Category Archives: Elections

Should states decide on immigration?

By Steve Brawner

Should immigration be more of a state issue than it is now? Ken Hamilton, Libertarian candidate for Congress in the 4th District, says it should be. The federal government sure can’t seem to solve it on its own.

Here’s how immigration would work if Hamilton, 58, an El Dorado accountant with Murphy USA, got his way. The federal government would continue to enforce border security and decide who gets to come into the country, but it would do so based on requests from the states. Some states would want a lot of immigrants, others not so many.

So say California decides it needs 10,000 farm workers. The federal government would grant that many visas to work in California only.

Then California would take it from there. Immigrants could work wherever they want within that state’s borders – unlike today’s employer-based visas, which force them to serve a particular boss who is regulated by the federal government. Immigrants could travel to other states, but they couldn’t work in them legally. However, certain immigrants such as migrant farm workers could receive visas allowing them to travel between states based on growing seasons. California could offer permanent state residency to those immigrant workers who follow the rules. It also could allot visas to members of its current illegal immigrant population. Eventually, immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship. In the meantime, states could determine what benefits they receive.

“The states can tailor the program to what they need,” he said. “If they need high-tech, they can do it. If they need farm workers, they can do it. I think that’s the best way to do it rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all program out of the federal government.”

Hamilton says a state-based approach would break the logjam in Congress. Democrats typically favor a path to citizenship. Republicans, meanwhile, are split between two factions. Establishment Republicans want a more open policy because employers need the workers and because the party needs to better appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing minority that is siding with Democrats in elections. On the other side, a large faction of Republicans say a path to citizenship amounts to awarding amnesty to lawbreakers. Secure the border, they say.

The result has been a sometimes ugly debate that hasn’t solved anything. We all know the current system inadequately controls the border. We all know it’s resulted in millions of illegal immigrants living here as part of a shadowy underclass without a real stake in society or an opportunity to achieve the American dream. We all know this situation provides a lot of cheap labor but also hurts certain American workers. But, election to election, little changes.

Hamilton, of course, almost certainly won’t be elected. The United States remains staunchly a two-party system despite voters’ unhappiness with what’s happening in Washington.

But picking winners and losers is not the only reason we have elections. It’s also a chance to have a national debate about the issues. The two major parties, whether they are promoting a path to citizenship or favor just closing the border, haven’t gotten us anywhere.

They can’t even figure out what to do with illegal immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents and have much-needed technical skills. American taxpayers pay for an undocumented child immigrant to go to public school, sometimes from kindergarten through the 12th grade, but then it’s difficult for them to go to college and nearly impossible for them to fulfill their potential in the workforce. We won’t even give them a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the military.

So now someone else is offering another option: If Washington can’t solve the problem, let the states take charge.

Got a better idea?

America needs worse politicians

By Steve Brawner

Want better government? Make candidates worse at politics.

Politics is about winning elections, and today’s big campaigns and special interest groups have turned it into a science. Using sophisticated data mining techniques, they know our buying and online habits and therefore how we’ll probably vote. If you’re a 55-year-old Southern white male who drives a Ford truck and visits conservative news websites, the campaigns know it, and because of that, they know you’re almost certainly inclined to vote Republican. If you drive a Volvo and regularly shop at Whole Foods Market, they know you’ll probably vote Democrat.

Using that data, campaigns can reach individual voters through a technique known as microtargeting. Turnout and fundraising, not persuasion, is the goal. If you’re likely a Republican, the Tom Cotton campaign will send you material meant to push your buttons so you’ll show up on Election Day and hopefully donate money. The Mark Pryor campaign, meanwhile, will not waste its resources on you. If you don’t believe this, keep a tally of the political ads you see online and in your mailbox. Chances are you’re mostly hearing from only one of the candidates.

So don’t worry that anyone is somehow looking at your ballot. It’s not necessary to commit election fraud and risk a scandal. They know how you’ll vote before you do.

But while candidates are getting better at politicking, elected officials are becoming worse at governing. This current Congress is on track to be the least productive in modern history in terms of bills passed through both houses. That’s good in many ways because no productivity is better than bad productivity. But it also means little of substance is being done about the national debt, immigration and other issues that demand action. Do you think Congress is doing a good job?

Furthermore, when Congress can’t get anything done, it cedes power to a president to use executive orders to do what he wants. An example is what’s happening with No Child Left Behind, the education law passed by Congress under President George W. Bush that greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. The law expired seven years ago, but because Congress can’t agree on anything, its outdated and unworkable requirements haven’t been repealed. How can schools still educate children? Through waivers granted by the Obama administration that have expanded the federal government’s role in education even more.

It’s no coincidence that we’re getting worse at governing while we’re getting better at politicking. Americans are culturally divided anyway, but the political process is making the divisions worse. We’re bombarded by messages telling us our side is right and the other side is evil, so we tend to elect people who believe the same way, or at least pretend to believe it. Cooperative statesmanship becomes difficult when you’ve told your constituents that the other side wants to destroy America.

