Category Archives: Elections

Casino vote makes strange bedfellows

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

There’s a lot more to this debate over the proposed casino amendment than just whether or not Arkansas should have more slot machines than it already does – which is quite a lot between Oaklawn and Southland.

Issue 5 would create a constitutional amendment authorizing the building of one casino each in Washington County, Miller County and Boone County. The casinos would be required to pay the state 18% of their net and would pay 1.5% to the city where they are located and .5% to their local counties. An Arkansas Gaming Commission would regulate.

The amendment’s backers, Arkansas Wins in 2016, say Arkansas should have casinos here because they’re already just across the border elsewhere – in Mississippi, in western Oklahoma; in Caruthersville, Missouri; and in Shreveport, Louisiana. Adding three casinos in Arkansas would keep Arkansas gamblers at home and attract some out-of-staters. A lot of people think going to casinos is fun. If they’re going to gamble, eat at buffets and go to shows, they might as well do it in Arkansas, employing Arkansans, boosting tourism and paying state taxes.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and that’s definitely true with this issue. Opposed to the effort are faith-based groups such as the Family Council along with the state’s existing gambling providers, Oaklawn and Southland, which race horses and greyhounds on a part-time basis and operate casino-like entities full-time. The Family Council doesn’t want the gambling; Oaklawn and Southland don’t want the competition.

They’ll be working in parallel but not really together. The Family Council will spread through its grassroots network of churches its message that gambling leads to social ills – addiction, divorce, etc. – without the promised economic benefits. Meanwhile, Oaklawn along with Southland’s parent corporation in August donated a total of $109,500 to the Committee to Protect Arkansas’ Values/Stop Casinos Now. In fact, they’re the only donors listed in the required campaign filing with the Arkansas Ethics Commission. That money is funding a lawsuit in the Arkansas Supreme Court to disqualify the amendment.

Four years ago, a group with a similar name and the same chairman, former Arkansas Sheriffs Association Executive Director Chuck Lange, raised more than $1 million from Southland, so that $109,500 is probably just seed money.

The Committee’s messaging so far has focused less on gambling’s ills and more on what the proposed amendment does and doesn’t do. The amendment defines gambling as whatever is legal in Arkansas’ surrounding states and in Nevada, meaning Arkansas policymakers would be handcuffed in defining terms and setting limits. It would allow sports betting and alcohol sales.

Like previous casino amendments that have either been tossed from the ballot or voted down by Arkansans, this one is backed by those who would make money off it. It would embed in the Arkansas Constitution a permanent monopoly granted to two Missouri businessmen, Bob Womack of Branson and Jim Thompson of Blue Eye, and their successors and assignees.

That means no one else could operate a casino anywhere in Arkansas except those two along with Oaklawn and Southland. Those two existing casinos are limited by law, for now, to “electronic games of skill,” such as blackjack tables with electronic “cards” rather than those dealt by humans.

So expect to hear opponents use the words “out of state” a lot, even though Arkansas’ two current gambling establishments also are owned by out-of-state entities – Oaklawn by the Cella family of St. Louis, and Southland by Buffalo-based Delaware North.

All of this very easily could become moot. The issue is now in the hands of the Arkansas Supreme Court, which is considering whether the ballot title is misleading and whether the signatures were collected improperly.

In fact, all four voter-led ballot initiatives – this, two that would legalize medical marijuana, and one that would limit judgments in medical lawsuits – are being sued for one reason or another.

Will at least one of them be disqualified? History shows that’s a pretty safe bet.

‘Tis the season for lawsuits

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Every calendar year has four seasons, and so does every campaign year. There’s the filing season, when potential candidates decide to run; the primary season, when the parties choose their nominees; the general election season, which ends in November; and, tucked in its own little spot about now, is a fourth season: the lawsuit season.

Yes, ’tis the season when opponents of various voter-initiated acts and amendments try to remove them from the ballot, or at least keep their votes from being counted, by filing suit in the Arkansas Supreme Court.

This year, four initiatives have qualified for the ballot by gathering enough signatures from registered voters: a constitutional amendment that would legalize marijuana for medical use; an initiated act that would do the same, with some differences; an amendment that would limit attorney fees and jury awards for pain and suffering in medical lawsuits; and an amendment that would authorize casinos in Boone, Washington, and Miller Counties.

