Barney Frank to Shuffle Out of Congress

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA 4th), the 16 term Congressman from Newton, Mass., has announced that he will not seek re-election.  Eschewing the typical rationale of retiring in order to spend more time with his family, Frank was frank about admitting that his decision was driven by redistricting.  


In February, it was clear that Frank may have his seat adjusted due to redistricting, as the Bay State needed to eliminate a Congressional district due to the 2010 Census.  But what is surprising is that Commonwealth legislators did not protect their elder stateman in this process.  Frank is the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, who Rush Limbaugh dubbed  the “Banking Queen”. Frank had the Chair when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed Congressional Stewardship as well as the Federal foreclosure fiasco.




Massachusetts state Democrat legislators and Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) controlled the entire redistricting process. The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Redistricting pitted incumbents Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA 9th) and Rep. William Keating (D-MA 10th) in a newly configured 8th Congressional District. In redrawing the electoral map, Frank’s district was significantly changed by losing the southern portion of the district which had white blue collar citizens and added more suburban voters.


Frank admitted that he was ambivalent about standing for office again, but when the new Congressional District’s lines were finalized, Frank came out and declared that he was retiring so that other candidates could position themselves for the upcoming race.  What was fishy about Frank’s announcement was attributing his decision to not run for losing coastal constituents.  Frank would have needed to re-introduce himself to about half of the new district which might not have been an easy sail. Frank had a competitive race in 2009 to Republican challenger Scott Bialat which he eventually topped by 11 points but the incumbent had to run hard in the solid Blue Bay State.  Frank probably determined that it would be a real race in 2012 with little prospect of regaining power in the House, despite the wolfing of DCCC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL 20th).


The new Congressional District that Frank is fleeing voted to re-elect Gov. Patrick, yet it supported Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) in the 2010 special election, so it could be up for grabs.  There is some speculation that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling might run.


Another ramification of Frank’s retirement is that the likely successor to the Ranking Member position in the House Financial Services Committee would be Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA 35th), a proud member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus which would be quite comfortable with the supposed income redistribution aspirations of the Occupy Movement. 

Special Election Turns NY9 into GOP District

Bob Turner, a New York businessman who became a novice Republican candidate, defeated longtime Democrat state legislator David Welprin in the race to replace disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner in New York’s 9th Congressional District. This also happened to be Senator Chuck Schumer’s district when he was in the House.  Turner had won a court injunction to impound absentee ballots because of gross incompetence of election officials who repeatedly sent unrequested absentee ballots to dead people.  But the post election lawfare was unnecessary as Turner won by about 8%,  which is beyond the margin of fraud.

The spin responding to this loss is laughable.  DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL 20th) dismisses the loss as this was a difficult district for Democrats to win, since it got the 2nd lowest Democrat votes in New York City.   OK, the district was a D +5 district which Barack Obama carried by 15% in 2008.  Moreover, Democrats had held the NY9 seat since 1923.  Oops! It makes one wonder if Sgt. Schultz is one of the DNC Chair's  political braintrust.

Left side spinners may minimize Rep.-elect Bob Turner’s (R-NY 9th) victory as being short lived since New York legislators were set to eliminate NY9 as part of redistricting.  That might explain why the Democrats put up a party hack who did not even live within the Congressional District to stand for the post.  Democrats threw $600,000 in independent expenditures to try to hold NY9 because a Democrat insider confided: “This isn’t about one seat. It’s about two or three. The party’s $500,000 investment is insurance for the delegation, not for Weprin.”  But Congressmen-elect Turner’s victory may throw a monkey wrench into the redistricting plans to eliminate NY-9. Now New York legislators may eliminate another downstate seat and pack more Republicans into NY-13 in Brooklyn and Staten Island.

The results in this Special Election in New York are a marked contract to the routes in traditional Republican strongholds in NY-26 near Buffalo this spring and the Dee Dee Scozzafava fiasco in NY-23 in 2009.  One difference is who chose the candidates.  Republican Party insiders were the decision makers for Scozzafava (who eventually endorsed the Democrat in the race) as well as Jane Corwin in NY-26.  Turner was a television executive who did not have local GOP insider connections.  For the NY-9 race, Queen’s Democrat Party Chair Joe Crowley selected the underwhelming Welprin, who carried baggage of supporting the 9/11 mosque in a heavily Orthodox Jewish district.  The internal numbers show that Democrats lost by a 67%-33% margin in Brooklyn, where many Orthodox reside.

The lack of support in the Jewish community shown in the NY-9 results should be quite worrisome to Democrats and Obama 2012 campaigns.   Welprin’s 45% showing is in stark contrast to the 55% that Barack Obama won the district in 2008.  The internal election results show that Democrats lost by a 67%-33% margin in Brooklyn, where many Orthodox reside.  This does not bode well for Democrats, as the Jewish vote has always been reliable at the ballot box and they have been key fundraisers.

To echo how these special elections were a referendum on the Obama Administration, consider the results from Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District to replace Senator Dean Heller (R-NV).  This is a reliably Republican district ( R +5) , so the win was no surprise.  What was eye opening was the margin of victory.  In 2008, by virtue of the top of the ticket, Sen. John McCain barely won the district, but in the Special Election, Congressman-elect Mark Amodei (R-NV 2nd) won by 21%. Be it red state or blue state, the electorate is unhappy with the leadership in the Oval Office.

We Don't Have a Weiner in NY-9

In a special election, some voters in New York City are going to the polls to replace disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th).  There is a good chance that Republican Bob Turner may be able to score an upset in a marginally Democrat (+5 D) part of Queens.  Two polls late in the campaign show that Democrat candidate David Welprin is vulnerable to losing.

