Category Archives: Politics

When the governor crosses the line

Gov. Asa Hutchinson

Gov. Asa Hutchinson

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

If Asa Hutchinson is in Texarkana, Ark., he’s governor. If he crosses over into Texarkana, Tex., Tim Griffin, the lieutenant governor, becomes governor. If Griffin is also out of state, he isn’t the governor either, though he’s still lieutenant governor. In that case, Senate President Pro Tempore Jonathan Dismang, a legislator from Beebe, is governor – assuming he also hasn’t left the state.

Got it?

Under the Arkansas Constitution, the governor relinquishes his powers to the lieutenant governor whenever he’s out of state. But that could change. Issue 2 on the November ballot would allow governors to maintain their powers wherever they are.

Legislators placed the proposal on the ballot because this is the 21st century, and governors can maintain contact with home much more easily than in 1914, when voters created the position of lieutenant governor and assigned its duties.

Moreover, the governor has become, in addition to being chief executive, a traveling face-of-the-state and occasional globe-trotting salesman. For example, in the past 12 months Hutchinson has flown to China to help secure a $1 billion paper mill in Arkadelphia, and to Europe to attend an air show, meet with aerospace-related business prospects, and open the state’s European office. He’s going back to China in October. He was in Austin, Texas, for the Texas Tribune Festival Sept. 24.

The system works fine most of the time because Hutchinson and Griffin, like most governors and lieutenant governors, get along well, are members of the same party and know their roles.

But there have been times when things didn’t work so smoothly. When Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, was at a National Governors Association meeting in 2013, his Republican lieutenant governor, Mark Darr, signed a gun bill Beebe did not intend to sign, though Beebe planned to let it become law unsigned. In 1993, when Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was out of state and the lieutenant governor’s office was vacant, Senate President Pro Tempore Jerry Jewell used his temporary powers to set free a convicted murderer and another convicted felon and pardon two men on parole. In 1987, Senate President Pro Tempore Nick Wilson fired Gov. Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, Betsey Wright, and vetoed some bills. Clinton rehired Wright when he returned. Wilson eventually went to prison, for other reasons.

This is the second time in 14 years Arkansas voters have had the chance to make this change. They rejected a similar proposal in 2002.

The arguments against? Even in the 21st century, there could be times when a governor might be out of state and inaccessible. On Sept. 11, 2001, Gov. Mike Huckabee was in Kentucky and could not return by air, and Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller could act with authority on that terrible day because he legally was the governor. Plus, maybe it’s a good thing that the Constitution reminds the governor not to be too much of a globe-trotting salesman.

One other thing about Issue 2 is that it would add feminine pronouns to that part of the Constitution. Section 4 of Amendment 6, which would be amended, refers only to “his” and “he.” The assumption in 1914 was that the governor would be a male, which makes sense because women were six years away from having the right to vote.

I worked in the lieutenant governor’s office from 2003-06, and I can tell you that we don’t really need the position as it currently exists. Its only constitutional duties are to preside over the Senate and to serve as governor if the elected governor is out of state, dies or is incapacitated. No well-run business would have a “lieutenant CEO” with similar non-duties, a salary and staff.

So I will vote yes. The governor should still be fully governor when he or she leaves the state, just as when the president leaves the country, the vice president doesn’t take over the job.

But it’s not the reform that’s needed. What should happen is that the governor and lieutenant governor run together on the same party ticket, like the president and vice president, and work together as a team after elected. That way, Rockefeller could have managed the situation with plenty of authority as Huckabee’s lieutenant governor on Sept. 11, but Jewell wouldn’t have been able to let the convicted murderer out of prison.

At least Issue 2 will let the governor be governor whenever he crosses the line.

A better Electoral College

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

Voters across this country are being reminded once again this year that, if they live in 39 states including Arkansas, presidential candidates either take their votes for granted or write their votes off.

That’s because we don’t elect presidents by the popular vote but through the Electoral College. Arkansas gets six votes out of the 538 cast, and everyone knows who will win those six – the Republican, in this case Donald Trump. In a Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College poll published Sept. 22, Trump was trouncing Hillary Clinton, 55-34 percent. But the outcome was obvious long before then.

On Election Night, the Associated Press and the TV networks will call Arkansas for Trump the instant the polls close and then move on to the swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin.

If elections were decided by a national popular vote, Arkansans’ votes would go into one big pot to be counted with those from every other state. Instead, those votes go into the Arkansas pot, where the outcome is already known.