All four have drawn legal challenges. Generally speaking, the groups are making the same arguments that are always made about these issues: that the ballot titles are misleading, and that technical violations occurred in the signature collecting process.

These lawsuits are just part of accepted campaign strategy, so both sides know they have to budget for legal fees. The lawsuits almost always happen when issues are this controversial and when someone stands to lose something. For example, the Arkansas Bar Association has filed suit to stop the amendment that would limit attorney fees and jury awards – which, when higher, produce higher fees. The casino amendment faces a lawsuit from a group supported in part by Oaklawn Park and Southland Gaming and Racing, which don’t want the competition.

That last paragraph sounded cynical, didn’t it? Human beings have complicated motivations. For example, the Arkansas Bar Association’s unanimous opposition to the medical lawsuit amendment probably is due partly from a desire to protect an income stream, at least with some members. At the same time, attorneys have a unique appreciation for the importance of why big verdicts sometimes are needed. Moreover, the amendment is being pushed primarily by nursing homes who want to reduce losses from big jury verdicts, some of which might be based on emotion and good lawyering. Can’t blame them for that.

So now the questions go straight to the Arkansas Supreme Court, where the wheels of justice will turn more swiftly than is normal. We’re reaching mid-September. Election Day is Nov. 8. Absentee ballots must be mailed to voters no later than Oct. 14. Early voting begins Oct. 24. That means the Supreme Court must consider arguments and render decisions as soon as possible. Even if it moves quickly, it’s not unusual for the ballot to be littered with proposals that the court has ruled invalid.

At this point, I’m definitely against one of the proposals, leaning against two and wavering on one. Still, my preference is to vote, even if something passes I don’t like.

In a state whose motto is, “The people rule,” it’s probably best if the measures stay on the ballot, if they can. All four were approved – actually, partly rewritten – by the attorney general’s office to comply with state law. All four’s signatures were validated by a small army of full-time and temporary workers with the secretary of state’s office. Should four Supreme Court justices override those efforts?

Also, all four represent the kind of issue for which voters are well-suited to express their will. These aren’t questions of bureaucratic minutiae. They’re big-picture questions about values and about what this state ought to look like. Whether there should be casinos in Arkansas when surrounding states already have them has been debated around many a kitchen table. So has whether marijuana’s clear harm to many means it shouldn’t be available to those it clearly helps. Would limiting a type of jury award help doctors and nursing homes lower costs for all of us, or would they become more negligent? The voters can decide.

If the legal minds on the Supreme Court believe that real problems exist with a ballot title or signature gathering process, then yes, disqualify a proposal. It’s their job to look at the details.

But if it’s in the gray area, let’s hope the Court errs on the side of not disqualifying. In a state whose motto is “The people rule,” the presumption should be to let the people rule.

Polls a snapshot; big trends favor Clinton

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Get ready to see a lot of polls in the coming months. One of the latest by Fox News has the presidential race the closest it’s been in a while: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump, 48-42 percent and by only two points, 41-39, when the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are included. Another poll by Suffolk University and USA Today has Clinton up by seven points in both a two-person and four-person race.

Even the best of polls is a snapshot of a given moment. Public opinion can shift a few points in either direction based on the latest news or maybe whatever phase the moon is in. But certain realities – particularly the Electoral College and the Democrats’ demographic advantages – won’t change, and those are better predictors of what will happen in November.

The constitutional realty is that presidents are not elected through a national election but through 51 separate elections in the states and Washington, D.C., with the winner chosen by the Electoral College. There, the numbers currently work in the Democrats’ favor, as noted by national political analyst Charlie Cook in a speech to economic developers in Little Rock Monday. Eighteen states with 242 Electoral College votes have voted for the Democrat in each of the last last six elections. If Clinton holds those blue states, she only needs 28 votes elsewhere.

In contrast, only 13 states with 103 votes have been so solidly Republican, though others are leaning that direction. Arkansas, for example, has voted Republican in the last four elections after choosing favorite son Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but it’s not likely to treat Hillary Clinton as a favorite daughter. Still, the Electoral College math means Republicans must win almost every swing state.

Meanwhile, Republicans face the reality that the nation’s demographics are changing. As Cook noted, the electorate that was 87 percent white in 1992 will be about 70 percent white this year, which means Republicans do best among the part of the population that is shrinking as a percentage. In 2012, 93 percent of African-Americans and 71 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Those numbers are not likely to improve for Republicans this year – not with Trump at the top of the ticket.

