Skip to content

Battle For The States

April 17, 2016

During Presidential election years here in the US, there is a basic tendency to downplay media coverage of what is taking place in other political arenas, such as Congress, the soon-to-be-outgoing Presidential Administration, and especially state and local government happenings. This year has been no different is this regard. Who can resist the non-stop madcap coverage of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and others  constantly berating and disrespecting each other along with major segments of the voting population?

Ever since the 2010 midterm elections and the fallout of redistricting made possible by major GOP victories at the state and Congressional levels during a census year, some of what is arguably the worst state legislation in generations has stung residents of many states at once – often negating gains seemingly coming from Supreme Court decisions. At a time when the people were electing and re-electing a President espousing a break from the business as usual of the Bush Administration and promising progressive reforms to advance American society as a whole towards a better future, many states have elected governors and legislatures intentionally bucking that trend and seeking to make sure that such progress never sees the light of day under their watch.

Many expected the turmoil wrought by the advent of such legislation after the 2010 midterms would see some leveling of the playing field to help offset some of the policy failures which occurred as a result of the one-sided legislation.  The GOP became so thoroughly dominating in many states that they were able to steamroll the opposition and impose outrageous laws designed to further strengthen their regimes in future elections and maintain control for years to come. Passing laws to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the impoverished, corporate management at the expense of workers, conservative “values” at the expense of human compassion, opposition has been met primarily by attempts (successful more often than not) to stifle dissent and make voting by opposition groups more difficult.

While SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) has sometimes backed the President and his Administration by such decisions as those which maintained the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, it has also added to the backlash against progressive policies in other key decisions. By opening political campaigns to huge sums of dark money and decimating long-established campaign finance reforms with its Citizens United decision and also enabling states to suppress voting rights by its decision to strip the Voting Rights Act of some of its most important enforcement mechanisms, the political and economic rights of many Americans have taken a definite turn for the worse in many states.

The Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage has resulted in many states refusing to support the trend of reducing discrimination against the LGBT community in other facets of their lives. In the guise of protecting the religious rights of many people opposed to granting members of that community to equal protection under the law, new laws have sprung up in NC, GA, MS  and elsewhere allowing legal discrimination and bigotry to flourish within their borders. Opposition has arisen – often applying economic pressure to reverse course. So far, Georgia’s governor was persuaded to veto such legislation in his state in the face of growing threats by various industries to pull out of the state if their discriminatory law went into effect. Similar threats and event cancellations in Mississippi and North Carolina have not yet been so successful.

After the 2010 elections resulted in sweeping GOP wins in states like WI, KS,  MI and PA, many ultra-conservative moves were made in the name of fiscal responsibility. Taxes were slashed on the wealthy while cuts were made to public education, higher education and state sponsored programs helping the poor and disadvantaged. Workers rights were attacked with various degrees of success in several states, with union rights further limited and right-to-work (for less) legislation passing in some new states. Dissent has been widespread in many of them, resulting in the recall of Governor Scott Walker and several legislators in Wisconsin.

Many felt that dissatisfaction with the performance of these state governments would lead to a big turnaround in the 2014 elections. That didn’t happen. Scott Walker not only survived the recall, he was re-elected to a second term and even made an abortive (I’m sure he’d love that adjective) presidential run. Sam Brownback and the Kansas legislature, despite the economic and budgetary problems that followed on the enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, remained firmly in conservative GOP hands. They’ve been openly warring with the state’s own Judiciary about the latter’s insistence upon the legislature performing its duties under the state constitution to sufficiently fund education.

One highlight of the 2014 elections, the defeat in Pennsylvania of Governor Tom Corbett by Tom Wolf, was pretty much offset by the retention of control of the state legislature by the same Republican lawmakers who had devastated education funding over the four years Corbett was in office. That legislature refused to budge in a fight with Wolf over taxing natural gas extraction and increasing funding for public education when they were unable to override his veto of the state budget. The battle was put on hold after a six-month stalemate which forced many school districts to borrow money to stay open, costing millions that will end up being paid in interest on those loans, while simultaneously resulting in a multibillion dollar state deficit (due to the refusal to adequately tax the natural gas corporations for the detrimental effects of their fracking).