The political center – so vital to keeping the country on a forward path – has thus melted away. There are only 15 Democrats remaining in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. The declining number of Republican centrists have limited influence in their party. With so few in the center, Republicans and Democrats have completely different priorities and are working from different sets of facts. The primary organizing principle they all share, “How do I get re-elected?” is accomplished by a tactic they also have in common: Divide and conquer.

What can voters do? Make candidates worse at politicking by making it harder for them to categorize and manipulate us. If we say we’re independent, as a rising 42 percent of us told Gallup we are late last year, then we should act like it. Polls show that most of us who say we’re independent consistently lean one way or the other. So occasionally lean some other way – for example, by giving third party and independent candidates a chance. Research news websites that offer a different perspective than your own.

That will confuse the microtargeters. We also might learn something, or even change our minds on an issue. And in the process, we might get a better government.

Hate my Congress, keep my congressman

By Steve Brawner

In April, just 11 percent of Americans said they approved of Congress’ performance, and 80 percent said they disapproved, according to an Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll. A Gallup poll in May found only 22 percent of Americans say most members of Congress deserve re-election, while 72 percent say they do not. And yet guess how many midterm primary elections congressional incumbents have lost this cycle?

One.

As PBS Newshour pointed out, incumbents had won 139 of 139 contested races prior to this week. They won 45 of 45 last week. On Tuesday, Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Tex., became the first incumbent defeated. One of Congress’ last two World War II veterans, he is 91 years old and is in his 17th term.

We’ve all heard the Ben Franklin quote that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Almost as certain is being re-elected to Congress. In 2012, 90 percent of House incumbents running for re-election were victorious, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Going back to 1964, it’s never been lower than 85 percent, and five times it’s been 98 percent. Re-elections for Senate incumbents have not been quite as automatic through the years, but 91 percent were re-elected in 2012.

How can Americans hate Congress but so rarely vote to change it? One reason: The way the system is designed, voters don’t have a chance to vote against the institution. They only vote for or against their own congressman, who seems all right and may have helped them with a problem. Partly because of the way House districts have been drawn, there’s a good chance their congressman agrees with them on a number of issues. Using modern data-mining techniques, he or she knows what those issues are and how to communicate them. Because we live in such a polarized environment, voters often blame the other side instead of their own members.

There isn’t space to list all of the other advantages incumbents have, but money is an obvious one. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average incumbent House member raised $1.6 million in campaign contributions in 2012, compared to $268,000 raised by challengers. U.S. Senate incumbents raised an average of almost $12 million, compared to challengers’ $1.4 million. Those numbers skew against challengers because they include all candidates who filed campaign reports, including minor candidates who raised little money.

The system’s imperfections aren’t insurmountable, of course. Thanks to the internet, almost all voters have access to enough information to make informed, creative choices at the ballot box. That would require us to base our decisions on research rather than impressions gleaned from 30-second TV ads and superficial media coverage – which, unfortunately, we don’t often do.

While incumbent congressmen rarely lose elections, there is turnover thanks to retirements and other causes. Some members don’t run again because they know they would lose or face a tough fight. The Cook Political Report revealed in December 2012 that, from 2008 to 2012, nearly 40 percent of the Senate had turned over. USA Today quoted Cook in January 2013 saying that 39 percent of House members, including nearly half the Republicans, started this current term with less than three years of experience.

That kind of turnover is reflected in Arkansas. After November, at least two of Arkansas’ six congressional seats, the House 2nd and 4th Districts, will be occupied by a new representative. If Rep. Tom Cotton defeats Sen. Mark Pryor, half the delegation would turn over this year. In fact, Arkansas’ entire delegation would be different than it was before the election of 2010. The only elected official remaining from that time would be Sen. John Boozman, but he was serving in the House four years ago.

So the good news is that turnover does occur in Congress, giving the institution new blood and fresh ideas. The bad news? It doesn’t usually happen because of the voters, who are unhappy with Congress but, for many reasons, don’t seem able to do much about it.

Pryor vs. Ross

By Steve Brawner

He’s a Democrat running for a high-profile statewide office. He’s developed a reputation through the years as a centrist willing to work with both sides of the aisle. He excels at retail, face-to-face politics. He faces a Republican attorney who doesn’t.

I could be describing Sen. Mark Pryor or Mike Ross. They’re similar elected officials facing similar opponents, and yet in the Senate race Pryor is usually polling several points ahead of his opponent, Rep. Tom Cotton, while Ross is polling behind Asa Hutchinson in the campaign for governor.

Why the difference between Pryor and Ross so far? One theory: They’re competing with each other a little bit, and Pryor is winning. Perhaps the most intriguing matchup this year is not Pryor vs. Cotton, or Ross vs. Hutchinson. It’s Pryor vs. Ross.

Let’s start with more conventional explanations for those polls, and then I’ll explain that theory. Pryor is a statewide figure who has represented all of Arkansas in the Senate for 12 years. He still enjoys good will because of his father, former Sen. David Pryor. Ross represented only one-fourth of the state as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he’s been out of office for nearly a year-and-a-half.