Meanwhile, Democrats are leading among the demographic group that will compose future electorates: young people. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, Clinton led among voters ages 18-29 with 47 percent of the vote. Trump had only 21 percent of that group’s vote – less even than the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who had 22 percent support.

Republicans are counting on the fact that those young voters will become more conservative as they grow older and start paying property taxes on their Buicks, and no doubt some will change their views. But 47-21 percent is a big lead.

So Clinton has an advantage in areas that won’t change in the next two months: the Electoral College and the nation’s demographic realities.

But elections are just a poll taken in November, which means they can be determined by temporary things. As Cook noted, both Clinton and Trump have such high negative ratings that neither will ever gain a huge advantage. (“If Republicans had nominated a potted plant, they’d have had a pretty good chance to win,” he said.) A terrorist attack, an economic dip or a Clinton scandal could turn the election.

Also, Clinton, who has been playing the game better than Trump, could start playing it worse. She could lose the debates. While he was meeting with the president of Mexico, she has been hiding out, avoiding the press and raising money from rich donors – in other words, as others have pointed out, playing the “prevent defense” that never seems to work in football. Finally, let’s not overlook the importance of third party candidates, who can really mess with the numbers.

Democrats have won four of the last six elections and the popular vote in five of them. Cook expects Clinton to continue that trend, winning comfortably but not overwhelmingly by 3-5 points. He thinks Republicans won’t solve their big problems yet, but Democrats will overreach and the pendulum will swing back.

Parties are made of people, after all, and people make mistakes, sometimes learn from them, and then make new ones. Poll results may change, but human nature doesn’t.

Clintons’ post-presidency changes the deal

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

One of the problems with the Clintons’ post-presidential activities is that they mess with the deal the United States makes with its presidents.

That deal has always been this: You will perform the world’s most stressful job for four to eight years. You’ll be called upon to make life-and-death decisions that can affect millions of people around the world. The system limits your power, but many Americans will blame you for everything that goes wrong. The job will turn your hair gray. But when it’s over, you can cash in, get rich, and perform good works for the rest of your life.

Oh, and one more thing: You don’t get to come back. In fact, the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, expressly forbids a president from serving in the White House past two terms.

It’s not a perfect deal because conflicts of interest still are possible. This time next year, President Obama, like other ex-presidents and other high-ranking government officials, likely will be charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech. Those future huge paydays could affect the decisions he makes while still in office.

But Americans tolerate that possibility because we try not to stand in the way of anybody getting rich, and because ex-presidents are really nice things to have. President Carter has built houses around the world with Habitat for Humanity and has led the fight to nearly eradicate Guinea worm disease. President George W. Bush’s work in Africa is an extension of his good work with that continent while in office. President Clinton has helped lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medication for millions of people worldwide.

And for Arkansas, it’s been an especially good deal. The Clinton Library has been a catalyst for developing a part of Little Rock that once was a sea of decaying warehouses. The Clinton School of Public Service offers the nation’s first master of public service degree and has brought to Little Rock hundreds of eager young future leaders, as well as many high-profile speakers. A few weeks ago, Presidents Clinton and Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared together at Little Rock’s Central High.

But remember the part about presidents not being allowed to come back? It’s unclear how it applies to the first spouse.

When Bill Clinton left office 16 years ago, Hillary Clinton was 53 years old and being elected to a seat in the United States Senate. It was no secret then that she wanted to be president, which she indeed tried to become in 2008. She then became secretary of state.

While all of this was happening, her husband was leading the Clinton Foundation, which the Associated Press reported has raised more than $2 billion since 2001 – including between $100,001 and $250,000 from Donald Trump.

Did donors lend their support because they really supported the foundation’s work, or was part of their motivation gaining access and influence with Hillary Clinton, who was still very much in power and potentially soon would have more?

The Associated Press has reported that 85 of the 154 private citizens with whom Clinton had meetings or phone conversations during the first half of her time as secretary of state had donated to the Clinton Foundation. She also met with 16 foreign governments who gave money to the foundation.

