos, and are outspoken to a fault.

Here’s an extended clip of his rant.

West defended his viewpoint to the audience, stating:

That don’t mean that I don’t think that Black Lives Matter. That don’t mean that I don’t think that I’m a believer in women’s rights. That don’t mean I don’t believe in gay marriage. That don’t mean that I don’t believe in these things because that was the guy I would’ve voted for.

He also reportedly told the crowd that “neither candidate would fix racism in this country, and that black people need to stop focusing on racism because we live in a racist country.”

People on Twitter immediately began disowning West, frequently mocking him with lyrics modeled after his own song “I Love Kanye.”

I miss the old kanye
The black and bold kanye
The smokin kush kanye
The anti bush kanye
Not donald trump Kanye

— Jon the Don (@big_jon4) November 18, 2016

I miss the old Kanye
The socially woke Kanye
Called Bush a joke Kanye
He used his vote Kanye

— JAY ₆ (@VIEWSFROMJAY) November 18, 2016

Is this a joke kanye
U actin broke kanye
U blowin smoke kanye
I miss the old kanye https://t.co/CKiYttEYBs

— lauren fuentes (@laurenschroed) November 18, 2016

I miss the old Kanye
The black & bold dope Kanye
The anti Bush Woke Kanye
Not Donald Trumps Kanye pic.twitter.com/d8RkGj1oap

— E (@esheikh_) November 18, 2016

“Bush doesn’t care about black people” – Kanye

“There’s racism in the fashion industry” – Kanye

“Stop talking about racism” – Kanye

— Jigga Jeaux (@JoeOnDemand) November 18, 2016

Blu: Daddy, how come people keep saying bad things about Uncle Kanye?
Jay: That’s not your uncle babygirl pic.twitter.com/emCyK4wRF0

— BABY HAIR & AFROS✊ (@NiecysUnknown) November 18, 2016

Kanye West, 2005: president Bush doesn’t care about black people
Kanye to Kanye, 2016: neither do you pic.twitter.com/kBHnZeg7RY

— Jocelyn Aspa (@jocelynaspa) November 18, 2016

It seems pretty crazy that Kanye thinks Donald Trump should be president until you remember that Kanye also thinks Kanye should be president

— . (@browniecdg) November 18, 2016

every single person in the crowd at the kanye concert: please please dont talk ab the election

kanye: i have something to say

crowd: fuck

— Cody Ko (@codyko) November 18, 2016

How I sleep at night knowing I never bought Yeezys pic.twitter.com/s0mKV2MBTH

— PROD. BY @VERYRVRE (@TVSH_P) November 18, 2016

West is no stranger to negative controversies, and likely won’t lose sleep over his comments. Who knows, his Trump outburst may have been a clever publicity stunt given that he plans to “run for president in 2020.” We’ll just have to wait and see.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye West Booed After Saying He Would Have Voted for Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Americans take great pride in our democratic system, which we tout as the main opportunity for our citizens to be a part of the political process. Despite this, voting (the mechanism that gives us the most access to this process) is still something we struggle with: America’s voter participation rates are still astonishingly low compared to other developed countries. With a 53.6 percent participation rate among eligible voters, we fall far behind countries such as Belgium (87.2 percent), Sweden (82.6 percent), and France (71.2 percent). In an especially crazy and unpredictable general election year, exercising your right to vote is more crucial than ever.

While the overall national participation rate is low, the rates vary widely on a state-by-state basis. With the presidential election just one day away, Law Street took a look at the average state turnout during general elections to see who’s been voting (and who hasn’t) for president. We’ll have to wait until Election Day to see if these states will maintain their spots on the list.

Click through the slideshow below to see the top to see our rankings of the top five states with the lowest and highest voter turnout rates:

*Note: these numbers reflect the average of the turnout rates of general elections since 1980, based on Census Bureau statistics.

Image courtesy of Ruediger Gros; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

#1 Lowest: Hawaii

Average Voter Participation Rate: 54.8 percent

Blue/Red/Swing State?: Blue

Hawaii’s voter turnout rate among eligible voters is almost astoundingly low. Among the citizen-age voter population, a little more than half of Hawaii residents on average have shown up to vote during general elections. This past summer, the state set a new record for voter apathy in a primary election, after only 31.4 percent of registered voters cast ballots.

It’s not just the laid-back lifestyle that seems to be keeping people away from the polls; among native Hawaiians, there is reportedly an overwhelming sense of disconnect with American politics. The belief that Hawaii shouldn’t have been occupied by America is still strong among many in the state, which is leading to a lot of voter apathy. So no, people aren’t just too busy surfing (although that honestly does seem to play a small factor).

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Which States Vote the Least and Which States Vote the Most? appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a voter in a solidly red or blue state, and frustrated that your preferred candidate has no chance of winning in that state? Alternatively, are you a voter in a swing state who would like to vote third-party, but are afraid that your vote will help another candidate get elected?

Enter “vote trading,” a practice which allows voters in swing states who are not a strong proponent of either candidate to vote third-party without feeling like their vote is wasted.

It goes like this: say a voter in Virginia, a swing state, does not want to vote for Clinton, and instead prefers a third party candidate such as Jill Stein. However, they do not want to make it easier for Trump to win by taking away a potential vote from Clinton. That individual can reach out to a Clinton supporter in a heavily blue state, such as California, and make an agreement to “swap” so that the Californian votes for Stein and the Virginian votes for Clinton without worrying about contributing to a Trump win in the state.

According to Vox, this practice first came about in the 2000 election, when voter trading websites popped up to help Nader supporters in swing states make sure that their third-party vote didn’t help Bush get elected. This time around, the #NeverTrump app is an attractive option for voters who refuse to vote for Clinton but also fear a Trump victory. The app claims that it “matches Hillary voters in blue states with third-party voters in swing states to help them trade votes.” It also allows users to chat with their matches before agreeing to trade, helping to increase trust (although there’s no way to completely ensure that both parties will follow through on their agreement).

It’s not too surprising that this practice is making a comeback during this election cycle, in which both candidates have favorability ratings of under 50 percent. It is clear that there are a large swath of voters that do not feel that they can vote for either candidate in good conscience, but still want to avoid a worst-case scenario of a Trump presidency.

And yes, vote trading is legal: as this New York Times op-ed explains, a ruling after the 2000 election declared this practice permissible as “constitutionally protected speech and conduct.”

For voters that are particularly uninspired by this year’s major party candidates, vote trading might actually be an option to consider.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What Is “Vote Trading?” appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Timberlake caused quite a stir on Tuesday after authorities reportedly said they were investigating the pop star for breaking the law. Timberlake flew home to Memphis for early voting and took a selfie, but Tennessee actually prohibits ballot selfies.

In May 2015, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed a statewide bill that prohibits voters from taking pictures or recording conversations in a voting booth. A person convicted of the violation can face up to 30 days in jail and be fined $50.

Timberlake posted the picture on Instagram to encourage his fans to vote.

“Hey! You! Yeah, YOU! I just flew from LA to Memphis to #rockthevote,” he captioned the post. “There could be early voting in your town too. If not, November 8th! Choose to have a voice! If you don’t, then we can’t HEAR YOU! Get out and VOTE! #exerciseyourrighttovote.”

WATCH: @jtimberlake‘s selfie snafu. Did the star break the law in a polling booth? https://t.co/L2zBzaSj8phttps://t.co/0WCok9slrx

— Good Morning America (@GMA) October 26, 2016

According to earlier reports, the District Attorney’s office said it had been “made aware of a possible violation of state election law” and the matter was “under review.” Vince Higgins, communications director for the office of Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich, admitted that the statement was incorrect.

“While we are aware of an allegation that someone may have violated a Tennessee state election law, we have not been presented anything by an investigative authority,” Higgins said.

“The statement released earlier by my office regarding Justin Timberlake and an investigation was incorrect and was released without my knowledge,” Weirich said. “No one in our office is currently investigating this matter nor will we be using our limited resources to do so.”

It is illegal to take a photograph in a voting booth in 18 states in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.

The star of DreamWorks’ “Trolls” didn’t share who he voted for, but it can be assumed he voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Timberlake and his wife Jessica Biel attended a fundraising event for Clinton in August.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Saga of Justin Timberlake’s Unlawful Ballot Selfie appeared first on Law Street.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina voting law on Friday, concluding that it was passed with clear “discriminatory intent.”

The ruling forcefully reversed a district court finding that did not acknowledge the law’s intent to discriminate. In the ruling, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gibbon Motz writes,

In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

Motz, also writing for judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd, goes on to note that the sequence of events that led to the law provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the law intentionally sought to restrict voting rights of African American voters in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.

While many argue that voting laws like the one in North Carolina are passed for partisan reasons–by focusing on minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats, Republican legislators may be seeking an electoral edge–the way this law in particular targeted race amounts to racial discrimination. And yes, challenges to these laws could also be considered partisan efforts on behalf of the Democrats as well, but the racial focus here appears to take it a step further.

A Quick Look at the Voting Rights Act

To understand this case in North Carolina, it’s important to understand the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 to ensure that African Americans and all minority voters would not be discriminated against at the polls.

The law took a particularly active approach to dealing with an enormous challenge. It created a formula to identify states and locales where voting was polarized by race and then added additional safeguards to changing voting laws there. Section 4 of the law created that so-called “coverage formula,” and coupled it with a preclearance requirement in Section 5. That requirement mandated that state and local governments falling within the coverage formula get explicit approval from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws.

The law also maintains provisions to ensure that race-based discrimination does not happen and places redistricting requirements on states to ensure minority representation, among other protections. But the preclearance requirement and coverage formula took the center of attention in an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013. That case, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula and ended the preclearance system as it existed at the time. Justice Roberts, who wrote the 5-4 opinion, concluded that the law employed “extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem,” but that those measures are no longer needed. He went on to argue that the coverage formula used to determine which areas require preclearance now violates states’ rights and equal sovereignty as laid out in the 10th Amendment.

Since that ruling, governments have been free to change their voting laws as they see fit without the need for preclearance from the Justice Department. And that brings us to the recent challenge in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Ruling

Judge Motz notes in the ruling that between 2000 and 2012–a period when preclearance was needed for to all statewide and many local voting law changes in North Carolina–registration and participation surged among black voters. By 2012, black voter registration had increased by about 50 percent and turnout nearly reached parity with that of white voters, at about 70 percent. But shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County ruling, the state assembly began the process to overhaul its voting laws. According to the ruling, the new law would have several effects on black voters in the coming November election:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

In cases like this, it is particularly difficult to prove that a legislature acted with discriminatory intent, but the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that race was central to the new law. That holds true, according to Motz, even if it was done for partisan reasons and not outright racial hatred or racism. The ruling notes that almost immediately after the Shelby County opinion came down in June 2013, the North Carolina legislature began drafting new voting restrictions. It also notes:

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

This indicates that shortly after the state did not need preclearance to pass a new voting law, it looked into how certain voting practices related to race, and then passed a new law limiting certain practices. Based on that sequence of events, the court ruled there was clear intent to discriminate based on race.

Going Forward

While the ruling effectively struck down the law, the court declined to use another section of the Voting Rights Act to impose a preclearance requirement on North Carolina after finding discriminatory intent. Essentially, it chose not to reinstate the preclearance requirement on the state using a different part of the VRA. As Rick Hasen–a law professor at University of California, Irvine–notes in a blog post, the state can still appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit en banc, which means that all of the judges, not just the original panel of three judges, would review the case. It could also appeal to the Supreme Court, but as Hasen notes, the court may not decide to hear the case given its current eight justice makeup and the Circuit Court’s decision not to implement a preclearance requirement.

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 Why A Circuit Court Struck Down North Carolina’s Discriminatory Voting Law appeared first on Law Street.

Alicia Machado, Miss Universe 1996, is speaking up for minorities and speaking out against Donald Trump. Her message? Become an American so you can vote against Trump this November.

In the past month Machado has come forward about Trump’s horrendous behavior toward her as Miss Universe. Apparently, Trump made fun of her weight and nationality repeatedly after the pageant, calling her names like “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeper” in response to her weight gain following the competition. At the time, Machado said it pushed her into bouts of anorexia and bulimia for years as well as sparking her depression. Trump even admits to pushing Machado to lose weight after her reign as Miss Universe, not to mention the dozens of other Miss Universe contestants he reportedly shamed.

In response to Trump’s bullying, Machado has applied to become a U.S. citizen to vote against him in favor of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, this fall. Clinton tweeted at Machado, congratulating her on attaining citizenship and sharing a video of the former Miss Universe talking about Trump:

Congratulations on becoming a U.S. citizen, Alicia. Enjoy casting that vote. https://t.co/jewmwZrrOA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 20, 2016

The video includes footage of Trump forcing Machado to workout with the media watching her. It also shows him shaming the then-19-year-old for her weight:

She weighed 118 pounds or 117 pounds and she went up to 160 or 70 pounds so this is somebody that likes to eat.

The video ends with a clip of Machado laughing as the interviewer asks if she will be voting for Trump this fall.

Machado has finally decided to speak up. She claims to have realized a few weeks ago that the only way to stop Trump from reaching the White House is to gain citizenship and vote against him, as well as to urge members of her community to do the same. Machado sees Trump as the next Hugo Chavez and wants to put a stop to his play for power.