PPP Polling (a Democrat oriented firm) shows that Turner has net positive impression amongst NY-9 voters while President Obama’s approval rating in the district is 31%, down from the 55% in 2008.  PPP pollster Tom Jensen speculates that if Obama’s favorables were 50%, the Democrats would retain the seat.

Residue from Weiner’s social media sex scandal may dampen Democrats enthusiasm for the special election. But Obama’s doldrums in the favorability polling may emulate the dispirited state of Democrats.  Moreover, NY-9th has the highest concentration of Orthodox Jews in the nation.  While Welprin is Orthodox, former Mayor Ed Koch (D-NYC) has endorsed Republican Turner.  The Turner campaign has aired cable ads which lumps Welprin and Obama together for their stated support of the Park 51 9/11 mosque project and urges voters to send a message.



Of late, national Democrats have been pouring in $500,000 support to try to hold the seat. On the eve of the special election, President Bill Clinton made robo-calls to NY-9 voters urging them to support Welprin. National Republicans have added $100,000 to Turner’s warchest.

Even if Turner is triumphant, the victory will not be long held.  Due to redistricting, New York will lose two Congressional districts. The politicians in Albany agreed to nix one CD upstate and one in the NYC metroplex.  This will probably result in the abolishment of a typically GOP seat (likely NY-26) and a typically Democrat seat (most likely NY-9).  So the incumbent may only hold office for a year.


While this may be a short term election result, it does show vulnerabilities that Democrats have even in the dark blue Empire State and soft support that Obama has with the serious Jewry on supporting Israel and accommodating ardent Islamists in America.

McCotter Jams Into Presidential Primary Race

Five term Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI 11th) will immanently announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.  McCotter is known in Republican circles for being a conservative who is culturally attuned and new media savvy.  While serving on the Hill McCotter formed a rock and country band “The Second Amendments” which played for the troops and at a White House picnic. To that end, President George W. Bush called McCotter “that rock and roll dude”.

McCotter has a way of mixing wonkiness with rocking.  His Rock Solid interviews show McCotter answering policy questions while riffing on his Star Spangled Telecaster guitar.  When making House floor speeches, McCotter has been known to quote Led Zepplin.  To protest the Democrat drive to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio, McCotter produced an innovative youtube video that was an homage to Bob Dylan’s Subterranean Homesick Blues.



McCotter is the third sitting Congressman to run for President this cycle. McCotter is jamming into an already crowded race.  The Republican field may further further expand soon if the persistent rumors about a forthcoming campaign from Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) prove true and the strong signals from former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).

Even though McCotter has a lifetime ACU rating of 86%, he does cause some rankles in the conservative base.  McCotter’s district is filled with autoworkers, hence he has a union friendly voting record for things like the automotive bailout of G.M. and Chrysler.   Granted, that it is a inside the beltway baseball thing, but when McCotter was the head of the conservative leaning Republican Policy Committee, McCotter sought to abolish it to save money and was replaced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA 6th). While McCotter is mostly a well spoken conservative, his tough talk on trade puts him at odds with most free market conservatives.  Moreover, McCotter will have to explain his HAPPY proposal (H.R. 5310 Humanity And Pets Partnered through the Years legislation to give a $3,500 tax credit for pet care).

So why is McCotter jamming into the Presidential fray?  His people can say that he is in it to win it, but surely they know that it’s a long shot at best. The virtual Gingrich campaign implosion offered an opportunity to pick up some movers and shakers in Iowa.  The Ames Straw poll is in August and McCotter’s agents spent $18,000 to get the position where former Gov. Huckabee (R-AR) was located. Still McCotter polls 2% in Iowa, despite jamming with Huckabee on FNC.  But as the Paulistians (sic) often prove, straw polls can be won by dumping cash and mobilizing partisans to something that garners publicity but no delegates.

Now that Michigan Congressional redistricting has been finalized, McCotter’s district will be more secure and less union oriented.  While it is nowhere near national levels, in the last election, McCotter raised five times what his opponent did.   Even though political junkies and viewers of FNC’s Red Eye know the quirky but endearing Rep. McCotter, he might not have the statewide exposure. McCotter, like most other top tier GOP candidates,  passed on running against two term Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) this cycle.  Perhaps McCotter is looking to the future and sees that six term Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) will be 80 in 2014 and may not like being a back bencher again.

But as Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN 6th) meteoric rise in the Presidential polls has shown, a candidate who is intelligent, engaging and appealing can catch lighting in a bottle during the New Hampshire Debate and can reach for the top.  To somewhat of a lesser extent, the same was true for Herman Cain after the first debate in South Carolina. Perhaps McCotter is counting on scoring big points during a debate along with his pop persona to make him a political rock star.  And if McCotter does not become American Political Idol, then he is well positioned for House re-election, GOP cabinet consideration and possibly a Senate run in the near future.

McCotter may be a huge Beatle fan, but he would be advised to bone up on Bon Jovi’s “Living on a Prayer”.

More Weiner Weaseling?

After three weeks of twisting in the wind over  prevaricating over sending risque Twitter messages to women over the internet along with  his unseemly package photos, Rep.  Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th) announced that he would give up his seat...in Congress.  Instead of quietly resigning in disgrace, the lewd legislator made a campaign like press conference at the venue where he first announced for public office.  Some political pundits opined that Weiner might have intended the occasion as a sort of political relaunching.  But this rebranding exercise was marred by a shock jock heckler who offered a fond farewell to a “freak”.  After this botched presser, Weiner left for the Hamptons in a limo with his wife riding alone in back.  Perhaps gave truth to Weiner’s contention that his lovely wife Huma was behind him.



Perhaps it is understandable that Weiner did not send a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH 8th) immediately on late Thursday afternoon, as his Capitol Hill staff had evacuated the day before with their belongings. The assurances that the Weiner offices will be open for business makes some sense to continue to pursue constituent services.   But where is the letter of resignation?

Weiner does not have discernable skills other than being a political animal.  Weiner’s education was in PolySci, he worked as a legislative assistant to then Congressman now senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY 9th), served on the New York City Council and won Chuck Schumer’s seat.  Weiner had been a fiesty partisan, both on the House floor as well as on talking heads shows. But the prurient problem combined with a lack of friends among his partisans make his future private sector job prospects tenuous, unless he gets hired as an act to follow Keith Olbermann on Al Gore’s CurrentTV or takes that job with Larry Flynt and Hustler.

Each day that passes increases Weiner’s future pension, much to the derision of the public.  It is dubious that Weiner is trying to hold on to his post for nickle and dime supplements for his retirement. After all of his lying about his Tweets, the shamelessness of holding on to the post and brashness of his campaign like relaunch resignation speech, Weiner may be weaseling for political advantage.  

Ordinarily when a Congressional Seat is vacant in New York state, the Governor calls for a special election, where the party bosses pick one candidate and it is a winner take all stakes.  In recent special elections in the Empire State, country Republican bosses have picked RINOS or weak candidates which lost what should be safe seats.  But due to serendipitous timing and the need for Governor Andrew Cuomo to fill open Assembly seats, there way be an off-year election.  In that procedure, candidates would need to file valid petition signatures by July 14th, the Democrat primary would be September 13th and the general election on November 8th.

Weiner and friends may be working the Governor out of the limelights to call for an off-year election instead of a special election. This may include the Clintons. After all, Huma is close to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ex-President Bill Clinton married the couple in 2010 and Gov. Cuomo was Secretary of HUD during Clinton’s Presidency.

If polls are to be believed, a solid majority did not want Weiner to go.  Moreover, Weiner has the campaign infrastructure to get his name on the ballot and he certainly has name recognition.  If the timing for calling the off year election is right, other Democrat candidates could have trouble getting their petitions in on time.  And Cook Report rates the 9th Congressional District as D+5 which is an easier row to hoe for the randy representative.  If it works out, Weiner would only lose about four months pension.  As our 42nd President might say–“Hot Dog!”

But this political ploy might inspire the New York legislature, which needs to eliminate two Congressional seats (including one downstate) to eliminate the boundries of New York 9.  That would be quite the Weiner roast. But in the short run, that prospect may discourage other candidates from running for the seat.  Which would be the gift that keeps on giving, having a dispicable, discredited Democrat who has no friends in the donkey caucus and little prospects be the poster boy for the House minority in the 2012 election cycle. This prospect would cause the GOP in Fantasyland on the Potomac to hum “Hot Dog” too.

Via: New York Daily News

UPDATE  6/20 16:45  Weiner sent his two line resignation letter to Gov. Andrew Cuomo & the NY Secretary of State that he is resigning as of midnight Tuesday.

But is this resignation official? A heads up to the State officials who are deciding whether to hold a special election or an off year election to fill the seat.  Surely a POLYSCI major and a former L.A. to the House of Representatives  should realize that an official resigning in disgrace needs to notify the Majority Leadership of the Chamber from which Weiner is withdrawing.  

Maybe Weiner will try to  tweet his resignation to Speaker Boehner and bring a tear to his eye.

UPDATE 6/22  Gov. Cuomo called for a Special Election on September 13th, which means that there will be no primary election and party bosses choose the candidates.  Hence,  any Weiner comeback will likely be elsewhere.

The Mitten Tightens In Michigan Redistricting

Michigan is the only state in the union that actually lost population after the 2010 Census.  Remarkably, the Great Lake State is only losing one Congressional seat in the redistricting process. Since the population evacuation occurred in and around Mo-town, it was inevitable that southeastern Michigan would end up on the short end of the mitten when it came to reapportionment.   

The Congressional District likely to be eliminated is 2nd term Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI 9th) who represents much of wealthy Oakland County.  Rep. Peters was gerrymandered into a district with 15 term Congressman Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI 12th).  Both Levin and Peters jointly issued a  philippic which bewailed the “unprecedented" gerrymandering:

Instead of drawing fair lines that follow community and county borders in a logical way, the Republican legislature has drafted a map so skewed that it exploits every trick in the book to gerrymander districts in ways that benefit Republican incumbents...The legislature and Governor Snyder should reject this gerrymandered map and draw congressional boundaries in a way that puts Michigan voters' interests squarely ahead of flagrant partisan advantage.

But Peters has vowed that he will not run against the 80-year old Rep. Levin, which is a wise move considering that being the ranking member on House Ways and Means has its privileges.  Hence one can deduce that Sander will not ride off into the sunset quietly.

While Michigan Republicans and Democrats were supposed to release their plans at the same time, but the Democrats withheld their map for over the weekend, hoping that public outcries will change their fate.  But the Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of the State House along with Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) retaking the governorship after the Teanami in 2010. In addition, Republican justices have a majority on the State Supreme Court.  So unless the DOJ can muster some mischief via the Voters Right Act, Michigan’s redistricting should basically mirror the GOP plan.

While the redrawn district lines in the Detroit Metropolitan Area represent splotchy ink art, the population evenly proportioned, with two districts that remain Majority-Minority districts.  The redrawn lines gives media savvy conservative 3 term Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI 11th) a much more staunch yet splotchy district.  The proposed 14th Congressional District of 24th Term Representative John Conyers (D-MI 14th) would jump the infamous 8 Mile Road line which divides Detroit from its northern suburbs. The new 14th would unite the old money of Grosse Pointes with some of tony West Bloomfield, while still maintaining a 57% minority demographic.  

The twofold problem for Conyers is that he has not previously represented significant portions of the redrawn district and it would be less blue collar. This will force the 83-year-old Congressman Conyers to campaign hard with a different message than he has previously used.  If the lines for the redrawn 14th CD stand, this could create an opportunity for a Tea Party Type to be quite competitive, since much of the district had been conservative stomping grounds for seven term Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI 9th) prior to his loss in 2006.

This Redistricting Cycle has seen several states, like Virginia, Florida and California idealistically endeavor to create nonpartisan reapportionment. But redistricting is an inherently political process which does not make for a pretty process.  Anyone thinking otherwise just needs to talk to the hand. 

Learning The Right Lessons From NY-26

After the resignation of the Rep. Mike Lee (R-NY 26th), the Craigslist cruising cad of an ex-Congressman, it necessitated a special election to fill the suburban Buffalo seat.  This should have been an easy seat for the GOP to retain.  Cook Political Reports  rates NY-26 as a R +6.  This seat has been held by just three Democrats since 1857 in a state that has long had lopsided Democrat delegations.  But in the Special Election, Democrat Eire County Clerk Kathy Honchel beat New York Assemblywoman Jane Corwin (R-NY state 141st Claire) 47% to 42% in a four way race.

A facile analysis is that disgrunted Republican voters are fooled by the faux Tea Party candidate Jack Davis.  Inevitably, some voters will blindly pull the lever for a candidate with the right label.  But Davis is a notorious deep pocket party switcher who has been a perennial candidate for Congress since 2004 under the Democrat (three times), a dalliance with the Save Jobs Party, rejoining the Republicans and now running on the self created Tea Party line.

Anyone who follows politics in his district should be well aware of industrialist Jack Davis’ devotion to protectionism for American Industry, which is not a platform that would play well to real Tea Party activists.  Recently, Davis also attracted attention for assaulting a political activist hounding him about not participating in the Special Election Candidate Debate.  According to the Siena poll, Davis is drawing 12% after a nine point drop.  At the ballot box, Davis drew 7% and exit polling indicated that 2/3rds of his support would otherwise have gone to the Republican Corwin.  So Davis was a spoiler DIABLO (Democrat in All But Label Only), but that does not explain how a Democrat did so well in what is supposed to be the third most Republican district in the nation.

One of the major flashpoints in the NY-26 Special Election was  Medicare.  During exchanges with other candidates, Republican Corwin unsuccessfully tried to pin the current problems of Medicare on her Democrat challenger now Congresswoman-elect Honchel.  The Democrats used their well worn playbook to demonize their opponents and scare seniors.  This edition of Mediscare (sic) was to villify Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI 1st) plan to save Medicare (which Corwin supported) while progressive allies outrageously advertised that Republicans would literally throw Grandma off the cliff.

The lesson the Democrats are discerning from Honchel’s victory in the Special Election is that the Mediscare mantra works and that they should take the message nationally for the 2012 elections.  Many establishment Republicans believe that Ryan’s hope for saving Medicare by reforming it put him too far out on a limb.  In fact, Speaker Newt Gingrich opined during his presidential campaign that he considered the Ryan plan right wing social engineering which he opposed but Gingrich later retreated on his disparagement of the Ryan Plan  after the damage was done.  The danger is that moderate Republicans will conclude that Republicans can not tackle big issues like reforming Medicare or trying to reduce the deficit by cutting government programs(or reforming them) because of voter backlash.

Indubtably, Republicans have to be mindful of how they campaign about making difficult decisions.  Mediscare might have cost them some support.  But GOP party animals should consider that the problems may have been the quirks of New York Special Elections, the New York electorate and campaign messaging.

This is the third New York Special Election that Republicans have lost in three years.  In the prior contest in  2009, when Rep. John McHugh (R-NY 23rd), a moderate North Eastern Republican,  resigned his seat in Congress to become President Obama’s Secretary of the Army, the GOP local party establishment chose NY Assemblywoman DeeDee Scozzafava (R-NY state 122nd Gouvenor) as a candidate.  Scozzafava was so liberal, even for squishy Empire State Republicans, that she was considered a DIABLO.  Scozzafava had previously supported the lefty Working Families Party and she had ties to ACORN.  So much so, grassroots Tea Party activists championed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.  Moderate Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY 3rd) and aspiring national Republicans like Speaker Gingrich voiced support for Scozzafava for the good of the party.  But Scozzafava lost so much support that she dropped out of the race on the eve of the election and then threw her support to the Democrat candidate now Rep. Bill Owen (D-NY 23rd), who was re-elected with a plurality in 2010.

There is a danger with Special Elections in New York, which does not provision a primary that local party officials will choose an insider candidate which is repugnant to the party base, ala Scozzafava.  That does not seem like the case with Corwin, but she did not appear to be the darling on the district and more of a chosen candidate.  Longtime Republicans in the district noted that heavily Republican sections of the district did not display Corwin lawn signs.  It certainly shows a lack of passion for the candidate, but the question is why.

The lack of a primary does allow for a crowded field, with ersatz candidates like Jack Davis drawing likely votes away from the GOP.  But instead of refraining from campaigning on hard issues like Medicare, Republicans should stand for something and have better messaging.


