Saturday, November 22, 2014

The Immigration Reform Trap (Or how the GOP took the bait)

So Obama finally showed some backbone and did what he should have done before the election–he acted on immigration.  Had he done this before the election as he said he would (if Republicans did not act) then maybe more Hispanics would have voted for Democrats and the November results would have been different.  Now we see Republicans engaged in a faux act of anger, declaring that they will get even.  The Republicans should be grateful that Obama acted–it takes immigration off the table without Congress having to act, or not act, and therefore it removes a thorny problem for the GOP.  But foolishly and predictably the Republicans have protested, only guaranteeing that they will continue to guarantee that Latinos vote for Democrats, perhaps for the next generation.
    Republican anger belies they fact they if they do not like what Obama did they can always pass legislation on their own regarding immigration.  It’s called legislating.  Instead they plan retaliation, again a predictable and foolhardy  response that will only ensure that Democrats will be able to make the case against the GOP Congress in the 2016 elections.  Their reaction also provides justification for why they do not want to act responsibly-- they can claim that they will not compromise with the president on anything because he acted when they refused to. Kind of like taking the bat and ball and going home if you do not like how others are playing the game.  I think one calls this childish.
    But there is something more curious here–why the refusal to change immigration laws? Why the fear of illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens? In general, especially in tough economic times, the argument is that immigration and immigrants take jobs away from Americans and serve as a drain on the economy. Illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens are often singled out as competing against American citizens for jobs or that they cost taxpayers money. There is a belief that the benefits of citizenship, the free schools, and other programs found in the United States operate like a lure to attract illegal immigrants to the United States.  Allowing them to work in the United States, get a driver’s license, the availability of schooling, health care, and citizenship for children, or even lax enforcement of immigration laws, sends a signal to them that they are welcome. Thus, undocumented aliens flock to the United States and something needs to be done to stem this invasion.
    What is the reality?  Are immigrants a net drain on the economy; specifically, are they a bigger drain on taxes and public services than they are overall contributors to the economy? Second, immigrants are depicted as taking jobs away from Americans. What do we know about both of these claims?
    First, while acknowledging that immigrants may in some local settings or jurisdictions place some short-term significant burdens upon public services, overall they are net contributors to the economy. Several studies substantiate this point. The 2005 Economic Report of the President (produced under a Republican president) provided a detailed analysis of the impact of immigration upon the United States economy. The report noted that they as a group had up to a $10 billion net positive impact upon the economy. The report noted, for example, that while immigrants may be more likely than native born Americans to be on public assistance, the “net present value of immigrants’ estimated future tax payments exceeded the cost of services they were expected to us by $80,000 for the average immigrant and his or her descendants.”  However, with changes in public assistance laws, that figure had been upped to $88,000. While better educated immigrants (high school degree or better) definitely reflect this contribution, even among those not as well educated, the gains from them and their descendants’ productivity nearly, if not totally, offset the costs they impose upon public services that accrue to state and local governments. Finally, the president’s report also provided other documentation regarding the impact of immigrants upon the economy. For example, it noted that immigrants paid Social Security taxes on income of $463 billion dollars. Moreover, because illegal immigrants cannot collect Social Security, it is likely that immigrants overall pay more into this government program than they receive from it.
    In addition to the President’s 2005 report, other studies have noted the net economic benefit of immigrants to the United States. A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study found several net benefits associated with immigration, including a $10 billion net positive impact on the economy. Brad Edmondson’s “Life Without Immigrants” found that: “Illegal aliens in prison cost about $471 million per year, and they consume about $445 million more in Medicaid funds. But these costs are offset by about $1.9 billion in taxes paid by illegals and billions more in consumer spending.” Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences, President’s Report, and the Edmondson study, all indicated that younger workers provided for important sources of productivity that also served the economy well. Overall, these and other studies clearly contested the myths that immigrants were a drain on the economy.
    In general, broader studies on immigration in the United States also confirm that there is a net benefit of immigrants to the economy. They generally pay more in taxes than they consume in public services. They have provided critical payments to Social Security to help maintain its solvency. Heidi Shierholz  in Immigration and Wages: Methodological Advancements Confirm Modest Gains for Workers found that even native US citizens have seen modest gains in terms of wages as a result of immigration. More importantly, California, Florida, New York, and Texas, the states with the highest immigration, seem to have particularly benefitted from it. Others reach similar conclusions about the impact on workers while noting that the granting of amnesty to illegal immigrants has benefitted the economy and increased tax revenues to the United States.
    The second criticism leveled against immigrants is that they take jobs away from American workers or they negatively impact wages. Again, several studies refuted that. For example, the National Academy of Sciences study found the wage impact to be negligible, while the President’s Report found little impact on wages of Americans. The report also noted and dismissed the argument that immigrants displaced American citizens in the labor market. Instead, they often filled labor gaps abandoned by others, such as farming and agriculture, and they definitely constituted a new source of productive labor particularly at a time when the size of the labor pool from other workers had disappeared.
    In addition to the above a Pew Hispanic Center  study reached similar conclusions. It compared the economic growth in selected states with high versus low immigration and found no differences in economic growth or in its impact on the labor markets. It also found that there was in fact in 12 states a positive correlation between the growth of immigrant and native-born workers. By that, there was no evidence that in states where more immigrants entered the labor market it depressed the entry of others into work. Finally, even among immigrants who were young and lacking in education, there was no indication that they directly competed against and hurt native-born workers with similar background.
    In sum, the evidence that immigrants are financial drains on the economy and that they take jobs away or hurt the wages of native-born workers is simply false.  Attacking immigrants and blaming them for society’s problems goes a long way back in American history.  Republican refusal to act on immigration may in part be based on the xenophobic  attitudes of its base, but the political calculus in taking such a position is bad politics.  Obama set a trap for Republicans  with his action and the GOP has taken the bait.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Getting It Wrong: The Myth of Massive Ticket-Splitting in the 2014 Minnesota Elections

I am not sure if it is bad math or bad journalism, but contrary to popular accounts, it is highly unlikely that 450,000 voters in Minnesota split their votes between Dayton or Franken at the top of the ticket and a Republican legislator further down the ballot.

On November 6, 2014,  in a Star Tribune article by Rachel E. Stassen-Berger and Glenn Howatt where they analyzed the results of the 2014 Minnesota elections, they sought to reconcile the difference between Democrats winning statewide and Republicans winning the House.  They asserted that of the estimated 1,992,989 Minnesotans who voted, effectively 22.5% split their ballots.    Conceptually and empirically, this is just incorrect.

First, keep in mind that no one can actually look at the individual ballots cast and therefore the Star Tribune’s article is purely conjecture.  Conceptually, asserting that between a fifth and a quarter of voters split their ballots is unlikely.  The political science literature is overwhelming in finding that partisan identification is a major driver and predictor of voting behavior.  This has been true in the nearly 60 plus years of research into voting behavior.  It is even more true today as the evidence mounts that voters now are more polarized and partisan in their voting than ever before.  This is even true in Minnesota.  Every since the Wellstone plane crash and memorial service there is powerful evidence of partisan voting, as evidenced by the close races or recounts in the 2008 senate and 2010 gubernatorial races.

Yet one might argue that Minnesota is different.  With about 20 or so percent of the electorate not listing themselves as a Democrat or Republican perhaps one might say this high percentage of independents accounts for the split ticket voting.  It might account for a small percentage of this, but there are similarly high percentages of independents across the US with little evidence of split ticket voting.  Thus, Minnesota exceptionalism is not the answer.

Instead, the real answer has to do with now the geographic voting patterns in the state.  A look at the state election results indicate that Mark Dayton for example, won 34 of the state’s 87 counties, with Jeff Johnson winning the majority at 53.  Dayton (and Franken) racked up big wins in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, as well as several other traditional DFL ones, but lost elsewhere.  Now look at where Republican legislators did well and won–in the counties where Jeff Johnson won.  Such a geographic pattern can easily explain the apparent anomaly of Democrats winning statewide and Republicans winning at the legislative level. 

Put simply, Democrat votes are concentrated in a few geographic areas of the state and there are more of them and they overwhelming voted for DFL statewide and legislative candidates whereas Republican voters are dispersed across the state and the voted straight party line for Jeff Johnson and Republican legislators.

The Star Tribune article thus conceptually and empirically got it wrong.  Moreover, it also committed a variation of the classic ecological fallacy–falsely inferring characteristics about individuals based on aggregate or group behavior.  Here they assumed individual behavior about voting based on overall statewide voting.  Yet they did so without understanding the way the votes actually were distributed across the state and for the candidates.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

What if we gave an election and nobody came?

Well, literally not nobody came, instead, as Woody Allen once said, 90% of life is just showing up and that is what the Republicans did on Tuesday when they routed to a major sweep across the country.
    First, consider nationally, only 33.3% of the voters showed up.  This compares to 41% in 2010, and it is by far the lowest turnout going back to the early 1980s.  Two-thirds of Americans stayed home, including young voters and people of color.  These are core Democrat voters critical to Obama’s coalition yet they had better things to do than vote.  Even in Minnesota, a state priding itself on the highest voter turnout in the nation, only 50.2% of the voters showed up, down from 55% in 2010, and 60% in 2006.  Despite all the money and resources spent by the national Democrats and the DFL on GOTV, their base did not turnout.  One might speculate what would have happened if they did.  Perhaps the national GOP blowout would not have occurred and many of the close races would have tipped the other way.  Perhaps the Minnesota House of Representatives would not have flipped with the loss of 11 DFL seats.  Who knows, the results might have been different.
    It would be too easy to blame the low turnout on restrictive voting laws.  Maybe in some states that was an issue, but it does not explain places like Minnesota.  Moreover, there were some states such as Wisconsin which actually had higher turnout than four years ago.  No, the laws were not the sources of voter discontent.  What was?
    The first was that there was no constructive defining narrative in 2014.  Republicans ran against Obama and Democrats away from him.  Republicans told us what they would not do Democrats failed to explain what they did and why they deserve two more years.  This was a repeated on the dueling non-narratives of 2010.  Republicans had enough of a message to get their base out, Democrats did not.  Democrats had a failure of nerve, a failure to articulate why they had made the lives of many people better.  They can point to many successes, but too they failed.  Obama really has failed on many scores. 
    Yes Republicans did scuttle many of his efforts, but the President never pushed far and bold enough.  Too small a stimulus, too meek health care reform, waiting too late to tackle the environment, money in politics, or serious education reform.  He gives a good speech but the reforms he pushed were never grand enough to make the types of differences that needed to be made.  We all hoped Obama would be a transformative president, he turned out barely to be a transactional one.  Thus, in part the reason why Democrats stayed home was a combination of disillusionment, disappointment, and simply a failure of the president move the country in a direction far enough for people to see a major difference in their life now or in the future.
    Going forward, what does all this mean? The election results did little to change national politics.  For the last two if not four years power has been gridlocked in Washington, and that is certainly not going to change with the new Congress.  Obama was already a lame duck before the election and he was  destined to lose influence no matter what the results.  Tuesday’s returns simply accelerate the shrinkage of his presidency.  The last four years have been marked by repeated but failed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, inaction on immigration and global warming, short term stopgap budget issues, and stalemates on minimum wage and a host of other issues.  Don’t expect to see that change in the next two years.  New congressional majorities do not necessarily mean that the House and Senate will act more responsibly and that its leadership and Obama will reach agreement by necessity.  What needs to be understood is that there is a basic philosophical difference over the role of government here, with little electoral incentive to compromise.  This is the core to understanding  the 2014 elections.
    The Pew Research Center has argued correctly that what has emerged in American politics is a two tract election cycle.  We have a presidential election cycle marked by turnouts in the mid 50s where women, the young, and people of color turn out, or at least vote in percentages greater than in midterm elections.  These are presidential election years that favor Democrats, in theory.  But the midterm elections produce significantly lower turnouts, with older, whiter, and more male electorates.  In each of these election cycles a different mixture of congressional, state, and local seats are up for election too.  The result is that different electorates create contrasting majorities and results.  Effectively we have dual majorities rule in the United States, each checking one another. With right now the midterm majorities driving American politics.
    Democrats are now looking to 2016 as their salvation when anticipated turnout is up to save them.  Don’t count on pure demographics to bail them out.  One still needs a good narrative and message, an argument to give people a reason to vote.  Obama’s lasting legacy may be one I saw in a New Yorker cartoon from a few years ago when one person turned to another and said “I think Obama has the potential to get a whole new generation disillusioned.”  It is this disillusionment that is the reason why we gave an election this past Tuesday and no one came.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Why the DFL will lose the Minnesota House

The DFL are going to lose the Minnesota House.  There are many reasons for this but the main one is arrogance–both a refusal to recognize a bad strategy and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.
    On the face of it, the DFL has much to cheer about come November.  It will sweep the constitutional offices with Dayton especially winning by a wide margin.  Franken too will win, probably big, as there is no sign that the election is tightening, contrary to what reporters any my colleagues rotefully declare.  The coattails of these statewide victories plus the large cash advantage that the DFL enjoy should in theory be enough to keep them in power in the House.  But it won’t be enough.
    Yes, there are obvious reasons why the DFL will lose.  Obama is unpopular and dragging down the party.  It is a mid-year election and DFL voters are less likely to vote.  Both of these factors explain why big-name Democrats such as the Clintons and Michelle Obama have visited the state with the hope of rousing the base and instilling passion into DFL voters.  But still that will not be enough to overcome other major problems of the DFL.
    Consider first that the DFL won many seats in 2012 by close margins in Republican areas.  They did so in part because if was a presidential election year and also because they benefited from Republican legislative overreach in the 2011-2012 session.  This means the DFL are defending many seats that are in Republican areas, or at the least, seriously lean GOP or are at best swing. 
    The second problem is the lack of a Democrat or DFL narrative.  Obama had a great narrative  in 2008 but since then at the national level there has been no narrative for reelection.  That is why Democrats were trounced in 2010.  Obama held on in 2012 because Romney was such a horrible candidate.  Dayton won in 2010 because Emmer was a weak candidate, and in 2012 the DFL won less on their narrative and more on GOP failures.  This year, there is still no national Democrat narrative and at the state level, the narrative too is missing.  Yes Dayton and Democrats can run on  their record of accomplishments and on a good state economy, but neither play well in swing districts.  Moreover, the DFL do not have a good narrative to counter MNSure, Obamacare, the new Senate Office Building, and many of their other legislative acts.  Yes all of these play well to the base, but not to swing voters. There is a nagging yet silent sense of DFL over-reach here, but when you put it all together, what is the narrative?   “Four more years?”  “If you liked the past you will love the future?”  The narrative is cloudy at best, thereby explaining in part the lethargy of the DFL voter.
    But perhaps the main reason why the DFL will lose the House has to do with arrogance.  It is arrogance on several scores.  Over the last few months I have given more talks across the state than I can count.  Repeatedly I hear that th DFL is using a cookie-cutter approach to running a state legislative campaign.  They are using the same messaging, GOTV, and tactics in all of their campaigns.  Such an approach is a recipe for failure, ignoring the special issues and needs of different districts.  While we may live in a era where elections are often nationalized, Tip O’Neill is still correct that all politics is local. 
    Almost 30 years ago I moved to Minnesota and saw a party still fixated on the past. I saw a  DFL bureaucratic and dominated by a small core of activists who in many ways still dominate the state and think the way you win is the way they used to win.  Say what you might about the GOP, but the TEA has brought in a new crop of activists into the Republican Party, willing at times to challenge it with new ideology and tactics.
    But what I have heard about and see this year is that the DFL leadership has refused to acknowledge that their strategy and campaign projections are flawed.   It is a urban-based approach that might work well in cities with lots of Democrats, but it is still not well suited for many suburbs  and especially rural Minnesota. I have heard several DFLers over-confidently say there are only about 8 swing races in the state, self-assured that there are some seats they really do not need to defend. Too many individuals have told me that they have been refused support or volunteers because the DFL thinks their race is unwinnable.  Or that the DFL has not supported a race because of petty jealousies. 
    There is a lot of ego on the line here.  Many in the DFL leadership have a stake in being considered wise gurus–they have decided who can win or lose and how–and they do not want to prove themselves wrong less they lose their stature within the party.  This insularity and making it all about them is a sure downfall for the DFL this November.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Fox 9 Hamline Gubernatorial Debate: Cautious, Controlled, and Scripted.


    Cautious, controlled, and scripted.  This is how I would describe the Sunday morning Minnesota gubernatorial debate between Jeff Johnson and Mark Dayton.
    I attended MN gubernatorial debate at Hamline and did post-debate analysis with Jeff Passolt of Fox 9. 
    The debate was cautious, controlled, scripted, and candidates stayed on talking points. It was boring in many ways.  No gaffes (although both parties tried to spin me that their candidate hit a knock out punch or that the other gaffed). Johnson did not hit a home run and Dayton sat on his lead. Johnson is a better speaker but neither have much passion. They were listless at times, boring at others.  They were so cautious, giving predictable answers to questions often not very interesting such as your favorite fast food, or whether they had either smoked pot.    Republicans tried to argue that Dayton saying he supported single payer insurance was a game changer, but is anyone really surprised by this?  Conversely, some said that Johnson saying he had no clue on how to define the middle class was a gaffe.  Doubtful. 
    Finally, neither really seemed to have a grasp on the details of public policy–lots of general views on visions of the government and general  statements about what they want to do but not a lot of policy detail.  For geeks like me who worked in government writing laws and implementing them (or teaching policy making and implementation), the debate was thin on details.
    I think the race is essentially over and absent a real unforeseen event Dayton wins.  The polls have not changed much since the August 12, primary, putting Dayton at about a 10 point lead.  There is no evidence the race is tightening, early voting is depleting the number of individuals who have not voted, the DFL has more money than the GOP, and Johnson has done nothing to change the narrative to his favor.


Excluding the Independence Party
Depending on how one it was described, the debate was either co-sponsored by Hamline  and Fox 9 or the latter sponsored it and Hamline merely rented space.  I mention this because there was controversy surrounding the decision to exclude IP candidate Hannah Nicollet from the debate.  Because I teach at Hamline I will not take a position on this decision.  I will simply say that I have taught election law and non-profit law for 16 years and have done training and given advice to hundreds of non-profits.  I often advise them to be careful during election season when inviting candidates to address their organization.  All candidates must be given a equal opportunity to address  their organization (if an invitation is extended to any) on terms that are comparable.
    Ms. Nicollet may have done better getting press by being excluded from the debate than by attending.  Had she attended, she might have broken up a debate that was simply not that interesting.


Physical Punishment for Children
One question they both bombed was on the issue of physical punishment for children. Neither know the law. Both tried to draw lines between legitimate and excessive physical punishment. I have worked with social service workers who tell you that any use of physical punishment against children by parents or foster parents is considered wrong. Culturally we are moving away from the idea it is okay to spank kids. The idea that we can hit children is contrary to the law and IMHO, just outdated. But neither wanted to take the lead on this issue.

That is what the law says but go talk to any caseworker and they will tell you that any instance of physical punishment they treat as abuse. Current law allows some physical punishment but the difficulty Johnson and Dayton had in drawing the line reflects the fact that it is difficult to draw the line. That difficult line drawing (my opinion) tells me that physical punishment against children is or should be as outdated as the concept that husbands should be allowed to physically punish their wives. We call that domestic abuse--a crime--and hitting children should be viewed the same way.

BTW
Had a fun time  talking to Jeff and Kelcey Carlson from Fox 9--both terrific people. Jeff and I talked snow shoeing and cabins and we explained who Bronko Nagurski was to Kelcey.  Keley and I talked running.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

The 2014 Elections and the Second Great Disenfranchisement

Elections are supposed to be the way people select their leaders. Increasingly that is no longer the case.  The courts now occupy an enormous role in determining the outcome of elections–even before they start.  That is clearly the case this year where too often the goal has become to rig elections by making it harder for some, especially people of color, the poor, and the young, to vote.  This especially seems to be the strategy of Republicans who continue to push the Second Great Disenfranchisement in American history.
    Consider what is happening across the country right now, with less than a month before the election and early voting already taking place in many states.
    The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s curtailment of early voting which was adopted by Republicans, after a federal district court and a court of appeals stayed the law.  Republicans in Wisconsin pushed through a strict voter ID law and just in the last few days the Supreme Court has enjoined its enforcement for this election.  Suits are challenging limits passed by Republicans in North Carolina limiting on  same day voter registration and a ban on counting ballots from incorrect precincts.  And in just the last few days a federal judge enjoined a voter ID law in Texas that would have disenfranchised over 600,000 voters, especially impacting African-Americans and Latinos.  This law too was pushed by Republicans including the state’s governor Rick Perry. 
    In all of these cases it is Republicans pushing to shrink the electorate, to make it more difficult for people of color, the poor, and young to vote.  If the First Great Disenfranchisement came after Reconstruction ended in the 1870s, we are now witnessing the Second Great Disenfranchisement.  The former ushered in the era of Jim Crow, polls taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses as tools to deny African-Americans the right to vote.  Today claims of voter fraud and measures such as voter ID, long voting lines, eliminating early voting, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act are the tools to accomplish the same.
    Republicans generally are advocating  limits on voting, depressing voter turnout even more during midterms elections when Democrat-leaning voters are less likely to show up.  This seems to be part of a national strategy to rig elections in their favor.  In some states, such as Wisconsin and North Carolina, these curtailments of voting rights could make a serous difference in who wins as governor or the US Senate, and ultimately which party might control the Senate.
    But even beyond legal efforts to disenfranchise, another one is occurring.  Nationally, perhaps only around 38-40% of those eligible to vote this year.  Young people, people of color, and the poor are especially likely to stay home.  Yes it may be true that neither of the major parties offers any alternative or real choice for these people, but still one should vote.  Vote even if it means writing  in a candidate of your choice.  Show up, vote, and use it as a protest vote if needed. Get in the habit of showing up and demonstrating to the two parties that your voice matters and it should be considered.
    A lot of blood and energy was spent in the passed to get the young, people of color, and the poor the right to vote.  Don’t waste those past efforts.  Remember, there are many people who don’t want you to vote and who did not want your ancestors to vote.  Voter ID laws and other legal restrictions are bad but it is even worse if you decide not even to bother to show up.

Side note:  Over the last few days I have heard several commentators and reporters remark that despite the fact that Dayton and Franken have large leads in the polls the races will certainly tighten.  Really?  What is the evidence for that?  In past elections that has happened but so far there is no evidence from the polls that these races are getting any closer.  Since the August 12, primary both Franken and Dayton have maintained leads from at least 8 points to more.  There is no evidence from the polls that the races are getting close.  Instead, the evidence suggests either that public opinion has frozen or that the incumbents have leads that are increasing.  Yes, I have some disagreements with the polls but right now there is no hard evidence to suggest these races are getting any closer.  In fact, it is entirely possible that minds have been made up and that where we are now is where the final outcome will be.  My point?  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is bad analysis to say that the races will tighten unless you have good data this year to support that assertion.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Constitutional Personhood: a tale of women, fetuses, corporations, animals, robots, and Martians

Note:  This was my Constitution Day talk at Hamline.
“We the people” are the first three words of the Constitution. Legally it should be simple to decide who is part of that we.  But as the Hobby Lobby decision showed when the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation had religious rights, it is not always clear who or what the Constitution considers a person or a thing.  One would think that it is simple–persons have rights, property does not.  The reality is that throughout American history the constitutional line between property and personhood has been thin and contentious.
     The text of the Constitution uses “person” 22 times.   Many instances refer to eligibility to run for office such as president.  But two places, Article I sections 1 and 9, refer to “other persons” when discussing slaves for the purposes of determining congressional representation, apportioning taxes and regulating slave trade.  They and  Indians were to be counted as “three-fifths” of white male persons when it came to representation.
    While the constitutional framers thought slaves were other persons, they certainly were not entitled to rights of citizenship.  In the 1856 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v Sandford, Scott, a slave, was taken north to free territory at Fort Snelling and claimed his freedom.  Chief Justice Taney declared that while slaves were people the Framers did not intend them to be considered persons with rights.  Using the Fifth Amendment that stated that no owner shall deprived property without due process of law, slaves were declared possessions of their owners.
    Slaves and Native-Americans were not the only constitutional outcasts.  As early as 1776 Abigail Adams, wife to John Adams, wrote him urging the Continental Congress to “remember the ladies” when they met to declare independence.  Yet in the 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision the Supreme Court acknowledged women to be persons and citizens yet nonetheless could be denied the right to vote.  A decade later in County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company the Supreme Court simply accepted as given that corporations were persons under the Fifth Amendment. Property had rights.
    Over time the Supreme and other lower courts debated who qualifies as a person and what rights are attached to this status.  For corporations, personhood grants them the right to free speech,  and now free exercise of religion under Hobby Lobby.  They can also sue and be sued, own property, and be held criminally for their acts, but cannot claim a right against self-incrimination.
    Children are persons and at one time in cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution protects them.  Yet minors cannot vote and they face many legal restrictions on their behavior ranging from due process to smoking and drinking.  Resident aliens are persons, but enjoy fewer rights than citizens. Undocumented individuals should enjoy no rights according to some.  And since 9-11, it is not altogether clear what rights persons detained at Guantanamo Bay deserve.
    The battle over personhood and property continues to perplex American society and constitutional scholars.  Property is afforded significant constitutional protection and  challenges to land use, eminent domain, and regulatory laws often assert ownership rights. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion declared that “person” did not include the unborn.  Yet the Court did not say that the fetus was property, it was something in between requiring a balancing of its rights against the mother.  A fetus is not a person but many states criminalize women who smoke, drink, or do drugs while pregnant.   Six states have declared a fetus a person and North Dakota voters may do that this November.  But declaring a fetus to be a person still will not resolve what rights it has.
    Consider new frontiers in the battle for personhood.  Animals are legally property but laws ban cruelty and maltreatment.  Advocates urge that primates such as bonobos have a sufficient sense of intelligence, self-awareness, or pain that they are morally indistinguishable from humans and therefore should have their rights respected.  Presently, there is a case in New York where advocates are using a habeas corpus strategy to try to free a chimpanzee from confinement.
    Other frontiers sound more science fiction.  While the Supreme Court declared in its 2013 Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics that human genes could not be patented, the case highlighted the increasingly fine line between human or person and artificial.  The 1970s television show The Six Million Dollar Man featured Lee Majors as a  human re-engineered with artificial parts and computers.  Is a future six million dollar man a person?  Consider Hal, the computer who talks to Dave in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. When Hal is turned off is that computercide?  When human replicants from Blade Runner kill in the future, will they be persons liable for crimes?  Is Data from Star Trek a person?  Finally, assume the proverbial aliens from Mars land on Earth, will the Constitution consider them persons entitled to rights? 
    Hobby Lobby thus demonstrates whether something is a person or property is only the beginning of  a constitutional debate about rights.  It also shows how controversial that determination is.  For those thinking that declaring animals or fetuses to be persons, or those urging the repeal of corporate personhood, declaration on status as person or property is only the start of the discussion about what rights are due.