As for their opponents, Hutchinson, the longtime Arkansas political figure, is a more polished candidate than Cotton. Hutchinson knows how to soften his stances and appeal to folks in the middle, while Cotton seems to know only one speed – full ahead. We like our politicians on a first-name basis here: Mike, Mark, Blanche, etc. We all know who “Asa” is, but Cotton, whom we just met a couple of years ago, is not yet “Tom.”

Other explanations? Because the Senate seat is so important nationally, the race has attracted millions of dollars in campaign ads that have taken the shine off Cotton. Hutchinson and Ross really haven’t laid a glove on each other yet. Meanwhile, Hutchinson was involved in a primary contest against an active opponent, Curtis Coleman, so his campaign has been somewhat in the public eye. Ross faced an inactive primary opponent and has been mostly laying the groundwork for the general election.

Let’s get back to the theory that Pryor and Ross are competing against each other.

Resources are limited. There is only so much campaign money, and there are only so many volunteers with only so much time and energy. There is only so much space for yard signs and bumper stickers.

That’s the case with any campaign season, but this year’s races are occurring in the context of a Republican surge in Arkansas that may have peaked but hasn’t ended. When there’s a trend, there’s more room for one outlier than two.

Of course, hanging over all of this is the fact that President Obama is still in office, he’s still a Democrat, and, right or wrong, he’s still deeply disliked by many Arkansans.

Arkansans like to think of themselves as independent. We have a history of splitting our tickets. Until 2010, this was one of the more Democratic states in the country, and Democrats still hold a lot of power at the local and state levels.

Given all that, some diehard Obama-dislikers will be prepared to vote for a member of Obama’s party in either the U.S. Senate or the governor’s race. But they won’t vote for a member of his party in both of this year’s major races. Doing so would be too much of an endorsement of him and what they believe he represents. Pryor and Ross are competing for those voters.

Republicans still have the momentum in Arkansas. Pryor and Ross – both very good politicians – are trying to swim against that tide. It’s foreseeable that one can do it. It’s harder, though certainly not impossible, to see both winning. They’ve both got a lot to compete against, including, in some ways, each other.

Anyway, that’s one theory.

Graphic for blg 5

Is this the way to select judges?

By Steve Brawner

In a democracy, how we select officeholders is more important than whom we elect in a single election. That being the case, it’s time to reconsider how we select judges and Supreme Court justices. It’s not been a good election cycle.

For example, last year, nursing home operator Michael Morton donated thousands of dollars through seven different political action committees to the campaign of Circuit Judge Mike Maggio, who at the same time reduced a jury verdict against one of Morton’s nursing homes from $5.2 million to $1 million. Morton has said the timing of the gifts and verdict were a coincidence, but the Arkansas Supreme Court has reassigned Maggio’s entire caseload.

Also, as reported in Sunday’s Democrat-Gazette, Morton donated $46,000 to the campaign of Supreme Court Justice Rhonda Wood, who doesn’t have an opponent. She later returned half of that. He also donated $20,000 to Judge Karen Baker, who also is running unopposed for Supreme Court. Both of these represented sizable percentages of the two candidates’ campaign hauls.

The only competitive Supreme Court race pitted Court of Appeals Judge Robin Wynne versus attorney Tim Cullen. (Tuesday is my deadline, so I don’t know who won.) In that race, a campaign ad funded by the out-of-state Law Enforcement Alliance of America made an issue of Cullen once serving as a court-appointed lawyer for a sexual predator who was appealing his sentence. In the legal brief, Cullen used the phrase “victimless crime” because the predator had been caught through a police sting operation. In typical negative campaign ad fashion, the LEAA pulled that quote out of context and painted Cullen as an ally of sexual predators and dismissive of child pornography.

The ad was not just an attack on Cullen. It was an attack on one of the most fundamental values of the American judicial system – the right to a fair trial and a vigorous defense. Wynne distanced himself from the ad, which wasn’t his, but he did not denounce it – a fact I remembered in the polling booth.

Misleading negative ads and big campaign donations are nothing new, of course, and one might argue that they are the price we pay for having a vibrant democracy and free speech. Some might say judges should go on the hot seat just like everyone else.

But the judiciary is unique among the three branches of government. While the executive and legislative branches should listen intently to popular will, the judiciary should be relatively independent of campaign-related passions. Also, the executive and legislative branches operate through collaboration, so there’s a limit to how much influence can be bought with a donation to a single candidate. Judges, however, make decisions that stand on their own. A group of four justices can change the way we live with a single decision.

Arkansas always has had an uneasy relationship with judicial elections. Judicial ethics have forbidden candidates from discussing how they would rule on cases, resulting in bland campaigns offering limited information to voters. Now that campaign dollars are flowing more freely, candidates are being placed in increasingly compromising situations. After all, unless they are independently wealthy, they must accept contributions in order to run a campaign.

Should judges be selected through an appointment process – perhaps by the governor with confirmation from the state Senate, as it’s done in Washington? Or would that simply import some of Washington’s troubles here? Maybe we should just trust the current process. Of course, the current process is also how we elect constitutional officers, and two of the seven have resigned in disgrace.

We’ll be fine regardless of whether Wynne or Cullen won on Tuesday. They’re both qualified. But in a democracy, how we select is often more important than whom we elect. It’s time for a judicious review of the process.