Corwin had developed a reputation for negative campaigning from her race for the NY Assembly.  It seems like she was trying to tar her opponent with a Medicare loadstone via negative ads. Alas these attack ads backfired  as the charge boomeranged into pinning Corwin with the perception that she wants to end Medicare due to  her association with the  Ryan plan (a.k.a. Mediscare).

But Corwin did not give anything positive for her potential voters to support.  The campaigns littered mailboxes with flyers for the Special Election, but Corwin was not seen as standing for anything positive.  One of Corwin’s phone bank callers revealed her instructions to just say “Can we count on you to support Jane?”.  The phone bankers were told to only give rationales if asked.  If you don’t stand for something, even in a reliably Republican district, it is unlikely to motivate voters to the polls, especially if the electorate is not passionately connected with the candidate. That is a key lesson that should be learned from NY


Tea Party sympathizers should be chastened to support third party candidacies which fracture the electorate and allow Democrats to win in a plurality.  But Republicans should recognize that there is still considerable discontent amongst the electorate who wants answers and not blindly coming to the aid of their party.  Tea Party types have an independent streak with some libertarian leanings. But they want answers not incumbents who stand for nothing.

But if there is any consolation for the loss of NY-26 for Republicans, it will make things more difficult for redistricting.  New York is going to lose two Congressional seats due to the 2010 Census.  It would have been easy to undercut the few GOP Representatives.  But now they must cannibalize their own, which may actually make the seat competitive again in 2012, with a GOP candidate that stands for something.

Baja Arizona? The Gall of Gadsden

Some voters from Pima County Arizona are so frustrated with the political direction of the rest of their state that they are seeking to secede from the Sunset State.  The area roughly corresponds to the Southern Arizona portion of the “Gadsden Purchase”, which was a peaceful treaty transfer of territory between the United States and Mexico in 1854 to facilitate a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. 

A group of lawyers from the Democrat bastion of Tucson have launched a petition drive to include a non-binding secession proposition for “Baja Arizona”  for the November, 2012 general election for Pima County and possibly Santa Cruz County.  In order to qualify for the ballot, the Start Our State organizers must round up 48,000 valid voter signatures by July 5th.  

If this proposition drive is successful, it would only be the start of an arduous process.  The Arizona Legislature would need to sign off on the secession, and then the “Baja Arizona” break-off would need to win approval in a binding statewide referendum.  The chances of all of that occurring is pretty slim, particularly for “Alto” Arizona, which gained a Congressional seat from the 2010 Census.                                                                                           

In the abstract, a case can be made for “Baja Arizona” as its land mass would be larger than four states and its population greater than five states, including Alaska. But over half of the 980,000 inhabitants live in the city of Tuscon, which is (currently) Arizona’s second largest city.  Another 75,000 live in the Tucson suburbs.  But the rest of the population is scattered in the sparsely populated Arizona Sonoma desert. 

There have only been two successful state splits in American history.  West Virginia secession was associated with the War Between the States and Maine’s statehood was part of the Missouri Compromise.  Contingent to the admission of the Republic of Texas to American statehood, it has the right to split up into five states, but it is dubious if the Lone State State will exercise that option at this late date.

When considering the rationale for a Gadsden secession, it seems more like partisan Pima County pique than lack of representation.  While Arizona statewide party representation is 35.8% Republican, 31.6% Democrat, in Pima County Democrats outpace Republicans by a 38% to 31% margin.  The Start Our State mission is: 

To establish a new state in Southern Arizona free of the un-American, unconstitutional machinations of the Arizona legislature and to restore our region’s credibility as a place welcoming to others, open to commerce, and friendly to its neighbors.

Those are not bread and butter issues but partisan pushback to the initiatives that Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) and the conservative Arizona Legislature have done regarding Immigration, Health Care, and Candidate Qualifications.  It also seems like a reaction against the aggressive policing in Maricopa County by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

My cynical suspicions is that Secession Proposition is driven less for successful passage than to provide partisan political theater that should be a safe state for the eventual Republican Presidential nominee.  Additionally, such a local wedge issue should light a fire for liberals to go to the polls.  It also may have an ancillary intention of creating controversy by the participation of “undocumented” voters.  Or it could be just to stop Tea Party proponents from appropriating the Gadsden Flag.

At a time when there are serious challenges to the American way of life with porous borders, bankrupt state coffers and the costs of the growing burdens of a bureaucratic nanny state, it seems silly to exert such energy on this Pima County pipe dream.  If Pima County liberals do not like the directions of government, garner a majority and change the policies rather than threaten to secede over such partisan slim pickings. 

Kucinich May Move Even Further Left

Eight term Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th) has often marched to the beat of his own drummer.  Kucinich is the one time “Boy Mayor of Cleveland” who led the Rock and Roll Capital of the World into municipal default in 1978.   After he was defeated after serving for two years, he was hard on his luck.  He moved to Los Angeles to live off of the largess of Shirley McLaine.  Kucinich’s reported income in 1982 was $38.  That is quite a contrast in fortunes. But as Kucinich mused: "When I was growing up in Cleveland, my early experience conditioned me to hang in there and not to quit...”

Kucinich was unsuccessful in being elected to several statewide Ohio office races in the 1980's (Secretary of State, Governor), settling for a Cleveland City Council seat during a special election.   After following a quest for the meaning of life by moving to New Mexico for several years, he won an Ohio State Senate seat in 1994 before landing his current position representing the westside of Cleveland and suburban Cuyahoga county.

Kucinich has conducted two quixotic runs for President in 2004 and 2008, which may have been electorally unsuccessful but these campaigns made him the darling of progressives.  Additionally, Kucinich’s lauded lefty credentials along with his willingness to participate in the “Who Wants to Be First Lady: The Search for Mrs. Dennis Kucinich” in 2004 may have laid the foundation for landing a beautiful British bride as his 3rd wife who is 31 years his junior.   Let me invoke some lyrics from the Grateful Dead’s “Skeletons In the Closet” album which many of his ideological allies would appreciate: “What a long, strange trip it’s been”.