Similar battles have ensued in state after state on issues dealing with everything from women’s reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood, voter ID legislation, state legislative and Congressional redistricting, Medicaid expansion, workers’ rights and citizens’ democratic political rights. The full effect of the voter suppression initiatives will likely not be felt until this fall’s elections. The broader effect of this reactionary legislative barrage is meant to benefit the already privileged classes and further harm the health and welfare of the underprivileged, underserved and underrepresented among us. This means an acceleration in the degree of overall societal economic and political inequality – furthering the lack of equal opportunity which so many of us find totally unacceptable unacceptable.

By also seeking to prevent cities and other politically progressive enclaves to better meet the needs and aspirations of their residents at their own expense when the state refuses to do so (by raising local minimum wages, banning or restricting fracking or passing ordinances protecting the rights of members not protected by state laws – to name a few), they are depriving many of their own citizens of democracy itself. Perhaps the worst example of this denial of democratic due process is the authoritarian Michigan Emergency Manager law that has resulted in several major cities being politically taken over by the state and also directly caused the leaded water disaster that has prominently plagued the city of Flint, poisoning so many of its people.

The fact that – despite the many demonstrable failures of the policies perpetrated on so many Americans by their elected officials – they keep being returned to office to double down on their disasters.  The America being experienced by those living in these “red” states is becoming ever more divergent from that being experienced by their compatriots living in states with more compassionate administrations. Hopefully, some progress may be made in reversing this trend in November. We definitely need to build a grassroots movement to insure that the 2020 elections don’t further entrench the undemocratic, inhumane and inegalitarian trends begun with such force in the wake of 2010. Every election of every level of government counts. We must fight the forces seeking to take our voices and political power and prevent them from doing so. Fighting by casting our ballots and insuring that others willing to do likewise are not prevented from doing so is essential to improving our lot in the years to come and preventing the trend towards oligarchy from progressing any further.

We don’t only need to take the White House. We need to take Congress and the State and Local governments as well.

Suggested Further Readings:

While the nation watches the presidential race, there are scary things happening at state legislatures

The KS House Implosion: Legislator Quits, Another Removed, And Chaos. Another Tuesday.

From bad to worse for Sam Brownback’s Kansas

Breaking: Pennsylvania Has a Budget!

‘Backdoor’ amendment in Pa. fiscal code guts regulations, gives millions to new natural gas fund

‘#1 in bigotry’: Twitter unleashes its wrath on Mississippi’s ‘dinosaur’ governor over new anti-gay law

Why North Carolina’s New Anti-LGBT Law is a Trojan Horse

WHOA: Christian cake baker rips Miss. lawmakers over mind-boggling ‘stupidity’ of anti-gay law

Progressive Cities in the South Keep Getting Overruled by Right-Wing State Houses

From → Uncategorized

  1. Claudia Davison permalink

    Rick: I always enjoy your posts. Here is an e-mail I’ve sent to a number of reformers in the U.S.