Her commitment to increasing awareness of Trump’s Chavez-like ways in the Latino community is backed by many national organizations. Machado met with immigration advocacy groups, including People for the American way and Casa in Action, recently to help their cause. An ad the two groups are releasing aims to play up Trump’s anti-immigrant statements to showcase why Latinos should vote for Hillary.

The video explains how a Trump presidency will cause our society to become more intolerant and hateful. It also showcases several of the inappropriate names Trump has used to describe immigrants. Machado stands firmly with the message of this video, saying that “everybody in America needs to open their eyes” and that “we don’t need more divisions in this country.” Plus, the video is almost entirely in Spanish to appeal to Latino voters.

Machado has taken the hits from Trump with dignity, choosing to see his insults about her heritage (calling her Miss Housekeeper) as honorable because of how hard immigrant housekeepers and nannies work. She claims she is not going to flee the country if he is elected president because, “this is a great country with wonderful politics and amazing benefits, and this imbecile won’t be able to change that, we are stronger than Trump.” What she wants people to know is that:

This country does not deserve a Chávez. And that’s what Trump is…a demagogue, racist, egocentric, misogynist, demeaning man, who lacks cultural and political knowledge. This country does not deserve that.

As a result of her resilience and well known name, Machado has the potential to influence lots of voters. Seems like Trump better watch who he insults, or he could see his campaign quickly lose traction.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Miss Universe 1996 Speaks Out Against Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As a journalism student, especially one interested in politics, I am constantly surrounded by election news, so I pride myself on being educated and informed on all of the presidential candidates. So, something that really strikes a chord with me is when people my age (college-aged) tell me that they are going to refrain from voting.

Obviously, my first question is “why?”

I recently saw the post and video below on my Facebook timeline. It got me thinking that I know an awful lot of people who complain about politicians, “the system,” and everything going on in this campaign who have told me that they are simply not going to vote.

It is no surprise that voters ages 18-24 rarely make it out to the polls. According to a Census Bureau Report, in the 2012 presidential election 38 percent of eligible 18-24-year-olds actually voted.  To put that in perspective, approximately 61.8 percent of all eligible Americans voted. Seem low? It is. The least represented group at the polls is 18-24-year-olds.

In the 2012 election, 69.7 percent of eligible voters aged 65 and over voted. Now, I know we all have that aunt or uncle whose views are too radical to even listen to at the dinner table at family gatherings…so why give their voice more validity and weight if you have a chance to be a part of a different opinion?

The difference between the voting rate of young people aged 18-29 and their eligibility rate was -5.8 percent. Voting is a civic duty, and by not voting we are only distancing ourselves from a government that we want because we don’t allow our voices to be heard.

Tomorrow is the Missouri Primary! Polls across the state will be open from 6AM-7PM #Election2016 pic.twitter.com/pOrE39qS5s

— The University News (@TheUNews) March 14, 2016

Here are some of the most common explanations young eligible voters have for not voting:

“I hate all of the candidates.”

I hear this often as a reason not to vote. My response: if you hate all of the candidates so much, do something about it! Don’t just complain on Twitter, go out and vote and make your voice heard. Write-in, vote for third-party candidates, do something! Because at least you can say that you had a part in the process.

don’t sit on here and preach about who you want to become president and who would be best for president if you ain’t get up and vote

— (@OGTatum_) March 16, 2016

I know people who hate the Maryland governor but didn’t feel like voting in the gubernatorial election against him. There’s no use in complaining now if you didn’t even feel like being a part of the process in the first place.

In the 2014 election (midterm), a sad 36 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote (which isn’t completely unusual for midterm, but lower than previous years), according to the U.S. Census Bureau cited in The Washington Post. Of the voters who didn’t hit the polls, 28 percent said they were just ‘”too busy.”

“I’m just not that into politics” or “I don’t know much about the candidates.”

This is another popular reason I hear. But you can be “not into politics,” while still keeping yourself informed. I know plenty of students who despise politics, yet keep up on the race because they know it is important to know what is going on. You don’t have to read every single article about the candidates or even keep up on the immediate news to check up every once in a while to see where the candidates stand and what they have been saying. Simple Google searches will take you to the stances of every candidate.

Obviously, not all political quizzes were made equal, but ISideWith isn’t too bad if you want to get a feel for who you may share views with.

“My vote doesn’t even count for much, who cares?”

This is probably my least favorite excuse not to vote. Most frustrating is that there are a lot of people who truly don’t believe their vote counts. Whether that be because of the way our system is set up, or just a misconception about how powerful a vote is, it isn’t a good way to think about voting. A lot of people feel this way, which means a lot of people will not vote purely because they think they don’t have any stake in who becomes president. While the impact of a single vote may not seem like much, the impact of many single votes not being casted adds up. A silent majority is still a majority, just not one whose opinion counts when it matters most.

“I’m voting for Donald Trump.”

Oh, okay, yeah, don’t worry about even heading out to the polls then.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Millennials Need to Vote in the Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump finished second in Iowa, no one knew what to expect as he reacted. Would he accept the democratic outcome of the election? Would he lash out at the people of Iowa, which he’s momentarily done in the past? By the end of the night, everyone’s questions were answered when Trump took the stage. Surprising many, Trump’s reaction came across, well, classy. But that wasn’t his last word on the subject; after he had a little more time it seems like he changed his mind.

Here’s his speech in Iowa:

“We finished second and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored. I’m really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted [Cruz] and I want to congratulate all of the incredible candidates including Mike Huckabee who’s become a really good friend of mine,” Trump said in his speech after Cruz was declared the winner. In the speech, he thanked his opponents, he praised his staff, and congratulated the winner. To finish off, he even said he’d consider coming back to Iowa to buy a farm.

But Trump’s good will and acceptance didn’t last long. Naturally, Trump’s first inclination was to go after the media. After tweeting about his great experience in Iowa and how he was satisfied with the outcome, he tweeted, “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” To be fair, he is right that turnout was very high on Monday–almost 40 percent higher than in 2012–and that he fared best among first-time voters.

Trump’s usual assault on the media continued on Twitter, but he eventually shifted focus to Ted Cruz. Once Cruz gave his 32-minute victory speech, Trump quickly shifted tact:

Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

On Wednesday, Trump began an all-out assault on Cruz, accusing him of cheating and stealing the election.

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

And finally, Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and “choice” – a total lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Believe it or not, Trump again has a couple fair points. Cruz was responsible for a legitimately nefarious direct mailer that his campaign sent out to essentially scare people into voting. Many Iowans received a letter from the Cruz campaign with their voting “scores” (which aren’t a real thing) as well as the scores of their neighbors. This strategy is based on a piece of political science research about direct mail and voter turnout, but the Cruz campaign took it to a new extreme. The letters were intended to pressure voters to turn out to improve their “voting score” and it even alleged that the recipients committed some sort of “voting violation.”

The Iowa Secretary of State quickly denounced the mailers, issuing a statement saying,

Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

He went on to note that caucuses are not even conducted by the state government, rather they are under the control of political parties. It is also important to note, however, that Cruz is not alone in his use of extremely misleading mailers, Marco Rubio sent a equally dubious letter to voters as well.

Trump also criticized Cruz’s response to news that Ben Carson was not going to travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. The Carson campaign alleged that Cruz spun the news as if Carson was dropping out of the race in an effort to change the minds of caucus-goers. Cruz eventually apologized saying that spreading the news was fair game, but that a clarification should have been sent out when it was clear that Carson was not leaving the race.

While Trump’s criticism of Cruz has some surprisingly reasonable points, it’s unlikely that his tactics shifted the balance of the elections. As the Washington Post points out, Carson actually outperformed polling predictions and Bloomberg notes that Cruz sent the mailers out to about 3,000 potential voters yet won by more than 6,000 votes.  Ultimately, Trump went so far as to call for a new election, or at least for the existing results to be invalidated.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Over the course of a few days, Donald Trump went from congratulating Ted Cruz on his win to outright calling him a liar and a cheater. But then again, did we really expect anything else?

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 Trump Might Not be a Gracious Loser After All appeared first on Law Street.

We are constantly bombarded with headlines talking about presidential candidate Donald Trump as the frontrunner of the Grand Old Party, and we often ask “why?” and “what are people thinking?” and “when is he going to go away?” You know, causal questions. We all see the percentages, but how many people across the county really like Trump?

Only 33 percent, apparently.

According to the most recent two-week average from Gallup, 33 percent of Americans surveyed nationwide had a favorable view and 60 percent had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who has risen in the polls and garnered a hefty amount of media attention because of his fiery attitude and defiance of political norms and correctness.

In Gallup’s findings, Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport explains that Trump, “has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992” (1992 was the first year Gallup recorded favorability percentages).

While Trump’s number seems a bit extreme, some of the other candidates aren’t too far behind.

Across all Americans, Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating is at 52 percent; Jeb Bush, 45 percent; Chris Christie, 38 percent; Ted Cruz, 37 percent; Marco Rubio, 33 percent; Bernie Sanders, 31 percent; and Ben Carson, 30 percent.

Check out a graph of some of the other ratings (modern and historical) below:

Data courtesy of Gallup.

This puts Trump’s net favorability in the negatives at -27 percent, and according to Gallup, is higher than Clinton and Bush’s net -10 percent favorability.

“The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles,” said Newport. “That conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.”

In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton’s highest unfavorable rating was 49 percent, while opponent George H.W. Bush’s unfavorable rating was higher and closest to Trump’s at 57 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama’s unfavorable rating ratings maxed at 37 percent and in 2012 raised to 48 percent.

The moral of the story is that if we blame Obama for everything now and he still had lower unfavorable ratings then, who knows what the world will become if a man like Trump becomes president. So, don’t believe everything you read about how much everyone likes Trump–it’s not technically true. 

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump is the Most Unfavorable Presidential Candidate In Recent Years appeared first on Law Street.

Now that we are less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses, the first vote in the 2016 primary season, it is important to know why caucuses are different from primaries and why those differences are important. While both formats serve the same purpose–holding votes to nominate a presidential candidate–there are several misconceptions that may lead to some surprises when results are announced. So, read on to learn about the differences between caucuses and primaries.

The simple difference between the two is that primaries are run by the state government and caucuses are under the purview of state party organizations, namely the Republican and Democratic parties. Now this might seem like a minor distinction, but it does have some influence on who actually turns out to vote, which ultimately can affect the outcome.

The primary system is different from the general elections that most Americans are familiar with. For example, in primaries and caucuses voters cast their ballots for delegates who represent the candidates. Generally speaking, that is the same as voting directly for the candidate, as the delegates go on to formally nominate their candidate at the Democratic and Republican conventions later in the year. But delegate selection varies by state and can range from being proportional to the number of votes cast for a candidate across the state to a winner-take-all system. The point here is not to go into detail about all these variations, but rather to acknowledge that the rules can vary widely by party and by state.

For example, for Democrats in Iowa, vote counting is done by a headcount and caucus-goers can see where others stand. The process can also get pretty complicated. For example, the Democratic caucus in Iowa has a threshold for “viable candidates.” In most of the state’s precincts, if one candidate does not get 15 percent of the room’s vote, his or her supporters are free to pick a different candidate. This rule could prove important come next Monday because as the gap between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders narrows in Iowa, Martin O’Malley supporters could decide the outcome. O’Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, has rarely polled above 5 percent in Iowa.

What is arguably more important than these idiosyncrasies for someone watching the primary process unfold is the key difference between caucuses and primaries. The biggest and most important difference is voter turnout. Put simply, turnout is much, much lower in states that hold caucuses and tends to be less representative of the general population.

Researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School took a closer look at primary election turnouts in a 2009 study. The authors found that presidential primaries have notably low turnout relative to general elections, something that is particularly true for states with caucuses. In 2008, the most recent election without an incumbent president running, in the 12 states where both parties held caucuses, the average turnout was just 6.8 percent of eligible voters. While primaries tend to have higher rates of turnout relative to caucuses, average turnout is considerably lower than general elections, particularly for primaries held toward the end of the primary season.

The Iowa caucus had a record-breaking turnout that year, but even then it only reached 16.3 percent of eligible voters. The researchers provide a pretty stark summary of their findings:

In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking—only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4 percent of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2 percent of Iowa adults. Nevertheless, the 16.3 percent turnout level was not only an all-time Iowa record, it was easily the highest percentage ever recorded for a presidential caucus, and about eight times the average for such contests

Because a caucus is an event hosted and run by political parties, attendance is more than just casting a vote. In fact, the process can take several hours as state parties deal with party business and people have the opportunity to give speeches to try and persuade voters to back their candidate. In contrast, a primary more closely resembles a regular election–you show up to a polling location, ask for your party’s ballot, then cast your vote.

So why does all of this matter? The conventional wisdom suggests that when turnout is lower a certain type of voter tends to participate, namely those who are more extreme than the average voter. There’s some evidence to back this up as well. BYU professors Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope conducted a survey of Americans and matched the respondents to state voter files to actually identify those who actually participated in primaries and caucuses. They, not surprisingly, found that those who attended caucuses were more ideologically extreme than voters in primaries. While this may not dramatically affect the outcome of primary elections, it is an important finding to keep in mind when talking about the primaries.

This is also particularly important in the context of polling because pollsters often have a difficult time identifying who a likely voter actually is. Because of that, poll samples tend to be broader than the small group of voters who participate. It is often important to look at how polls identify likely voters and acknowledge the fact that it is extremely difficult to identify and make contact with the small number of Iowans who show up on caucus day. Polls, particularly those conducted early on, can have a very hard time predicting election outcomes.

Want to Learn More?

Josh Putnam wrote an excellent article for the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog breaking down everything you could ever want to know about presidential primary elections.

Putnam also runs FrontloadingHQ, a blog that dives into the minutia of the primary process as well as state and party rules.

The Council on Foreign Relations published a nice breakdown of the role of delegates in the nominating process back in 2008, most of which holds true today.

The New York Times has the full 2016 primary schedule, which you can even add to your Google calendar if you’re into that kind of thing.

For more details on voter turnout in past elections check out the United States Election Project.

The Pew Research Center has a great analysis of likely voters and their importance to polling.

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 is Here: What are the Differences Between Caucuses and Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters. 

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing  state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere. 

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond. 

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

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 American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official, the 2014 elections were the most expensive midterm elections in history, costing a total of $3.77 billion, or roughly $46 per vote according to voter turnout estimates. Even more surprising is the fact that there were fewer donors in the 2014 midterms than in any election since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). This means that not only was this the most expensive midterm election in history, its funding came from fewer people than in years past. Additionally, voter turnout estimates indicate that the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in November was the lowest since World War II.

Read more: Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

All things considered, the 2014 midterm elections reveal a disturbing trend in American politics, one where a shrinking group of Americans funds elections and voter turnout among the entire population continues to decline.

Spending Breakdown

Candidate and party spending was over $2.7 billion in the 2014 election, according to estimates from the CRP. One possible reason for the increase in the 2014 election was the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling, which struck down the cap for how much an individual can spend in an election cycle while leaving in place limits for individual races and organizations.

An additional $768 million was spent by a variety of independent groups that are not directly affiliated with campaigns.Outside expenditures can come from Super Pacs, 527 organizations, and 501(c) groups that the IRS categorizes as social welfare organizations.

These social welfare organizations are allowed to engage in political activity as long as it is not their primary focus, which in practice means that political spending must account for less than 50 percent of the organization’s budget. In essence, these groups are able to collect unlimited funds from donors, whose names they do not need to disclose, then spend that money on political advertising with a small set of restrictions. For more background information on campaign finance and dark money check out this explainer by Law Street’s Alexandra Stembaugh.

This chart, from the Center for Responsive Politics, details the sources of political spending in the 2014 election by party. For more information on spending in the 2014 election, look at the CRP’s overview.

2014 Election Spending by Category and Party, Source: Center for Responsive Politics

Fewer Donors, More Money

Another one of the Center for Responsive Politics’ major findings about the 2014 election was that the increase in total donations actually came from fewer donors when compared to the 2010 election (the previous midterm). In fact, the number of donors decreased in every category of campaign spending.

According to Russ Choma from the Center for Responsive Politics,

“There were just 434,256 identifiable individual donors to candidates in the 2014 election. That’s 107,000 fewer than there were in the 2010 election.”

CRP identified 773,582 donors in the 2014 election–a decrease of nearly 11 percent relative to the 2010 midterms–yet average contributions rose over 36 percent to $2,639 per donor. It is important to note that these numbers come from FEC data, which does not include donor information for individuals who give less than $200. In terms of outside spending, there were 6.4 percent fewer donors, but the average donation per donor rose nearly 450 percent, going from roughly $1,800 to over $8,000 per donor.

Are liberals catching on to dark money?

Although Republicans/conservatives maintained their significant advantage in dark money spending, accounting for nearly 75 percent of total spending, Democrat/liberal groups did see large increases.

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

The chart above illustrates the recent trends in dark money spending. Conservative groups retained their healthy lead in dark money in the most recent election, going from $119.9 million in 2010 to $124 million in 2014. Dark money spending among liberal groups increased by over 300 percent since 2010, going from $10.7 million to $35.7 million in 2014.

It is important to note that these numbers are limited to what is disclosed to the FEC. Regulations for 501(c) organizations only require disclosure of political spending that occurs 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. However, the Center for Responsive Politics found that these organizations tend to run “issue” ads outside of these windows to discuss political issues without reporting their spending. As a result, actual political spending likely exceeds the total disclosed to the FEC.

Lower Turnout

Finally, preliminary estimates indicate that only 35.9 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2014 election, the lowest turnout since 1942. This number taken from estimates by the United States Election Project at the University of Florida, which uses voting statistics for the highest office on each state’s ballot to estimate total voters (highest office is used because total vote counts are not available for every state).

These estimates indicate that only six states had a voter turnout greater than 50 percent, while eight states had rates below 30 percent. Although midterm elections historically have lower turnout rates relative to presidential election years, the 2014 election was low even for a midterm. For comparison, voter turnout in 2010 was 41 percent of eligible voters, and the 2012 presidential election had a turnout of 58.2 percent.

The chart below shows voter turnout from 1789 – 2014

Source: United States Election Project

In a time where Americans’ opinions of the government are near record lows, apathy among the general population seems to explain the turnout. Everyone loves to poke fun at headlines that claim Americans are more approving of lice, telemarketers, Genghis Kahn, and even Nickleback than of Congress, but the turnout for the recent election truly reveals the state of political engagement among the public.

While average Americans are less willing to cast a ballot, a small subset of the population is exhibiting more interest in politics than ever before. In a time where people overwhelmingly disapprove of their government and want to limit the role of money in politics, one would think showing up on election day is the next step, but sadly the opposite occurs.

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 The Votes Are In: 2014 Election Was Most Expensive & Least Representative appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

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 SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

We have different branches of our government for a reason. I remember learning about it as early as middle school — the legislature makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. There are checks and balances, separation of powers, and all sorts of mechanisms to make sure that we have a functioning democracy. But then two separate polls caught my eye this week that make me curious about the mindset of the American people.

The first involved a poll in which half of the American public said that the Supreme Court should be elected rather than appointed. The poll was conducted online by Harris Polls.

The second poll was conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and it discovered that 35 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single branch of the American government. In the release of the poll, Annenberg director Kathleen Hall Jamieson stated,

Although surveys reflect disapproval of the way Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are conducting their affairs, the Annenberg survey demonstrates that many know surprisingly little about these branches of government.

The two polls obviously, weren’t made to be related, but they do provide an interesting and weird insight into the minds of the American populace. It’s vaguely reminiscent of the time that Jimmy Fallon asked people whether they supported Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

Back to the topic at hand though — the idea of having our Supreme Court justices subject to elections is a troublesome one. There’s a reason that they’re not elected in the first place — so that they don’t have to pander to an electorate. An electorate who probably could not even name the branch of government for which they would be choosing justices.

The way that our government works now, our Congresspeople, Senators, Governors, President, and other elected officials are constantly running for office. They always have to look at the polls to see what everyone is thinking. They sometimes have to contend with voters turning on them because of the actions of others in their party. They constantly have to contend with the fact that if they make moves or pass laws that their constituents don’t like, they could be out of a job.

Then, those people who are constantly up for vote, write our laws. And the Supreme Court, who is appointed by the those elected people, has to interpret those laws. Their job depends on the fact that they aren’t held accountable.

Does that mean that they always make the right choices? No, definitely not. I certainly take issue with many SCOTUS decisions, but I get to elect the people who pass and sign the laws — it would be too much to also vote for the people who interpret the laws.

Our democracy isn’t always perfect, and it often fails, but it is a democracy with checks and balances for a reason.

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 Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Vote for Our Supreme Court Justices appeared first on Law Street.

The way that the “Fifty Shades of Grey” series flies off of bookstore shelves makes it pretty obvious that sex sells. I admit to getting caught up in that craze, and despite the lack of literary merit present on the pages of those novels, they certainly do entertain. Fluffy books catered to the sexually deprived are not the only place where eroticism is being used to get peoples’ attention.

What’s sexier than every dirty page of “Fifty Shades of Grey”? Voting. Yes, you read that correctly. Recently, United States politicians have taken a page out of other countries’ books and decided to amp up the sex appeal of their ads. In 2011, Russia ran an ad suggesting that the act of voting may get you laid. Who knew filling out a ballot could have such an effect? What’s that you say, sir? You’re…voting?? Take me now, sailor!

A political ad in Germany didn’t even try to be discreet; a pair of breasts is plastered onto a poster for all to see. That’s some classy not-so-subliminal messaging. Germany and Russia are far from the the only countries embracing sexuality as a theme in campaign ads. The good ol’ U S of A loves to copy Europe when it comes to many trends, and using sex in campaign ads is no exception.

Take a look at an ad released this summer by Equality Illinois entitled “Doris Wants Your V Card.”

The ad features an older woman gesturing suggestively to two younger males and a voice tells viewers to “go ahead, vote. Take advantage of Illinois’ new online voter registration, and get your voter ID card,” which is suggestively referred to earlier in the ad as your V-card. So witty, Equality Illinois, so witty.

NPR recently published an article about the ad, which quoted Bernard Cherkasov of Equality Illinois saying that “there is a double entendre, and I think it’s very effective at catching people’s attention.” Their target audience? Young people who are disinterested in politics and therefore unlikely to register. “To tell them this is a cool thing to do, a super easy thing to do, and then once we’ve got their attention and they’re registered, then we can help them get educated as to what’s at stake in this election, how they can exercise that democratic right.”

The success of these ads, according to a Unilever study cited in The Atlantic, depends on the intended audience. Women may not be so easily persuaded by sexual innuendo as men, according to the article. Major shock there. So while ads suggesting that casting your vote may be a huge turn on may potentially get more men to the polls, women may not be so easily persuaded.

As sexual voting ads are the new kid on the block — especially in the United States — their success or lack thereof at getting people voting has yet to be seen. But hey, at least they make for some more entertaining campaigns during the oft-droll election season. So, it’s almost time to get your butt to the *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* “polls.” See you there. And so will Ryan Gosling, apparently.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [aptmetaphor via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voting Gets You Laid appeared first on Law Street.

The 2008 election was a great source of pride for the Millennial generation; their voting rate was higher that year than in any other recent election. Analysts and pundits started emphasizing the importance of online campaigning as the way to reach young voters. But 2008 turned out to be more of an isolated case, as turnout among the 18-29 age group decreased by nearly nine percent in 2012. Young voters often trumpet support for social causes and tout their progressive political views, but the record shows that they frequently underrepresent themselves at the polls.

Turnout data suggests that the 2004 and 2008 elections, which saw two consecutive increases in young voters, unfortunately are anomalies. According to a Census Bureau report, the 2004-2008 increase seems “temporary and not representative of a permanent shift towards greater young-adult engagement in presidential elections.” Sure, you can argue that voter turnout is always low among young adults, but what is unique about this group of the electorate is how their views differ from previous generations.

Millennials’ views are unique

Two recent studies, one by the Pew Research Center and another other by Reason-Rupe, reveal just how different Millennials are from older generations. Both reports show that Millennials tend to be more liberal when it comes to social issues, and more centrist in terms of economics. The interactive chart below illustrates a few of the many distinct views held by Millennials.

One of the most striking findings from these reports is the degree to which Millennials do not associate with political parties. Millennials are actually more willing to identify themselves with a particular cause than with a political party. While you may conclude that this generation’s opposition to parties and institutions indicates low political interest, their strong support for social issues may refute that claim. Millennials are not less interested in politics than previous generations; instead, they have focused their support on individual issues, not party platforms.

Derek Thomson, a writer for The Atlantic, criticized the findings of recent reports in a article titled “Millennials’ Political Views Don’t Make Any Sense.” Much of Thomson’s piece focuses on what he perceives as the generation’s incompatible views of economics and the role of the government. One of Thomson’s several examples includes the finding that 65 percent of Millennials want to cut spending, while 62 percent want more spending on jobs and infrastructure. Although those two points are not mutually exclusive—you can have spending cuts in areas other than jobs and infrastructure—Thomas does have a point. The economic and ideological views of Millennials appear as if they are still forming, but the generation’s support for social issues like gay marriage and legal status for undocumented immigrants is surprisingly clear.

Millennials are different…so what?

So far everything in this article has probably just reiterated conventional wisdom: millennials are socially liberal and have a more favorable view of recent social trends—but the issue is that these views are unlikely to actually change anything. Although the Millennial generation has a unique perspective, their attitudes have not turned into political engagement. Why? Millennials don’t vote.

The Census Bureau’s report on young adult voters highlights the significant turnout gap between different generations. What the bureau calls “under-voting” occurs when a population group casts fewer votes relative to its share of the voting-eligible population. For example, in 2012, the 18-29 age group made up 21.2 percent of the voting population, but only made up 15.4 percent of the total votes cast, thus under-voting by 7.1 percent—and yes, that’s a lot.

Courtesy of The Census Bureau

The graph above shows exactly how bad Millennials have been at showing up on election day. Relative to their share of the eligible voter population, Millennials cast far fewer ballots. (Eligible voters are essentially anyone over the age of 18, though some states also restrict the voting rights of certain groups like felons and the mentally impaired).