This means your individual vote in Arkansas effectively has zero influence on who becomes the next president. So if you cannot abide Trump or Clinton, you are free to join the seven percent of Arkansans who told Talk Business they are voting for someone else.

“Vote your conscience because your vote has no effect anyway” is not exactly a rallying cry for the status quo, and it’s not the only problem with the Electoral College. Because Arkansas is not a swing state, both the Trump and Clinton campaigns made early decisions to waste no resources courting it, and to make no promises that would benefit it.

The Electoral College has numerous other flaws. First, because 48 states are winner-take-all, the loser of the popular vote can be elected president, which has happened four times, most recently in 2000. In fact, it’s possible for a candidate to win the presidency by winning the largest 11 states, even if by narrow margins, while not even appearing on the ballot in the others. Second, because of the way electors are apportioned, Americans living in small states have greater influence than those living in large states. In a country that professes to believe in “one person, one vote,” a Wyoming resident’s vote has four times the weight of a Texan’s, according to the advocacy group FairVote. Third, the winner-take-all system creates a strong incentive for voters to choose the least objectionable major party candidate, making it very difficult for a qualified third party candidate with good ideas to make a dent. Finally, in 21 states, including Arkansas, electors do not have to follow the voters’ wishes. They can vote for whomever they want – and have done so 157 times in American history, according to FairVote.

The Electoral College was created by framers of the Constitution who were skeptical of giving the people too much power. If we were designing our democracy today, there’s no way we would do it this way.

One solution is a nationwide popular vote, but having to count 130 million votes one at a time could be messy and produce unintended consequences. Besides, a government that cannot produce a budget or fight the Zika virus is not going to make this big a change.

So instead of abolishing the Electoral College, why not just make it better? Multiple the number of electoral votes by 10 in each state, giving Arkansas 60 votes instead of six. That way, there would be enough to apportion them according to the results. In Arkansas, Trump would get the 55 percent he’s already getting without trying here, plus whatever else he could earn by actually campaigning, while Clinton would win electoral votes and so could the third party and independent candidates. Meanwhile, Clinton would no longer be assured of winning all of California’s 55 votes. Her total would match the percentage of 550 she earns there.

Also, either make it illegal for electors to vote against the people’s wishes, or, better yet, just get rid of electors entirely and assign electoral votes automatically.

We don’t have to repeal and replace the Electoral College. Let’s just fix it so presidential candidates can’t take anyone’s vote for granted or write anybody’s off. Let’s make every state matter, not just the swing states. All it takes is simple math: Multiply by 10 and divide according to the results.

19 not-angry students

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

All adults have been 18 once, but most of us have not been 18 in 2016. There’s a difference, which I kept in mind as I spoke to 19 freshmen taking part in a special leadership course at the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith last week. 

The students were there because the university’s chancellor, Dr. Paul Beran, believes they’re future leaders, and for some reason he thought I might have something to say to them. So I encouraged them not to get mad. Proverbs 22:24 says, “Make no friendship with an angry man,” so don’t be that angry man. 

Thankfully, that message turned out to be merely a warning, not a scolding, because I didn’t see a lot of anger in that room. I don’t spend much time around 18-year-olds, but I was struck by this bunch’s youthful optimism and positive outlooks. One student named Kelsey completely disagreed with one of my comments, but in the most respectful way possible. Maybe she was simply showing deference to her elder, but while her eyes were passionate, they were not unkind or condemning.

Gosh, I hope she stays that way.

I choose to believe that those young people looked cheerful and optimistic because they really are cheerful and optimistic. So the question becomes, why them and not so many of us? 

Part of it’s just being young, of course. It just feels better than being older, physically. 

But 18-year-old future leaders also lack two bad habits that many of the rest of us have developed – the media we consume, and the things on which we focus.

These young people watch the news some, but that’s about it. They have things to do, tests to study for, friends to hang out with, and future mates to seek. So they’re not going to spend three hours listening to a news anchor or talk radio host yell about the latest manufactured controversy. Plus, young people simply don’t get their news that way, thank goodness. They get their news in bite-sized chunks and move on.

The other thing I suspect about these students is that they spend more time in the “circle of influence” than they do in the “circle of concern.” Those are two illustrations by the late Dr. Stephen Covey, author of “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” The circle of concern is a big circle involving all of the things we worry about. Contained within is the smaller circle of influence, which involves what we can actually affect. 