So it should be no surprise that Kucinich is thinking outside of the box and toying with moving even further left. Politically, that may not be possible for Kucinich, who has long championed a Cabinet level Department of Peace and who pushed the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney amongst other things.

Due to demographic declines, Ohio is losing two Congressional seats.  Republicans are in the lead for redistricting in Ohio, but Kucinich is a gadfly amongst Democrat party leadership and only crocodile tears by party Democrats as Kucinich’s district is eliminated.  Kucinich has been publically pondering whether to move to another state to continue his Congressional service.

When the public learned that Kucinich’s  Congressional District might disappear in the Ohio redistricting process, Kucinich’s Press Secretary revealed that the Congressman received entreaties from nearly 20 states urging him to run there.  Recently, Kucinich took a trip to Bainbridge Island Washington, where it is speculated might be location of the new Washington state Congressional District.  Kucinich asked to meet with 250 residents and he also participated in an event with the local  Suquamish Tribe.

In some senses, the Seattle area is a politically progressive hub and would be a better ideological match for Kucinich than his current mainly Middle European-American constituency. But former Democrat Speaker of the House wisely opined that “All politics is local”.  That does not just mean reading the mood of your constituents.  It also implies having connections with the community that you are representing.

Some states, such as New York, have a tradition of accepting carpetbagger candidates. Take for example Senator Robert Kennedy (D-MA NY) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-IL, AR, NY). But that is New York which accepts celebrity candidates for a statewide office that requires lots of fund-raising.  Name recognition may give Kucinich some boost for the primaries, but he has no organization or real ties to the district.  Kucinich might be susceptible to an ad which just shows his telephone listing in a metropolitan Cleveland phone book.

Despite Kucinch’s 8 terms in Congress, he is only the 10th ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee and the 5th ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, behind Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).  So Kucinich’s experience will not give him much pull, especially as the minority party.

If Kucinich is hoping that his moving left will give more media exposure to progressive ideals on the West Coast, he will have to compete with Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott (D-WA 7th). While Washington state Democrats are excited that they will gain a seat from the 2010 Census as it will give them a chance of a bigger slice of the federal fiscal pie, they should be chary about embracing a carpetbagging Congressman who seems to only succeed in quirky comedy appearances.

Back to the VA Redistricting Drawing Board

Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) vetoed the Virginia Redistricting legislation which was required after the 2010 Census. Virginia is one of the states which has a divided decision-making process, as the Governorship and State House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans and the State Senate is dominated by Democrats.  Attempts to avoid acrimony when redrawing the district lines were stillborn as the Governor’s so called independent non-partisan redistricting commission offered a liberal hack job which eliminated three Republicans’ Congressional districts, this in a Commonwealth that did not lose any representation in the 2010 Census and elected a Republican governor with an 18% margin.

The Virginia State Senate redistricting plan was committed to creating a second minority seat in Virginia.  This was accomplished by making Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA 3rd) into a 42% African American plurality district and sharing the black voters with a proposed district extending to Richmond.  It is an effort that Rep. Scott claims to have supported for 20 years.  It also strengthens Democrat power in three State Senate districts, which would help the Democrats retain their narrow majority in the Commonwealth’s upper chamber.

The Virginia Senate plan would separate  Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA 4th) in Chesapeake from his district that he is currently representing. It also shrank Rep. Frank Wolf’s  (R-VA 10th) district, due to the population gains in Northern Virginia, but it also may make Republicans retaining the seat more challenging when the 72 year old lawmaker retires. Virginia Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-VA 35th, Alexandria) insists that Democrats ceded to every Republican demand except having two state Senators based in Republican oriented Virginia Beach.

 The Republican led Virginia House drew up a plan authored by Virginia House Majority Whip Rep. Bill Janis (R-VA 35th, Glen Allen)  guided by the advice from incumbents to reflect the results from the 2010 elections that sent eight Republicans and three Democrats to Washington.  Republican House used a crack and pack methodology to increase the VA-3rd into a minority led district from 53% to 57%.  This move strengthens Republican power on the Peninsula while eliminating a Democrat district in Norfolk and displacing a few Democrats, including Virginia House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong (D-VA 10th, Martinsville).

The Virginia General Assembly Redistricting Bill HB 5001 was approved on a bipartisan 86-8 vote.  The Virginia Senate bill passed on a party line 22-18 vote majority.

Gov. McDonnell vetoed the redistricting indicating that the House-Senate redistricting legislation did not receive enough bi-partisan support.  Additionally, the Governor indicated that the plan did not have a Voters Right Act pre-clearance which could be costly and not ensured.   Moreover, McDonnell explained that the redistricting bill did not preserve communities of interest, ensure compact districts or maintain populations of the districts.

Lawmakers are scheduled to return to Richmond on April 25th.  Since the Senate bill received no Republican support, it will not garner enough votes to override the veto. Virginia Senate Majority Leader Saslaw has vowed not to change a jot or tittle and pass the Senate bill again. If that is the case, then the redistricting will be thrown to the courts.  Unfortunately, with the August 23rd primary pending, this could throw the election into chaos.

Politics can be as unappetizing as making sausage but it is better than having fleebagging lawmakers who stall the normal messy political process or by blithely enlisting the men in black to make political choices.

The True Costs of Gerrymandering

Representative Corrine Brown (D-FL 3rd) is a Jacksonville based Congresswoman who has represented parts of Alachua, Clay, Duval, Lake, Marion, Orange, Putnam, Seminole, and Volusia counties since 1993.  This gerrymandered district was drawn to ensure minority representation in Florida by linking demographic pockets in Jacksonville, Gainesville, the outskirts of Orlando down to Sanford.  The district has one instance where the boundaries look as wide as a highway.

Aside from being a ten term incumbent, Rep. Corrine Brown is in a safe D+18 district.  Yet her campaign coffers are virtually barren with a balance of $417.  According to Brown's  2010 expenditure report, she spent $35,977 in hotel bills,  $34,192 for catering, $32,242 for paid media, $24,266 for media consulting, $35,549 for fund raising consultants and $54,730 of direct mail publicity. The fund raising, media consulting and direct mail costs seem like payola and expenses for the insider campaign machinery.  Some might interpret the catering and hospitality costs as living large while on the campaign hustings.  But spending so much on “incidental” expenses on the campaign trail points to the perils of having an extremely gerrymandered district.

While it is unlikely to need to travel from stem to stern in the 3rd Congressional district in a day, it spans over 142 miles by surface roads.  The district is in the major media markets of Orlando and Jacksonville along with Gainesville. This safe seat can be quite a costly district to defend.  More importantly, it serves as a significant structural barrier for campaign challengers.  The latter consequence of gerrymandering explains why Rep. Corrine Brown is fighting to challenge Amendment 6.

Florida voters decided during the 2010 general elections to enact a couple of measures to try to remove politics from the redistricting process.  The newly drawn districts required legislative districts be compact, reasonable, and follow city, county, and geographic boundaries. The initiatives were designed to  prevent the district's shapes from being drawn to favor a particular race, language, incumbent politician, or party affiliation.  Amendment 5 applied to state legislative boundaries and Amendment 6 applied to Florida’s federal congressional redistricting.

Critics of the redistricting amendments observed that organizations tied to George Soros had contributed $7 Million to support passage of the amendments.   Amendment opponents opined that the initiatives will result in court cases that will eventually result in judges drawing the districts.  If it helps orient a novice to which way the wind blows, former Florida Gov. “Good Time” Charlie Crist favored passage of the ballot initiatives.  In the end, an electorate which was weary of partisan politics and grotesque gerrymandering passed both propositions by a resounding  63% to 37% margin.

Rep. Corrine Brown is challenging Amendment 6 in court, joined in spirit by former Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL 25th) who had represented a geographically large district that seemed carved out to be R +5.  Rep. Brown is going against her party and unions in arguing that Amendment 6's impetus to draw compact districts that do not favor political parties would not protect the “minority access” districts, of which she derives great benefit.

Other states are trying to implement non-partisan redistricting with questionable results.  Virginia’s Independent Commission on Redistricting presented a couple of purely partisan proposals drawn by ivory tower academics which palpably punished Republicans in a Commonwealth that has been strongly trending red in the last few elections.   California also just passed a ballot initiative to steer redistricting to consider a “community of interests” to ensure effective and fair representation.

Fortunately, the so called “bipartisan” Redistricting Commission’s report was only advisory.  Ballot initiatives will lead to extended lawfare.  It seems likely that unelected “Men In Black” will eventually draw the districts.

If one thinks that the Judicial branch can create legislative districts in an innocuous and efficient manner should consider the case of Texas.  After the 1990 census, Texas gained three seats in Congress.  But litigation prevented the permanent application of the Census results when redistricting.  The eventual answer was to draw the districts using the old 1980 census data, in which Democrats had signficantly more proportional strength than they had in the 1990s. So the Democrats gained more power through lawfare and such incumbents had substantial advantages against challengers for the next few election cycles.

Republicans had been chastened by judicial interference in implementing the Voting Rights Act when redistricting, so the Grand Old Party embraced cynically embraced minority access districts by applying a packing strategy.  Effectively, the GOP endorsed creating minority districts that had solid minority majorities creating safe districts to create more competitive districts elsewhere, thereby improving their lot elsewhere.  Packing is nothing new, but it was taken to a whole new level of precision through the power of computers in applied statistical demographics.  That can lead to districts that are co-joined by narrow Interstate highways.

Ever since the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the body politic has been minimizing the role of state legislators in our application of Federalism.  The Judicial Branch stepped in to enforce Voting Rights Act and prevent any potential disenfranchisement.  The solution to has been to get pre-clearance of any changes through the federal government, which can be as banal as switching polling place locations to approval of redistricting.  

The advent of the Tea Party has awakened the great silent majority who want good governance and ideally less partisanship when spending our tax dollars.  Such non-political types tend to recoil at the messiness of politics and governing.

 Even though politics is my favorite contact sport, it is understandable that most people do not want to dwell on the minutia and recoil from adversarial debate.  It calls to mind the quote attributed to Otto von Bismark “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”  But buying your meat prepackaged in a grocery store does not mean that it is not butchered.

 As messy as it is, it is preferable to have elected officials accountable for their actions than to have political solutions imposed by the Judiciary or supposed non-partisan Commissions who apply their skewed predilections covertly or without consequence.

Making a Mockery of Non-Partisan Redistricting

In compliance with the US Constitution, there is a decennial census to determine apportionment of Congressional representatives.   The re-apportionment process often becomes partisan and victors receive the spoils, even if the gerrymandered districts look like surreal ink spots. Computers have allowed psephologists to create precise yet grotesquely drawn districts that protect most incumbents and favors a dominant majority party in a state.  Lawfare can thwart Republican efforts to assert their strength in redistricting, as was evidence during the 1990 apportionment.

