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.

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.

Three Myths: Election Fraud, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

Yet again voter photo ID is rearing its head in Minnesota, and still there is no good reason to have it. On January 13, HF0089 was introduced by a host of Republican authors in the Minnesota House of Representatives. The bill would require the presentation of a voter picture identification before receiving a ballot. The bill is popular with the GOP and with voters in general, but it is probably destined for a Dayton veto if sent to his desk.

Voter ID is one of the stupid public policies that I often rail about. Its apparent need is grounded in political myth. The myth is that there are significant numbers of illegal voters or voters–including felons, immigrants, and other undesireables–who are affecting the outcome of elections. Were they prevented from voting, and only real Americans could vote, then perhaps Democrats would not win close races, Franken and Dayton would not be in office, and Coleman and Emmer would be senator and governor. Thus, the reason why Franken and Dayton won in close races is simple–voter fraud or election official incompetence.

I am not going to devote an entire article to yet again discussing the myth of voter fraud. I have done previous blogs on it and have written a couple of articles questioning evidence for its existence. But a few simply points are appropriate. Let me do that I terms of a Q & A.

Q: Voter ID at the polls is needed to prevent fraud.
A: No one will argue that there is no fraud in the election process. No system is 100% perfect. Mistakes are made but mistakes are not the same thing as fraud. In general, the studies on voter fraud indicate that it is minuscule and that there is no evidence that it is widespread enough to have altered the outcome of an election in Minnesota or perhaps anywhere else. When one actually examines the incidence of alleged fraud–felons voting when they should not–the total potential fraud is often .00000N of all votes cast. The reality is that the amount of alleged fraud is far less than the winning margins by Franken and Coleman.

Q: But has not the Minnesota Majority done studies to show fraud exists?
A: Sure they have done studies but they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Methodologically they are sloppy and they make all kinds of claims about double voting, etc. However once investigated by country attorneys and others the numbers and their claims evaporate. I remember a few instances where they claimed a person at one address had double voted. It turned out that a father and son with the same name lived at the same address. It is this type of sloppiness that they engage in when the do their studies.

Q: Ok but voter fraud is hard to detect. Just because only a few cases of fraud are revealed shows how hard it is to detect. Election fraud is like littering (according to Judge Posner) or speeding. More cars speed than receive tickets. Actual tickets issued are only a small fraction of total fraud.
A: the analogy to vehicular speeding is inapt. Speeding in a car is a continuous 24/7 activity that can occur anytime and anywhere. (The same is true about littering) There is no single detection point or place where people can speed and therefore with the almost infinite amount of cars driving along almost infinite roads, it is virtually impossible to detect all instances of speeding. Thus, the few speed traps that are set up obviously only detect and capture a small spectrum of all speeding.

However, voting or voter fraud is a discrete activity. It can only occur at a specific point in time or place and in order to commit fraud one has to commit it by going through specific point–a voting booth. Thus, all instances of fraud must go through and exit a single detection point. To be successful, in person fraud requires either a false registration, false signature, and tricking an election judge. The point is that to commit voter fraud one has to get past multiple detection points or check points. One can speed without every crossing a detection point (speed trap).

The point here is that the analogy of voter fraud to speeding or littering is inapt. One can speed or litter almost anytime or anyplace. This is what detection hard. The few instances detected and prosecuted are perhaps only a small sample of a larger pattern of speeding and littering that may exist. In addition, beyond detection and prosecution, other evidence, such as police using radar guns to detect speeders but not issue a ticket, or anecdotal statements from drivers that they speed, may corroborate inferences that it is more prevalent than prosecution may suggest. With littering, proof can be found along roadsides and fields across America–the fact that there are cans, papers, and other refuse there points either to the contests of garbage cans being knocked over or intentional littering.

One can only vote in person in a finite number of places and within a finite time. To vote, especially in person, there are several steps and checkpoints in place. There is in 42 states voter registration before election day. This is one check. For all 50 states, in-person voting requires someone to show up, give a name to an election judge and generally sign a log with which there is a signature match. There may be other requirements too. What this means is that one has to go to a specific place to commit fraud and cross past numerous detection or check points before one can actually submit a fraudulent ballot. One does not simply have to speed past a law enforcement officer to violate a motor vehicle law.

Thus, the analogy to speeding or littering is inapt. Lacking more proof that fraud exists, we cannot infer that it is more widespread than it is. Instead, we might be able to easily infer and argue that the few cases that occur demonstrate how well our election system works and how we are able to detect and root it out.