This trend becomes even more alarming if you look at turnout for midterm and local elections. While American voters as a whole are pretty bad at turning out for midterm elections (the 2010 voting rate was just 37 percent—16 percent lower than the 2008 presidential election), young voter turnout is particularly low. Fewer than 25 percent of voters aged 18-29 voted in the 2010 midterms, according to CIRCLE (The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement). And recent polling indicates that this year’s elections will be no different.

The Status Quo Lives On

Millennials are the most diverse generation in American history, they have unique political views, and care strongly about social issues, yet they have caused little change politically. While there may not be a competition between younger voters and older voters, the earlier generations consistently beat Millennials to the polls and have their views reflected in the government.

A research project conducted by The New Republic, using data from TargetSmart Communications, revealed “the only split in American politics that matters” is the one between reliable and unreliable voters. They found that the people who vote every Election Day, as a matter of habit, are considerably more likely to be older and typically vote conservative.

If the Millennial generation wants political change and would like its views to be represented in Congress, the first step is clear: they need to vote–in every election. The next step is to engage politically by contacting representatives, attending local government meetings, helping campaigns, and supporting issues by doing more than signing an online petition. Millennials have already proven to be great volunteers who care about their communities, but that engagement does not always translate to political change. Until young adults vote and interact with their government, policies will not turn in their favor.

—

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 Millennials as a Source of Political Change: It’s Just Not Happening appeared first on Law Street.

Update: August 5, 2014

Last night, in an incredibly heated runoff election, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeated his Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, by 6,600 votes. This was a come-from-behind victory for Cochran and practically guarantees him a seventh term that many never thought he would see. This is a win for Republican establishment figures, who are still reeling from the defeat of Eric Cantor just two weeks ago. Cochran’s victory will be finalized as soon as McDaniel decides to concede, but that could take a while given he is considering legal action.

In order to understand why a legal challenge may be fair here, it’s important to understand what exactly happened in the primary. McDaniel is upset because of the methods Cochran employed to win the race. Cochran knew he was trailing among the Republican voters, so he turned to Independents and Democrats for support. In Mississippi, that essentially meant appealing to the African American population. Cochran courted African American voters by playing up his credentials as a veteran senator who knows how to bring money into the state. At the same time, he showed them how he would be a better option overall than McDaniel. You can watch this video to see some African American voters explain their decision to support Cochran.

His strategy worked fantastically, with African American turnout up almost 40 percent in the 24 counties with an African American majority. So, the question now becomes, why does this increased African American turnout have McDaniel considering legal action?

Under Mississippi Law, any registered voter may vote in a primary election, but they must have the intention of voting for the winner of that primary in the general election. The law reads, “no person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.” Looking beyond the glaring naiveté of this law, it is easy to see McDaniel’s complaint. It is improbable that the African American voters who voted for Cochran would vote Republican in the general election.  In his “anti-concession” speech McDaniel declared, “today the conservative movement took a backseat to liberal Democrats in Mississippi.” Ray Nicholson, the founder of the Mississippi Tea Party, claimed, “this is such a perverting of a fair election system that we are outraged the secretary of State has not stepped in.”

McDaniel was concerned enough about the African American vote to have supporters watch the polls to make sure fraud did not ensue, which caused the NAACP to install their own poll watchers. Thankfully, this had little effect on voter turnout for the election, but the whole ordeal felt like a battle to keep African Americans from voting. Some McDaniel supporters have called Cochran’s move dirty politics, but McDaniel’s move to limit free voting is even dirtier.

Looking at Mississippi’s primary law, it is possible to see where McDaniel could present a legal challenge, but it is very hard to imagine any way in which he could win it. McDaniel would obviously claim that many of the African Americans who voted for Cochran would not vote for any Republican in the general election, meaning that they should not have been able to vote in the party’s primary. But this is a nearly impossible law to enforce without seriously infringing on a person’s right to vote. For one, the general election is four months away. It would be easy for a voter to say they do not know who they would support for that election or to just pretend they intend to vote for the winner. There is no plausible way to enforce this law on a mass scale. Therefore, McDaniel, if he insists on blaming someone for his loss, should blame the Mississippi primary system. And then he should stop being a sore loser and just concede.

Update: A week after his loss, McDaniel still has not conceded. He is currently fundraising for a legal challenge, asserting that Cochran stole the election. In his fundraising pitch, McDaniel wrote, “last week’s runoff election was a sham, plain and simple.” A representative for the Cochran campaign brushed off the legal challenge, saying this is most likely an effort to pay off campaign debts. The representative called McDaniel’s efforts “pure sore loserism.”

Update: It’s been well over a month, but Chris McDaniel has still not let his loss to Thad Cochran go. Yesterday, McDaniel announced that he will formally challenge the results of the runoff election. McDaniel is demanding that the Central Committee of the Mississippi GOP–a sort of governing body made up of 52 members–vote at a public hearing to declare him the winner. If this does not happen, he will consider a challenge in court. McDaniel is claiming that there were 15,000 ballots cast by ineligible voters, meaning voters who did not intend to vote for the winner of the Republican primary in the general election. Voting in a primary but not intending to vote for the winner of the primary in the general election is against the law in Mississippi. McDaniel lost by 7,667 votes, so if he those 15,000 votes are dismissed, he will win.

While it is easy to understand the logic of McDaniel’s anger, it is still misplaced anger. Most of these 15,000 “ineligible votes” were cast by Democrats who did not vote in the Democratic primary. So while these Democratic voters might have no plans to vote for Thad Cochran, there is no way to prove it. In fact, many voters from both political parties may not vote in the general election, including McDaniel supporters, because Thad Cochran is going to win easily. So unless McDaniel can also prove every single person who voted for him will vote for Cochran in the general election, I suggest he focus his efforts on election reform. He should have a lot of time to do so, because its highly unlikely he is going to be a United State’s Senator.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The effect of crime on society is often — and justifiably so — more victim-focused than offender-focused. We tend to think of someone breaking the law as an affront to society at large. That’s why in some states criminal cases are titled “The People v. ______.” To be sure, in many ways our criminal justice system is retributive. We are meant to feel some form of solace when someone is punished for offending the morals and values of society in the form of breaking the law. But I ask, when has our justice system gone too far? When do the  consequences on the offender far outstrip the damage that person did to society?

Two words: Felony Disenfranchisement.

Felony disenfranchisement is a so-called collateral consequence — the impediments to normal life and reintegration convicted persons suffer beyond their actual sentence of incarceration or supervision — and is often seen as part-and-parcel of our criminal justice system. While some may feel having been incarcerated is enough for an individual to pay their debt to society, still many others think that when you choose to break the law, you do so with the implicit acknowledgement that because you have deviated from the norms of our culture, you must take all the bad that comes from that deviation. A cold look at the facts, particularly in the area of felons who have been released from their conditions of custody being permanently denied their fundamental right to vote, might convince some to change their minds.

The Sentencing Project estimates that about 5.8 million Americans are denied their right to vote due to laws that prohibit voting by convicted felons. As a matter of perspective, that’s like the entire population of the State of Wisconsin not being allowed to vote.

The disparate impact these laws have on minority communities is quite telling. These draconian laws lead to 1 in every 13 African Americans not being able to vote due to felony conviction. According to Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent statements on this issue at Georgetown University Law Center, 1 in 10 people in the state of Florida may no longer vote due to its laws restricting felony voting. Did I mention that 38 percent of those nearly six million Americans are Black? The Attorney General is now leading the charge to help push policy reform in this area, and for that he should be applauded. In his own words:

“These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive”

I would venture to add that these laws are not only counterproductive, but oppressive. In a nation that considers voting so fundamental to the democratic process that  we have an entire amendment to the Constitution dedicated to it, one might think these laws would have been struck down by now. Alas, the Supreme Court in Richardon v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) upheld the California law disenfranchising felons by pointing to the lesser known section 2 of the 14th amendment which states:

“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime . . . .”

That last line, according to both the text of the Constitution and the debate history around the provision, allows states to prevent certain classes of convicted individuals from voting.

Yet more important than the historical practice of disenfranchising those convicted of a crime is the modern impact of the practice today. What does it say about a system that prides itself on the democratic process that nearly 6 million American are essentially left out in the cold? Sure, they could lobby their respective state legislatures to get these laws repealed, but they don’t have access to the most potent form of lobbying imaginable: the ability to disapprove of a legislator with one’s ballot. They must do indirectly what the rest of us can do directly.

We must ask ourselves what goals are being advanced withholding the ballot from millions of citizens. Is disenfranchisement really the deterrent to crime some hope it to be, or is it just another major impediment to the reintegration of people who should have already “paid their debt to society.”

Without a doubt, crime is crime is crime, and those who commit crime should be punished. It is not the fact of punishment but rather the nature and extent that motivates this analysis. Must we continue to isolate individuals from our society even after they have been released from confinement? When will it ever end?

Felony disenfranchisement is just one more badge on the permanent underclass our society is creating with many of its criminal laws. It’s time we move forward.

—

Dominic Jones (@DomPerinyon) is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films.

Featured image courtesy of [Rama via Wikipedia]

Click here for additional Law Street coverage on felony disenfranchisement.

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Felony Disenfranchisement: Collateral Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

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 Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon, folks! Are you ready for the weekend? I am. I’ll be organizing a march on Rush Limbaugh’s recording studio. Everyone who participates has to wear eyes over their boobs!

Anyway! Rush isn’t the only conservative doofus who has no idea how to relate to women. Apparently, a senior House Republican strategist is training the GOP on how to talk to women voters. It isn’t going well.

The unnamed strategist doesn’t seem to be hopping on the, “Tell your breasts to stop staring at my eyes!” bandwagon. Yay! But he is advising conservative, non-uterus laden politicians to be more sensitive. Yup. Apparently the gender gap in pro-GOP votes is because women have too many feelings. Cue the tiny violins.

This senior strategist, who’s remaining anonymous — probably because his strategy is terrible — is urging his trainees to refer to themselves as husbands and fathers. He’s advising them to make blanket, disapproving statements about rape. And he’s telling them to connect with women on an emotional level.

So, basically, he’s telling Republican politicians that women are a big glob of emotional basket cases, making hysterical, irrational decisions not to vote for them. Appeal to those sobbing nut jobs! Win back those votes!

Are you kidding me?

You’re all idiots.

This guy is probably the worst strategist on the planet. Which isn’t really a bad thing, because less votes for the Republicans! Yay! But seriously, what is going on here?

First of all, if you’re trying to appeal to a group of people by first assuming that they’re crazy, you’re not going anywhere fast. People—not just women—respond well to positive reinforcement and respect. They don’t really appreciate being treated like loony tunes. It’s condescending, insulting, and all around not fun.

So, if you want women to like you, maybe start by assuming that they’re smart? Capable of sound decisionmaking? Worthy of respect? These are the kinds of assumptions that lead to positive interactions between people—and in the Republican case—more votes.

Second, the conservative assumption that women are too sensitive to vote correctly isn’t just patronizing. It’s downright sexist. The image of the emotionally unstable woman is a gendered stereotype as old and tired as you feel after a night of super fun debauchery.

But actually. Ever heard of hysteria? It used to be a common medical diagnosis. Women would be deemed “hysterical” if they were plagued by excessive emotions. And, conveniently, since the cause of illness was a disturbance of the womb, only women could be hysterical.

So, basically, a man consumed with violent rage is just angry. But a woman in the same state is physically and mentally ill. Great! Just drop me off at the nearest insane asylum, would you dear?

Anyway! This whole “women are hysterical” crap is seriously old. Like, YAWN you’re so unoriginal I’m actually being bored back to sleep, kind of old. It’s 2013, people. Can’t you at least get a little creative with your gross and depressing sexism?

Apparently not. Appealing to women’s emotions is the foundation of the new Republican strategy to snag lady voters. And guess what? Not only does it prove that the Right still hasn’t managed to stop being sexist—it also shows that they can’t manage to come up with any new and creative solutions to old problems. Probably not the most qualified people to be running a country, am I right?

NOPE.

Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, the anonymous Republican strategist is advising his trainees to identify themselves first and foremost as husbands and fathers, and to broadly denounce rape. (You know it’s bad when you have to explain that rape is not something to be taken lightly.)

This shit cracks me up. For ages, women have been identified and valued primarily because of their relationships to other people. A woman is always someone’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter first. Is she also a business executive? A writer? A surgeon? Much less important. That comes second.

And that’s irritating as fuck! Women should be valued on their own terms, as individuals with societal contributions to make—not just as caretakers and companions. But no one’s telling the Republicans that. No conservatives are looking to subvert the sexism that assumes women are most useful when they’re behind the scenes. Nope. Instead, they’ve just decided to half-assedly stoop to a woman’s level on the campaign trail. Identify as a father first, a Congressman second. Meanwhile, we all know who’s more likely to be at home, potty training that father’s children. (Hint: Not him.)

So, ladies, the next time you want your elected official to vote against abortion restrictions, food stamp cuts, or affordable healthcare, start crying. Throw a tantrum. Get hysterical. Accuse your legislator of being insensitive.

Because apparently they’re being trained to respond to that.

–

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hermann Kaser via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Should Vote Republican Because You’re a Basket Case appeared first on Law Street.