There has been a trend lately to establish non-partisan commissions to recommend redistricting plans.  This appeals to many independents who seek good governance through a supposed non-partisan process.  In fact, California voters approved Proposition 20--a Fair Districting initiative, and the California peoples' will may even be respected by the Judicial Branch.

In the abstract, a non-partisan redistricting process sounds wonderful.  But the devil is in the details.  And academic insiders are betting that the public will not pay attention to the details this far out from November 2012. Witness what went on in Virginia.

National Review  reports that a draft plan by George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald on behalf of the supposedly “Bipartisan” Advisory Commission on Redistricting recommended carving out Republican Majority Leader Representative Eric Cantor’s (R-VA 7th) district.  That is strange, as Virginia will not be losing any members due to redistricting. Amongst the thousands of plans to choose from, the Commission’s backup plan drew out long time Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th), Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA 4th) and newcomer Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA 9th) who defeated long time incumbent Rick Boucher (D-VA 9th).  These suggestions are coming in the wake of an 18% landslide victory of Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2009 and the defeat of 3 Virginia Democrat during the 2010 cycle.

Even mere mortals do not need the Professor Larry Sabato’s crystal ball to know how skewed are those suggestions.  But in case there was any doubt about the partisan hack trick, Professor McDonald’s first Powerpoint side thanked the über left wing Brennan Center for Justice for its assistance.  The Brennen Center pushed the propaganda that voter fraud is a myth and that the major motivation of Voter ID checks is to suppress the minority vote.

Because the Virginia Assembly majorities are split between the two chambers so neither party is likely to get exactly what they want.  Analysis from the Washington Post expects that due to population shifts to Northern Virginia, Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-VA 11th) who won by less than 1000 votes in 2010 and Rep. Wolf will be drawn into safer districts.

Since this independent Redistricting Commission is only advisory, it would be wise for Gov. McDonnell to put the skewed Commission’s plans into the circular file and let the General Assembly duke it out while in Special Session to decide redistricting.

May this escapade be a lesson to those who yearn for less partisanship in politics that faceless functionaries and bureaucrats do not necessarily act for good governance reasons act as partisan without electoral consequences. We live in a democratic Republic where we hold our representatives responsible for their actions not a bureaucracy manipulated by partisan jackasses.

H/T: National Review
H/T: Washington Post

Frank May Get His Seat Adjusted

Now that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA 4th) has announced his intention for re-election in the 2012 cycle, Massachusetts state politicians are put in an uncomfortable position.  While the Democrats retain the Governorship of the Bay State along with a majority in both chambers of the Commonwealth’s legislature, gerrymandering decisions will not be simple.

Due to the 2010 Census, Massachusetts will lose one of its 10 current Congressional seats.  Since Massachusetts’ House delegation is all Democrat, there is no easy partisan choice.  Rep. Frank has one of the most Gerrymandered districts in America.  Still, the 16-term Congressman, who chaired the powerful and prominent House Banking Committee, won his last election by a veritable squeaker of 11 points against a 35 year old former Marine Scott Bielat.

The prominence and power that even a ranking member of the House Banking Committee makes it unlikely that Frank will be redrawn out of his riding.  In fact, he may garner more liberal leaners as the current MA-4th leaned for Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) in the January 2010 special election.

 But wonks who are advising Massachusetts politicians on reshuffling the Congressional seats will not be as readily able to help Rep. John Olver (D-MA 1st) who represents a Republican friendly district in Western Massachusetts or Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA 2nd) who only won by 14% in the 2010 elections.

The brunt of the line shifting may fall on Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA 3rd), who had a comfortable margin in 2010 (with the aid of an independent candidate) and his district is adjacent to Frank’s current gerrymandered seat.

With the change in leadership in the House of Representatives, Democrat incumbents in Massachusetts may not have as lucrative fundraising efforts in 2012.  The national Democrat party will be focusing on the 21 Senate seats that they will need to defend.  Frank’s clinging to his seat may make other Bay State Democrats more vulnerable when they next face the voters.

2012 Psephology

Apologies for the obscure expression in the title, but it is an erudite way for me  to justify being a political junkie.  It is almost inevitable that those infected with Potomac Fever starts thinking about the next election the minute the polls close. I will avoid pre-mature Presidential prognostication, but sufficed to say that 2012 is a Presidential election year so there will be intense attention and presumably more participation than a midterm election.

In the Senate, it will be a tough cycle for Democrats.  They will have 21 of 33 seats to defend. But if you include Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Sanders (I-VT) who caucus with the Democrats, they will have to worry about defending 23 seats.  A few of the first term Democrats were marginal winners in 2006.  Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) only won by less than 0.5% and the Commonwealth went markedly Red in 2010.  Senator John Tester (D-MT) also won by less than 1% in a Democrat trend election.  Senator Claire Mccaskill (D-MO) won with a comfortable 2.3% margin but the Missouri electoral map has changed. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Sherrod Brown (R-OH)  and Senator Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) had easier elections in 2006 but are candidates about which the DSCC should be worried. And Senator-elect Joe Manchin (D-WV) who won by campaigning as a conservative in 2010 will have to win back his voters in 2012.

Republicans have picked up at least seven Governorships (with Illinois, Minnesota and Connecticut still in dispute). That means that there will be Republican governors in at least 29 states, including the electorally important Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.  But it is not just the prestige of having a GOP governor.  Since 2012 will be an apportionment year, the Governors will be key in reapportioning districts.  Since the midwestern states have lost population, the Republican governors can help shape the districts which impacts House races. Re-drawing the maps can help make districts more competitive for the party in power or concentrate your opponents into “safe” districts.