Q: But if we had photo ID we could prevent fraud?
A: If little fraud already exists, then how can we deter what does not exist? Moreover, there is a powerful circular logic to supporters of photo ID. They argue that the ID is need to detect fraud. But in jurisdictions where the ID has been adopted no increase or report of fraud has been documented. Supporters then make a second claim–photo ID deters fraud. You cannot simultaneously argue that the use of an ID will make detection easier and at the same time claim it will deter fraud. Such a pair of arguments are empirically untestable. Thus supporters must rely on faith and not evidence to support their views.

Q: But what is the big deal about the ID? One needs an ID for just about anything in society, including cashing a check or renting a car.
A: Cashing checks and renting cars are not constitutionally protected rights. Voting is a constitutionally protected right. It needs to be examined not in terms of what is a normal societal or commercial practice but in terms of a constitutional right. Society may require a merchant to go door-to-door to sell products but the First Amendment correctly states that groups such as the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not need a permit to go door-to-door to proselytize.


Q: Photo ID is supported by large majorities of the population. That is reason enough to enact it–majority rule.
A: Yes, we do live in a country based on majority rule, but our Constitution and Bill of Rights say that it is majority rule tempered by minority rights. There are many things that majorities may want to do. They may not like the religion of some sect, the speech of some critic, or the color of someone's skin. But these are not reasons to allow a majority to have its way.

Justice Jackson in West Virginia v. Barnette said it best: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Q: But voter ID is needed to restore faith in the election process. Belief in voter fraud is deterring voting.
A: There is no evidence for this. Some statistical analysis has been done and found no evidence that a belief in voter fraud is depressing the public from voting.

Q: So if there is no real good reason for pushing voter ID, why does the GOP keep advocating it?
A: It is a great wedge issue. It divides the electorate. In addition, it provides comfort and explanation to why they lose close elections, especially in Minnesota. It is also a cynical way to engage their political base and fund raise. The reality is that there is no real good reason for photo ID, but it sounds politically good and it offers a narrative that appeals to many.

Election Day Registration: Debunking the Myth of Voter Fraud

Voter turnout is again an issue with the coming 2010 elections. With midterm elections producing turnouts dramatically lower than in presidential election years, some argue for election day registration (EDR).

Advocates for this point out that seven states–Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming–permit EDR, with North Dakota not even requiring registration.

EDR critics raise the specter of voter fraud, contending that it would affect election outcomes. Even though there is no evidence that voter fraud is rampant or has changed the outcome of any election in a EDR state, claims persist.
The most recent salvo trumpeting the myth of voter fraud is a July Minnesota Majority report. They allege that illegal felon voting may have cost Norm Coleman to lose his senate seat to Al Franken. The Minnesota Majority argues that 1,400 felons may have voted illegally in the 2008 Minnesota elections and they have forwarded these names on to county attorneys for investigation. Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty commented on this report, echoing that illegal felon voting may account for Franken’s 312 voter victory over Coleman.

Does the Minnesota Majority report stand up to scrutiny? Hardly.

First, think about who makes up the Minnesota Majority. They are an ultra-conservative partisan political group that is a pro-property rights, pro-gun, anti-choice, anti gay, anti-immigrant, anti-sex education, and global warming denying organization. They are hardly politically neutral. They have repeatedly made unsubstantiated accusations about voter fraud in Minnesota, only to have their claims dismissed when critically examined.

Second, their initial July numbers asserting illegal ex-felon voting have been reduced based upon preliminary review by voting officials and county attorneys. That initial 1,400 has been whittled down to a few hundred–hardly enough to change the outcome of the race. Second, the Minnesota Majority did not investigate or examine whether any of the alleged voting occurred as a result of ex-felons who had their voting rights restored. Ex-felons in Minnesota are eligible to have voting rights restored upon leaving prison and that may have occurred here.

Third, the Minnesota Majority makes the assumption that any illegal voting that occurred favored Franken over Coleman. Why or how can one assume this? The political science literature indicates that, in general, people who are more affluent and better educated are more likely to vote than the poor and less well educated. Immediately this raises a series of questions regarding who exactly are the ex-felons that supposedly voted? Clearly the Minnesota Majority assumes that these individuals are more poor, uneducated, and therefore more liberal and thus voted for Franken over Coleman. Yet voting studies research suggests that this demographic is much less likely to vote.