Our attention should be focused on the circle of influence, but as adults it can be very tempting to wallow in the circle of concern. The word “ruminant” refers to animals such as cows that chew their food, swallow it, and return it to their mouth to chew it again. Too many of us adults spend too much time ruminating about things we can’t control, like this year’s presidential race. We internalize it, spit it back up and then chew on it some more, this time mixed with bile. The students at UAFS seemed to be following the race, and many seemed to share in the widespread disappointment with this year’s choices. But maybe because they have other things to do – things they can influence, like the next test – they aren’t ruminating on it.

The late comedian George Burns used to sing, “I wish I was 18 again and going where I’ve never been. But old folks and old oaks standing tall just pretend. I wish I was 18 again.” 

Until someone invents a time machine, that wish won’t come true – which means it never will, because if it were possible to travel back in time, we would have already met someone from the future. Still, even old folks and old oaks can recapture some youthful optimism by turning off the TV and focusing less on what we can’t change, and more on what we can.

No debate: Tough for Arkansas Democrats to win statewide races

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

You can’t blame a guy for trying, and that includes trying to be a U.S. senator.

I’m referring to Democratic candidate Conner Eldridge’s latest attempt to debate Republican Sen. John Boozman, or at least to remind whoever is listening that Boozman doesn’t want to debate him.

Which he doesn’t, and why would he? Debates are unpredictable, and Boozman might make a big mistake, although this campaign is showing that a candidate can say or do just about anything and still become a major party presidential nominee. Boozman has agreed to one debate, sponsored by AETN Oct. 12.

Boozman will continue doing what all front-running incumbents do: Avoid his opponent no matter how much the opponent gets under his skin, stay out of trouble, and use his huge fundraising advantage to run television ads, which Boozman has begun doing with a recent $300,000 ad buy. The ad shows him in a positive light and doesn’t mention Eldridge, who isn’t on TV yet.

Meanwhile, Eldridge will continue doing what all underdog opponents do: try to throw a kink in those plans. After months of calling out Boozman – even driving a truck around the state with two podiums – Eldridge finally held a debate without him in Fayetteville with the Libertarian candidate, Frank Gilbert. On the stage was an empty podium signifying Boozman’s absence.

The run-up to the debate was kind of messy. As reported by KUAR’s Jacob Kauffman, the debate was to be organized by the University of Arkansas Associated Student Government. Apparently the Boozman campaign was never issued an invitation, which of course it would have declined. Still, when the snafu became apparent, the debate’s moderator, Doug Thompson with the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, pulled out.

I should disclose that I was then approached by Gilbert to see if I would be willing to moderate and said I would do it, but then I removed myself from consideration when I learned about the empty podium prop. The night of the debate, television anchor Dillon Thomas also backed out.

Basically, everybody got what they wanted, though in a roundabout way. Boozman avoided the debate. Eldridge got a visual of an empty podium that he can use to remind voters that Boozman won’t debate him – which is more useful to him than an actual debate, which few would watch. Gilbert had a chance to discuss the issues, which is why he’s running as a Libertarian and not as a major party candidate.

The problem for Eldridge is that this election was over when he decided to put a “D” at the end of his name and Boozman already had an “R” at the end of his, and “Sen.” at the front.

Here are the percentages statewide Republican candidates have won in recent elections: 57 percent by Sen. Tom Cotton in 2014; 55 percent by Gov. Asa Hutchinson in 2014; 61 percent by Mitt Romney in 2012; and 58 percent by Boozman in 2010.

Here are the percentages won by Democrats in those races: 39, 41, 37, 37, by Sen. Mark Pryor in 2014, by Mike Ross in his race for governor in 2014, by President Obama in 2012, and by Sen. Blanche Lincoln in 2010.

See a pattern there? The Republican ceiling is somewhere in the high 50s to low 60s. The Democrats’ ceiling is somewhere in the high 30s to low 40s. It’s possible that the six people running for president as independents and third party candidates might mess up that equation in that race a little, but not much. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton, Arkansas’ former first lady, would be campaigning here.

Debates will not make Arkansas competitive. What will make Arkansas competitive is demographic change – when the voting population becomes more diverse, as has happened in other states, and when today’s young people become active voters. The rising millennial generation seems to be more liberal about some things, although some voters become more conservative as they grow older.

Eldridge can’t wait for all of that. He’s running this year, so you can’t blame him for trying to make this race competitive, even though he probably can’t.

So why run as a Democrat? For the same reason Gilbert ran as a Libertarian – because it’s the party that most closely fits his views. You can’t blame a guy for that, either.

Steve Brawner is an independent journalist in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.

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.