In response, the Clinton campaign said the AP “cherry-picked” from Clinton’s schedule and that she had 1,700 other meetings. The Clintons did not draw a salary from the foundation. Would it be better if those millions of people didn’t get cheaper AIDS drugs?

At the very least, there’s clearly the potential for people to try to buy access. Aware of how this looks, the Clintons have announced they’ll step away from the foundation if she is elected president, although daughter Chelsea will stay on the board – which means the family is still very much involved.

It’s not the kind of situation anticipated by the 22nd Amendment or by the American people. Regardless of what the Clintons do, the question remains: When the first spouse is still young and has a good chance of someday becoming president, does that change the deal?

One way to vote your conscience

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You know how you’re always told that if you vote for a third party, you’re taking a vote from the major party candidate you’d otherwise support? Sam Husseini, a D.C.-based writer and activist, has a simple solution for that conundrum, “Vote Pact,” but it’s going to require a civil conversation with someone with whom you disagree politically.

The idea, basically, is to swap votes. Say you lean Republican but don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. You’re considering voting for the Libertarian, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, or independent candidate Evan McMullin, but you’re afraid not voting for Trump helps Hillary Clinton. Using the Vote Pact strategy, you team up with someone who feels pressured to vote for Clinton but would rather vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Then you can both vote your conscience. Instead of voting for someone you don’t support, your Vote Pact took a vote from someone you completely oppose.

A group supporting Johnson is making the same argument and has created a structure, Balanced Rebellion, that will pair a Republican and a Democrat who both want to vote for Johnson.

Husseini starting pushing the idea in 2000, when the race between George Bush and Al Gore also featured two well-known third party candidates, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. It didn’t gain much traction then. In later elections, the major parties produced relatively acceptable candidates while third parties didn’t produce many credible alternatives.

This year, Trump and Clinton have historically high unfavorable ratings, and some Americans are looking elsewhere. In Arkansas, six other candidates are on the ballot. But Husseini said voters are trapped by their own fears into voting for the lesser of two evils.

The idea resonates more in swing states than in Arkansas, where Trump seems all but certain to win the state’s six Electoral College votes.

Still, it’s not inconceivable that the race could at least become interesting here. Clinton, Arkansas’ former first lady, is competitive in some surprising states, including Georgia and Arizona. Evan McMullin, a traditional Republican, qualified for the Arkansas ballot Aug. 24 as the Better for America candidate, and he’ll pull votes from Trump, as will Johnson, who also pulls from Clinton. Two of the other candidates, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle and America’s Party co-founder Tom Hoefling, are also more conservative than Trump and could attract unhappy Republicans.

Nahh, Trump will win here.

Here’s the thing about the Vote Pact strategy: It requires participants to step out of their comfort zones. You know that old saying, “Never talk about politics in polite company”? Unfortunately, these days it’s, “Never talk about politics unless you’re sure the other person agrees with you, and then talk a lot about it.”

The structures of American society are sowing a lot of division these days. We have significant ideological, political, religious and regional differences anyway. These are heightened by the fact that we tend to live near, work alongside, and socialize with people who look like us, believe like us, and make roughly the same amount of money. Regardless of our political beliefs, it’s easy to find media outlets to reinforce our persuasions and paint others as foolish and ill-intentioned. Others therefore become aliens.

When we express our political opinions, it’s often in completely safe situations, or online, where old rules about civility and respect don’t seem to apply. There, political arguments are so ugly and pointless that we end up “unfriending” those with whom we disagree.

This creates a destructive cycle that entrenches our beliefs and makes us more extreme. Within a cocoon of like-minded individuals, in one conversation President Obama can go from being too liberal to being a communist to purposely helping the terrorists to win, with no one ever backtracking to him just being too liberal. In somebody else’s cocoon, Republicans become the mortal enemy.

Vote Pact creates an opportunity for civil discourse and transforms opponents into allies. The other voter is no longer part of the Left or Right. They’re just a fellow human being trying to vote their conscience. And we’re going to help them do that, while they help us.

Vote Pact won’t change this election’s outcome. But elections aren’t just about picking the winner in a two-person beauty contest, or “less ugly” contest. They’re about letting voters express their beliefs. The two-party, winner-take-all system pressures voters to compromise. With Vote Pact, they can vote with no regrets while bridging the gap with someone with different beliefs but the same desire for their vote to count.

Isn’t that better than another pointless online argument?