Instead, think about who the felon voters might have been. Perhaps the most famous felon in Minnesota right now is Tom Petters–a middle aged affluent white male convicted of multiple counts of mail and wire fraud connected to a $3.5 billion Ponzi scheme he ran. He is a felon and, assuming he could vote, would he have voted for Franken? Probably not.

Moreover, think about all the other Wall Street felons from around the country–Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay of Enron, or Bernie Ebbers from Worldcom–if they could have voted in Minnesota in 2008 would they have voted for Franken? No. The odds are they would have voted for Coleman. Felons include white-collar criminals, drunk drivers, wife beaters, and middle class cocaine users. None of them fit the bill of those voting for Franken. We do not know the mix of the felons who allegedly voted in 2008. It is equally possible that if they voted they did so for Coleman, making the race even closer than it should have been.

Finally, the percentage of the vote of among illegal voters had to unrealistically favor Franken as opposed to Coleman to overcome the 312 vote victory. The Minnesota Majority states that perhaps up to 1,000 cases are possible for prosecution (although county attorneys have already cut this figure to one-third, and more, if not all will be dismissed). To overcome the 312 margin of victory, one would have to assume that of this 1,000, at least 656 votes went for Franken. In a race where Franken only received 43% of the popular vote, to assume he received nearly 2/3 of this vote is speculative.

Overall, keep in mind that county attorneys have not indicted anyone and no one has been convicted on voter fraud. The assertions of the Minnesota Majority are simply that, just unsubstantiated partisan assertions made by a group that is committed to the belief that if it denies enough people the right to vote they can successfully secure their agenda.

One Convention Down, One to Go

The Postmortem on the DFL Convention

With the Minnesota DFL (Democratic) convention done but the nomination far from a done deal, it is time to offer a few thoughts on it.

As suggested in the last blog the convention was a brokered one. It was brokered in the sense that the first vote did not produce a nominee and instead, one had to look to the minor candidates to see where they asked their delegates and supporters to go. Perhaps the critical point in the convention came with John Marty asked his delegates to support Kelliher in exchange for her commitment to push for single payer health care within two years of being elected. His switch, along with Rukavina’s, seemed critical to bringing the endorsement over to the Speaker. What resulted then was that the Convention was an insider’s event that favored established party players such as Kelliher over outsiders such as Rybak. As described last week, the battle between Rybak and Kelliher was a replay of Obama and Clinton, only this time the battleground favored the inside player and not the outsider.

But the convention may be meaningless. Ultimately, the August 10, primary is critical. Here Anderson faces the big money and name recognition of Mark Dayton and Matt Entenza. DFL convention-endorsed candidates have a mixed record of success in primaries, and the same will be true again this year. An early primary when fewer individuals are paying attention, the role of big money, the inability of Kelliher to raise much money compared to Dayton and Entenza, and the remaining days of the legislative session may all make life difficult for Kelliher.

Previewing the MN Republican Convention

Now the Minnesota Republicans take the stage. They have a choice between Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert. Both candidates have pledged to honor the convention endorsement, meaning that by the beginning of May the GOP can unite behind one candidate, raise money, hone a message, and narrative, and wait for the DFL to hold a primary. All of these factors give the Republicans significant advantages over the DFL candidate.

But more importantly, one looks to see what the GOP will do to Kelliher in the remaining weeks of the Minnesota Legislative session. As speaker, Kelliher is both the face of the legislature and of the DFL. In the last couple of years the GOP and Governor Pawlenty have made life difficult for her and she has not done well with negotiations on the budget. Pawlenty’s $2.7 unallotment in 2009 was in part a result of the governor outmaneuvering Kelliher. Look to see little cooperation among the GOP and governor between now and the end of the session. There are many incentives for Pawlenty not to cooperate with the DFL, painting Kelliher into a box that makes her look weak and ineffective. Kelliher wants to run on the theme of leadership. Look to see the GOP try to make her look weak and not like a leader.

The real question now is how hard should the Republicans go after her. The GOP really wants her as the candidate to face in November as it will be easy to blame her, the leader of the legislature, for all types of problems. Should the Republicans go after her now and bring her down by August 10, and thereby face the prospect of a stronger candidate, or hold off until after then, hope she wins the primary, and then go after her? My guess is they will make life hard for her in the remaining weeks of the session but then hope she survives August 10.

One lesson the Republicans should have learned from the attacks on Franken in 2008: Don’t unleash the attacks too soon otherwise by the time of the general election the voters will not care any more. In 2008 Coleman slung the mud early and by October there was nothing left to say. The impact of the early attacks wore off, Franken had time to respond, and then he made an effective counterattack that was fresh.