    >> We are grateful that numerous reform-minded groups are joining forces, but I think some proposals require further consideration. >> >> This is my prescription for We, the People to take back our country. >> >> The Citizens United decision prompted me to draft legislation titled The Fair Elections Fund–a Whole New Ball Game, based upon years of relevant experience. * It re-imagines the rally cry of the Revolution: $7.00/year for “Taxation With Representation.” Several attorneys have reviewed it; none have found a better idea. As structured, it does not need to meet Free Speech standards. It re-thinks the status quo. >> >> The very difficult endeavor of disabling the Citizens United decision won’t eliminate campaign fundraising or expand voter’s choices. Just as current campaign funders influence legislation, if the majority of U.S. citizens want a real Representative Democracy, we must fund campaigns for candidates willing to represent us. Is your government worth $7.00 a year to you? >> >> Political parties are just clubs that have wedged themselves between the People and their government. They enact laws that obstruct competition, isolate disfavored people, empower themselves, and enrich their campaign funders. The current much-publicized “elections” are a public subsidy for the selection of political party delegates who will select candidates that represent the parties, not necessarily, or likely, the People. The ’70’s $3.00 donation to Presidential campaigns and political party conventions facilitated that takeover. Donors had no idea whose money they were supplementing. Thereafter, public subsidies to businesses increased as the wealth and influence of most citizens declined. This is why I am opposed to “matching” programs. >> >> Some reformers suggest campaigns dependent upon small donations. That is 1) insufficient, 2) unpredictable, 3) anonymous, 4) perpetual fundraising, and 5) doesn’t expand citizens’ choices. Vouchers must be funded, and don’t let us decide which candidates may use those public funds. It is not my place to propose how the people may reshape their country. This gratis effort is to give candidates and voters a viable, independent voice in their governance. Legislators fed up with fundraising may want to free themselves from fealty to special interests. >> >> On my website’s Cash Flow pages, you will note that the number of individual IRS tax filers exceeds the number of Registered Voters, actual voters, and unregistered adult citizens. So as Taxation Without Representation is restored, we do have a viable funding system in place. >> >> Another issue is voting practices. One of my concerns about Ranked Choice Voting is that voters may make errors that nullify their ballots. And in addition to counting problems, in Oakland, CA, the system was manipulated in such a way that an unpopular candidate was elected. >> >> Alternatively, Approval Voting 1) dilutes the “spoiler” effect of more than two candidates, 2) identifies the voters’ second choice if the Directors remove a “winner” who cheated, 3) expedites filling a vacancy if the winner is removed, and 4) informs the Electors in choosing the President and Vice President, with consideration given to their compatibility as a pair. This may easily be adapted to achieve the wider, more parliamentary representation sought by FairVote. >> >> Perhaps we need candidates to sign a Grover Norquist-like pledge that they will enact “Taxation With Representation” legislation. Why would voters who paid into the Fund and chose their candidates vote for candidates beholden to others? >> >> Please consider . >> >> I would appreciate your thoughts, >> >> Claudia Davison >> Alameda, CA >> (510) 521-6555 >> @thefairelection >> * Street Performer Program at Fisherman’s Wharf: Free Speech for all performers, extra benefits for Licensees + revenue for the Port of San Francisco. >> >> ______ >> >> p.s. You may be familiar with Albert C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute and his recent article in The New York Times, “Bi-Partisanship Isn’t for Wimps, After All.” Here is my published comment: >> >> C. Davison Alameda, CA April 10, 2016 >> I think Mr. Brooks needs to differentiate between difference of opinion and difference in intention. As a matter of fact, I come from a family of entrepreneurs, so self-sufficiency is in our blood. We produced and provided goods and services that were a fair deal. We did not intentionally harm anyone. We did not operate at a deficit or intentionally shut our business down. We did not cheat or poison employees, customers, or communities. We did not obstruct anyone’s access to care (for example, medical insurance or anything that is none of my business, like a tooth extraction or abortion). We did not ostracize people for things they cannot control (height, intellect, skin color, nationality, being gay/straight, etc.). >> >> Mr. Brooks and his ilk can reduce polarization by exercising some warmhearted mind-your-own-businesses–then we can talk about balancing the books and protecting the planet. >> >> 79Recommend >>


    Liked by 3 people

  2. An excellent argument, with which I entirely agree. I am re-blogging this on my own site, Spark! (

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Reblogged this on Spark! and commented:
    Another good argument from elsewhere in the blogosphere.


  4. Also, it is worth noting that in 2014, Republicans won elections across the nation (both at state and national levels) by virtue of one of the lowest voter turn-out rates since WWII. Republicans managed to get just barely more voters to the polls than did the Democrats, and did so in state after state. In over 40 states, winning Republican US Representatives, Senators, state Governors, and state legislators won with less than 25% of the registered voters of their states voting for them – not a victory of “democracy,” so much as “stay-awaycracy.” People opposed to Republican goals and ideals need to actually vote, especially so in years when we’re not electing a President. Had they done so in 2014 by a discouragingly small margin more than they did, there would have been Democratic victories nationwide rather than Republican ones. We can blame our leaders when they fail us; but we also have to take responsibility for our local, state, and federal governments and use our civic power to make them represent us.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: