Constitutional contempt: The GOP's rush to amend is out of keeping with traditional Minnesota values

This blog originally appeared on Minnpost.

What are we to make of the sudden rush by Minnesota Republicans to place several constitutional amendments on the ballot this November? Quite simply, they are out of character with Minnesota's history, true conservatism, and they demonstrate a contempt for the political process and a trivialization of the state’s Constitution.

Think about what we learned about constitutions in school. First, they are a general blueprint for the structure of the government. They describe the different officers or branches of government and how they are elected or organized. They define how a bill becomes a law, what powers each of the branches of government have (separation of powers), and the abilities of each to limit one another (checks and balances).

Second, constitutions not only declare the powers of government, but also limits on what it can do via a bill of rights. A bill of rights declares the rights of citizens, such as freedom of press or religion. Together, a constitution and a bill of rights define the rules of the game for governing. We think of a constitution as something more permanent, relatively stable, and not something that we generally amend unless there is a good reason to do so. This is at least how we think of our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

State Constitutions such as Minnesota's serve the same purposes, but also differ in several ways. Minnesota's Bill of Rights offers more protection for individuals than found at the federal level. We protect freedom of conscience and privacy more vigorously than does the U.S. Bill of Rights. We also protect some rights — hunting and fishing, and peddling farm produce — that are not found at the federal level. We have constitutionalized our commitment to education, the construction and maintenance of a highway system, and support for the environment and the arts. Such rights reflect our culture and who we are.


119 amendments adopted in Minnesota
Finally, Minnesota's Constitution is different from the federal one in the ways and numbers of times amended. The federal Constitution has been amended 27 times (including the Bill of Rights) and it is done by a combination of two-thirds votes in both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Since ratification of the Minnesota Constitution in 1858, there have been 211 constitutional amendments proposed to the voters, with 119 adopted. Until 1898, constitutional amendments required a majority of both houses in the Legislature to propose them to the voters, with a simple majority of those voting on the amendments to approve them.

In 1898 the amending process was changed, thereafter requiring a qualified majority of all who voted in a specific election to ratify an amendment. Voting in the election, but not on the amendment, counts as a no vote. Amending the Constitution was made more difficult because critics claimed special interests and groups were using the process to further their politics. The argument also was that amending the Constitution should be done sparingly, and not used as a tool that substituted for normal lawmaking.

What does all this say about the rush to amend the Minnesota Constitution this year?  Let's look at the proposed amendments. Already on the ballot is one to ban same-sex marriage. Others would require a photo identification to vote, change the legislative voting procedure to make it harder to raise taxes, make it more difficult for poor women to terminate a pregnancy, and declare Minnesota to be a right-to-work state and thereby make it more burdensome for unions to collect dues. With the exception of the tax proposal, the rest are all policy and not about structure and process. They are about efforts to make permanent specific policy views of the Republican Party and its supporters. They are partisan preferences raised to the level of constitutional permanence.

Sure, this has happened in the past. Minnesota's history reveals times when clusters of amendments are offered at the same time, often pushed by one party. But there is something unique in what the Republicans are doing now.

Rights usually expanded, not contracted
Minnesota history reveals that most amendments expand and do not contract rights. Of all amendments adopted, only one has restricted voting rights and five expanded them. The current amendments to require voter identification and limit the rights of privacy of poor women are out of character with Minnesota history.

Moreover, among the 50 adopted amendments dealing with finance, 17 authorized new taxes, bonding authority, or spending, and only six restricted or made it more difficult for public spending.

Minnesota has a tradition of facilitating government investment to help the state. The current proposal to make it more difficult to tax is out of step with that tradition, and it runs Minnesota down the road toward the same problems encountered by California and Colorado, which adopted similar proposals years ago and which have contributed to their current fiscal problems. Third, the right-to-work amendment restricts rights of unions and it aims to make constitutional another policy that best should be left to the legislative process. Overall, these amendments are out of step with a Minnesota tradition of respecting and enlarging rights and supporting individuals.

But more important, what is upsetting about the amendments is that they display contempt for the political process. Instead of trying to use the normal legislative process to push these ideas, they want to bypass it. Because they cannot win by normal politics they want to take their political bat and ball and go home. In effect, they cannot win under the normal rules so they are changing the rules.

A go-for-broke strategy
It is, moreover, a go-for-broke strategy: If we cannot win by normal politics let us try to do so by way of the Constitution and then if we are ousted in November, we have cemented in place policies that live beyond our majorities in St. Paul. Moreover, this contempt for individual rights and disrespect for our constitutional tradition is the very opposite of what conservatism is about. True conservatives should be loath to change the Constitution in this way.

Finally, what is disturbing about this kind of politics is that it not only plays to prejudice but it interjects divisive social issues into constitutional battles. Amending the Constitution should be done for noble reasons, not cynical ploys to pander to constituencies or make permanent partisan preferences. Minnesota is a better state than that.

Mini-Tuesday Results: Where do the Republican Nominees Stand Now?

Mini-Tuesday is over and done in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. Santorum sweeps the three states. Who were the winners and losers in it?  Do the numbers.

There have been 8 primaries and caucuses:

Name	Victories
Santorum	4
Romney	3
Gingrich	1
Paul	0

With the three wins yesterday Santorum’s victories raise big questions about Romney’s inevitability and momentum. After Florida and Nevada Romney supporters said he was clearly the frontrunner. However, as I argued, only his Florida victory is a real one and he underperformed in Nevada compared to 2008.

Romney definitely underperformed in MN yesterday (third) compared to a 2008 victory. Overall, there is little Mitt can point to yesterday that indictes victory, momentum, or that he is consolidating his support among conservatives. The three states yesterday featured the hardcore conservative base and they are still not with him.

Yet Romney can point to a different fact–no delegates awarded yesterday. Romney still leads in this category.

Name  Delegates Romney      91 Santorum      44 Gingrich      29 Paul      8

Doing the delegates, Romney has about as many delegates as the other three candidates combined.
Going forward there will be several questions:

1) Can Santorum transform yesterday’s results into money and political donations?
2) Can Santorum transform yesterday into real delegates?
3) Is Santorum the leader?
4) Can Romney close the deal with conservatives?
5) Where is Gingrich and is he now the third candidate?
6) Can Gingrich survive February and make it to super Tuesday?

My sense is that these four candidates remain in the race at least through March. No one is exiting soon.  If when delegates are again rewarded we see all of these candidates winning in the double-digits, it will be impossible for any of them to enter the convention with a majority. It may be too soon to discuss brokered convention but that is still a possibility and getting more real everyday.

No I do not think there is another candidate about to emerge. Money, organization, and time are against that. However, do look for a long campaign with no quick resolution in sight.

Romney Wins Big in Nevada? Not Really.

 

So with Romney’s big win in Nevada he is yet again the frontrunner?  Yes to perhaps being the frontrunner but declaring him as having won big is a matter of opinion.  Consider the numbers.

In 2008 Mitt Romney won the Nevada caucus with 51.1% of the vote.  He received 22, 646 votes.  Ron Paul was second with 13.7% of the vote and John McCain was third with 12.7% of the vote.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won the Nevada caucus with 47.6% of the vote.  He received 11,822 votes.  Newt Gingrich was second with 22.7% of the vote and Ron Paul was third with 18.6% of the vote.

Let’s put his victory into perspective.  In 2012 Romney received half the votes he garnered compared to 2008 and both his total percentage of vote and margin of victory were significantly less.  In 2012 he received 3.5% less of the total vote than he did in 2008, and his margin of victory compared to the second place finisher decreased from a 37.5% difference to a 24.9%.  Thus, by all measures, his performance in Nevada in 2012 was worse than in 2008.  Remember also while Romney won Nevada  big in 08, McCain won the nomination.  Nevada is no bellwether.

Yes exit polls do suggest that he won over major constituencies in Nevada, winning over those who considered themselves Tea Party members and very conservative.  But again, remember this is a state he won four years ago, a state sympathetic to him because of its Mormon population, among other reasons.

The Nevada victory must be understood in context.  So far Romney has had only one victory in 2012 compared to 2008-Florida.  As I noted in a recent blog, he performed almost identically in Iowa in 2008 and 2012.  He was expected to win big in New Hampshire in 2008 and 2012 and he did.  He lost big in South Carolina in 2008 and 2012.  Yes he did win Florida in 2012 but it was due in larger part to Super-PAC money and attack ads.

The mainstream media is quick to pronounce Romney the leader in 2012.  It’s all relative.  He actually does not look as strong this year as 2008 and he still faces all the problems of lack of passion and excitement for his candidacy.  He may be the frontrunner but he is a weak one.

Romney will do well in a month of February noted for its lack of awarding significant delegates.  Let us see what Minnesota bodes for him.  I suspect a tight race with Ron Paul my sleeper longshot to win.  Betcha $2 on this (not $10,000)!

The Truth About Taxes: A talk hosted by River Valley Action

Contemporary American politics is dominated by too many myths.  On January 31, 2012, the River Valley Action hosted a talked at the Woodbury Peaceful Grove/United  Methodist Church entitled "Debunking Common Myths."

The talk was attended by nearly 100 individuals.  Three myths were tackled that night-- that taxes are a major detriment to economic growth, that regulation kills jobs, and that voter fraud is rampant.   I spoke on the topic of  taxes.  My Powerpoint presentation is on my web page.

A great summary of the meeting is provided by Dick Bernard.

The crowd was terrific except for a few hecklers who came not to listen but to disrupt the meeting.  The huffed and puffed and shouted and in general acted like goons.  One big guy kept badgering me and just simply refused to let me talk.  He proved an old adage--but to keep you  mouth shut and have people think you are stupid  than open your mouth and prove it.

The MN League of Women Voters produced a lethal video on why we do not need voter ID.  It is a must for all to watch.

Great forum.

Romney in Florida: Was it really a victory?

It was an ugly pyrrhic victory  for Romney in Florida.  While he did win the state by an ample margin, he may have lost more in the process, thereby damaging his long-term presidential bid.

What did Romney accomplish?  He reversed doubts for many after South Carolina that his campaign was in danger.  Coming out of SC Gingrich looked to be the frontrunner and he had closed the poll numbers gap in Florida.  But then Romney went to work.  He went aggressive against Newt again, much like he did in Iowa.  The difference here was not simply that the Romney and pro-Romney Super-PAC ads were negative, Romney went on the offensive in debates and in personal appearances.  Mitt finally demonstrated a capacity to street fight and it paid off. Exit polls suggested he won across many constituencies too.  He leaves FL with lots of momentum and a primary and caucus schedule that seems to favor him in states such as Nevada and Michigan over the next few weeks.  If Gingrich holds on to Super Tuesday on March 7, then he may see some big wins for him in the south again.  However, Romney’s win was solid and now we look to MN, Nevada, and Missouri to see if the Romney momentum continues.

But think about the strategy that Romney used to win.  In part it benefitted from a weak Gingrich debate performance twice last week, but the elements were overwhelming money, organization, and nasty attack ads.  This appears to be the formula Romney and his supporters will use in every state–simply crush the opposition with force.

But the strategy has problems.  First, compare this GOP primary process to Obama-Clinton in 2008.  As Obama campaigned on he became a stronger candidate who was more popular.  Now as the GOP process goes on Romney’s negatives are increasing.  Romney won less because people liked him and  more because money and attack ads repelled them from Gingrich.  Clearly the one real winner in Florida was Super-PAC and Romney Romney money that outspent Gingrich $16 million to $4 million.  Thus, the primary victory demonstrated Romney as the lesser of two evils.  He still has not won over the conservative and Tea Party base, and one still does not see a passionate flocking to Romney.  He is just the strongest surviving.

The negatives that Romney has achieved will hurt him in a general election. But also while Romney may have superior money and organization against the other GOP he will not have that against Obama.  He needs more than that–he needs the passion and so far it is not there.  But then again, the same is true for Obama, thus pitting two candidates who will have great organization and money, limited appeal to swings, and varying levels of passion among supporters.

But the Gingrich-Romney battle is also about the future direction of the Republican Party and what it stands for.  It is about orthodoxy. (See my blog post from July 25, 2012 discussing this issue in more detail) But it is orthodoxy in a different way.   Conventional wisdom–as defined by the political pundits, pollsters, and party leaders–believe Romney to be a better candidate against Obama than Gingrich.  These are the same people who thought Romney had it nailed down after New Hampshire, only to see Romney collapse and lose South Carolina.  Romney is no stronger a candidate today than four years ago.  Both times he finished second in Iowa with 25%, both times won as expected in New Hampshire, and both times was trounced in South Carolina.  Except for last week, his debate performances have been average at best, and Romney’s only claim to superiority–money and organization–have been repeatedly challenged.  He now has dramatically higher negatives than before, and he is typecast as an out of touch rich guy...which he is. Obama can destroy this guy who is so conventional and boring.

My point with all of this?  Romney won but the primary is tearing the Republican Party apart at a time when a united one is needed if they want to win in November.  It seems as if the GOP is looking a lot more like the Democratic Party usually does.

Last thought:  On to Minnesota?  Romney is in MN today after Florida.  Let us see how well the post Sunshine state momentum  flows and whether next Tuesday he can win our presidential preference poll at the caucuses.

Minnesota Constitutional Politics

Note:  Back in May,last year I posted this blog about the history of amending the Minnesota Constitution.  I thought it a great time to repost it in light of all the talk about constitutional politics in the 2012 Legislature.

All indications are there will be at least one if not multiple state constitutional amendments on the 2012 ballot for Minnesotans to consider. Possibilities include a ban on same-sex marriage, photo identification for voting, a requirement for a 60% legislative vote to raise taxes, and perhaps one on making Minnesota a right-to-work state.

Supporters of these proposals contend the public has a right to vote on them, critics respond no; asserting that resorting to amending the Minnesota Constitution is unprecedented and inappropriate. Who is right? There may be no definitive answer, yet state history reveals 150 plus years of amendments, yielding interesting conclusions about constitutional politics.

Since ratification of the Minnesota Constitution in 1858, there have been 211 constitutional amendments proposed to the voters, with 119 adopted. Until 1898, constitutional amendments required a majority of both houses in the legislature to propose them to the voters, with a simple majority of those voting on the amendments to approve them.

In 1898 the amending process was changed, thereafter requiring a qualified majority of all who voted in a specific election to vote in favor the amendment. Voting in the election but not voting on the amendment counted as a no vote. Amending the Constitution was made more difficult because critics claimed special interests and groups were using the process to further their politics.

Over time, interesting patterns have developed regarding when amendments have been offered and adopted.

Era	Dates	Proposed	Adopted	Percentage Adopted
Nineteenth Century	1858-1898	66	48	73%
Progressive Era	1900-1918	45	10	22%
1920s	1920-1928	15	7	47%
Depression and WW II	1930-1944	20	8	40%
Total	1958-2010	211	119	56%

During the 19th century, 73% of the 66 proposed amendments were adopted. After changes in the amendment process, the Progressive Era—a period supposedly notable for significant social and economic reform in the Minnesota and across the country, only 10 of 45 or 22% of the amendments were adopted. Many amendments were offered during this time but few were accepted by the voters. Conversely, since WWII, and especially since the Constitution was reorganized in 1974, nearly 70% of all proposed amendments were adopted.

Constitutional amendments come in bunches. Many times in Minnesota history three, four, or more amendments have been on the ballot at the same time. The record is 1914, 11 amendments proposed, one adopted. Because of frequent amending, no definitive pattern emerges regarding whether they encouraged turnout, but there is no doubt than in their day proposals to let women vote or authorize gambling drove excitement and turnout. Moreover, in years when more than one amendment appeared on the ballot, usually one dominated the public’s attention, sometimes damaging the prospects of the other amendments from passing.

Looking at the types of amendments proposed, they fall into four groups. There are structural amendments addressing the organization of government, such as the length of the legislative session, giving the governor the veto, or regulating the size of the judiciary. Financial amendments include authorizing the state to impose taxes, bond, give special bonuses to military veterans, or otherwise to spend money. Rights amendments deal with matters of individual rights, such as franchise and jury trials. Finally, regulatory amendments dealt with various aspects of regulating private corporations, such as the liability of its officers.

Of the 211 amendments proposed, they can be classified as follows:

Type	Proposed	Adopted	Adopted Percentage
Structure of government	97	51	53%
Finance (taxes, bonding)	82	50	61%
Individual rights	17	12	71%
Regulatory (corporations)	15	6	40%
Total	211	119	56%

What do we learn about the content of the amendments proposed and passed? Clearly many addressed contentious issues of the time. No, they did not address abortion or marriage and surprisingly none sought to ban alcohol sales. These are today’s hot button issues, or ones that we might consider contentious. But controversial is relative to the times, and amendments dealing with regulation of railroads during the robber baron era, or giving women or Blacks the right to vote were the headlines of the day. Resorting to constitutional amendments as a populist political strategy has been a part of Minnesota politics from the beginning.

But looking at the content of the amendments adopted, some interesting patterns emerge. Among the 12 adopted Amendments addressing individual rights, five of them expanded voting rights. In the entire history of the state only one constitutional amendment, in 1896, restricted voting rights. Here it limited the practice in place until then that allowed aliens or non-citizens to vote in Minnesota. This practice encouraged and welcomed Scandinavians to Minnesota.

Three other amendments also limited rights, addressing issues surrounding use of juries in civil and misdemeanors. The message is clear—amendments to the Constitution have generally expanded rights, especially voting, and not contracted them.

Second, among the 50 adopted amendments dealing with finance, 17 authorized new taxes, bonding authority, or spending, and only six restricted or made it more difficult for public spending. Of those six, four in the nineteenth century restricted the ability to use public money to help the railroads (again seeking to limit the power of the robber barons), one in the nineteenth century barred the spending of public money for religious schools (Minnesota’s Blaine Amendment, similar to those adopted in many other states about the same time), and then one amendment during the Depression prohibited the taxing of personal property and farm equipment. Minnesota’s history thus demonstrates more a pattern of enabling spending to build schools and undertake public projects than to restrict it.

Votes and not history will decide whether amendments on the ballot in 2012 will pass. Yet the current amendments directed toward restricting rights, voting, and public financing seem out of sync with Minnesota’s history. But for good or bad, resorting to the amendment process is a part of Minnesota history to address politically charged issues of the day.

The Swinger Voter in the 2012 Elections

Winning politics is often about identifying and mobilizing the swing voter.  But in light of allegations of Newt Gingrich’s desire for an open marriage, maybe candidates should be reaching out for the swinger voters. What do we know about them?

In 1992 while stories of candidate Bill Clinton surfaced about an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers, I published “Expose Yourself to Politics,” documenting what we know about voter political orientations and sexual activity.  In general, the more sexually active the less likely to vote.  No surprise here!   But what do we know today about the swinger voter?

Examining the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) data 1972 to 2010 here is what we know.

Among individuals who identify themselves as a strong Democrat, 9% have had more than one sex partner in the last year.   This compares to 6.4% strong Republican.  Among those who consider themselves regular Democrats it is 8%, regular Republican 9.8%.  Slightly more Democrats have more multiple partners than the Republicans. Conversely, more Republicans have had no sexual partners in the last year compared to Democrats.  This might tell us something about why the GOP is more likely to turnout than Democrats.

But now let’s get to the critical question about swinger voters.  Among strong Democrats, 16% claim to have had an extramarital affair compared to 9.4% of strong Republicans.  Among regular Democrats, it is 18.2% and for regular Republicans, it is 15.9%.  For independents, the percentage is 15.7%

According to NORC survey results, 12.5% of the population admits to being unfaithful.   The promiscuous are not an insignificant voting bloc, especially when 73.3% of them claimed to have voted (compared to 74.3% who did not have an affair).  Capturing nearly 13% of the population is a great way to begin to build a winning coalition.


But what if some swingers, as noted above, are hardcore partisans in that they may personally stray but politically remain faithful?  Of the 12.5% who are personally unfaithful, nearly 16% claim to be political independents.  Alas these individuals are the true swinger voters and the voting outcome of these few individuals comprising approximately 2% of the population could very well determine who wins in 2012.  The question that remains then are what are the hot bottom issues that appeal to these voters?  I look forward to answers in 2012.