April 2004

The Incompetence of Election Law

“Some are inspired geniuses mindful only of the greater good; some are connivers mindful only of personal good; most are wondering what’s for lunch.”

–Ken Herman of Austin American-Statesman describing the Texas Lege

Essential to the understanding of any legislative body is an understanding of who composes that body. The above quote could be repeated about all 50 states. When it is something legislators care about–like their lunch or wallets they pay attention. When it is a basic issue of good government, they still care about their lunch. Hence, most election law is hopelessly convoluted, often contradictory and usually half-ass.

In a stellar example of this, the State of Illinois doesn’t appear to have a plan to replace a US Senate Candidate who drops out. So remember the fuss in New Jersey over the replacement for Torricelli? This is even more problematic.

For statewide offices like governor and attorney general, the GOP state central committee picks the replacement. But two experts at the State Board of Elections say the law does not mention a U.S. Senate race. They added such a vacancy in a Senate contest is unprecedented in Illinois.

The odds are the state central committee would get to pick a successor, but given the unpredictability and split among the state’s GOP, a lawsuit could be filed to block that.

Even worse, Election Blog hits the issue and suggests a Constitutional problem:

The article does not mention one of the trickiest issues related to this question. Because this is a race for a federal office, the United States Constitution may limit how a replacement may be named. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the state legislature may prescribe the rules for picking Senators. If the legislative scheme has a gap, can courts (as opposed to the Illinois legislature) fill it in without violating Article I, Section 4?

The concurring opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) raised a parallel question under Article II (pertaining to state legislatures providing the rules for choosing presidential electors). But an attack on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to allow late replacement of dropout Robert Torricelli in the New Jersey Senate race a few years ago on these grounds failed, and the United States Supreme Court declined to intervene. The issue is far from settled.

We have no idea if this will be relevant in this case, but this is just another case where such problems in the law that make elections with strange circumstances difficult. Not only does the law restrict many people from the ballot, but it isn’t even coherent.

Via Political Wire

Dick Lugar Speaks

There are few people I respect more in Washington than Dick Lugar. There are issues I disagree with him on–especially in domestic affairs, but in foreign affairs I’m pretty much in agreement with the guy. We’d probably differ on Latin American policies in the 1980s, but that is another issue.

Sunday, something that has gotten far too little coverage was said by Lugar:

But when Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar was asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” whether less than three months would be too soon to hand over political power in the strife-torn nation, he said, “It may be, and I think it’s probably time to have that debate.”

Lugar said too that the Bush administration had yet to share with him its plans for a U.S. ambassador to Iraq or how to select and protect the estimated 3,000 necessary embassy staff.

“At this point,” he said, “I would have thought there would have been a more comprehensive plan.”

Having decided Iraqis would hold elections before writing a constitution, it would perhaps be consistent for the president to hand over governance of the country before it’s governable.

Lugar, Hagel, and Biden have worked together as a strong team in trying to get the President to plan better. I think the time has come to level with the American people that we will be there for a long time. For some time now, Lugar has argued for a minimum of five years. Given all the problems with the President’s prior plans, isn’t it time to consult with some of the wise old men around Washington?

I supported this war. I now regret that, but that is pointless to dwell on now in terms of going forward (not that there aren’t political ramifications). We have no choice, but to make Iraq work now and trying to do it exceptionally fast is folly. If we don’t get Iraq right we will see a scenario unfold that is unacceptable.

A) another strong man will arise who is relatively secular and brutal
B) A Shia Republic will be formed similar to Iran, but potentially more radical
C) Partition sending Turkey and Syria into land rushes
D) Civil War that could easily provide a haven to Al Qaeda or a similar group–ironically creating a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda

I view all of these as unacceptable from both humanitarian and strategic perspectives.

Jack! Vs. Ryan

Many of you may wonder why I often refer to Jack Ryan as Jack! Mostly I enjoy making fun of politicians who have silly handles or whatever. This began in the last Governors race with Jim Ryan’s constant whine about being confused about George Ryan. I generally respect Jim Ryan, but it was too much and so much like J-Lo, Ryan and Ryan became J-Ry and G-Ry. And Blagojevich just screams for any number of nicknames, with Rich Miller’s G-Rod my general favorite. Jack! seems natural since it was meant to deflect attention from the last name.

So Jack! gets used when I’m being snarky, but in more serious posts, Ryan does just fine. Obama seems to have nothing fun for a nickname so, to date, he has been spared. In general I use it in good humor. If I really don’t like a politician, usually they end up with a really long nickname like Unindicted Co-conspirator Jerry Costello. Entirely fair, balanced, accurate and true.

Lots of stuff for tomorrow, but now, time for bed.

Because It’s Been Too Long

I’m exhausted and had a surprise family visit today, but I promised Jeff Berkowitz a response and events have kept me from keeping that promise until now. One of the advantages of blogging is the quick interaction of ideas. Apparently, I’m not included in that advantage many times.

But Jeff challenged this post I made a few days ago. Jeff’s argument is that Ryan has not proposed a program that would be underfunded and do little good.

Jeff is correct. I am very wrong. From both Jeff and other sources there is nothing suggesting that Ryan would only offer a pittance and so I must say to everyone, I’m sorry, but I really screwed that one up. It would appear that Ryan is open to try just about any serious plan in regards to vouchers and while he hasn’t developed a full plan, I agree with that. Overdeveloped plans are nice for fun, but they mean very little when legislating because things will change–especially for Freshman Senators. Setting out principles is actually a more honest strategy so Ryan gets credit for that too.
Read More

Mercenaries and Kos

I generally avoid inside baseball on blogs, but Markos deserves an exception. The other day he wrote a post that was over the line by saying “Screw Them” in relation to the “civilian” employees in Fallujah.

The comment was offensive to me, I think the loss of any human life is nothing to dismiss. That said, we all say offensive things. I say offensive things in relation to human life on a fairly frequent basis, but I consider those sins. And I ask for forgiveness of those sins when I pray. Others, including Markos, don’t have the same faith and I am guessing he has his own way of dealing with saying something he regrets. I’ll leave that to him and his faith or lack of faith.

I take his explanation for the statement to heart. Inherent in his anger are two issues. One, these men were not soldiers, yet they received more attention than our soldiers in their deaths. Part of this was because they were considered civilians when in reality they are mercenaries. They were combatants just as soldiers are except they were fighting as part of the nation’s armed forces. They were a part of a company that like many companies that do this kind of work, provide shadow services, in shadowy situations, under shadowy legal situations in shadowy moral situations. Were these individuals taking part in some sort of illegal activity or were they a part of legitimate force protection in an undermanned military force? We don’t know, but we do know that special forces noncomms don’t join these organizations without understanding their past uses and make no mistake about it, those past uses include some very shady operations around the world.

Second, Markos originally grew up in El Salvador where these sorts of characters were not unknown. Between American advisors who were privately paid to death squad goons, mercenaries played especially ugly roles in the civil war there and elsewhere throughout Latin America.

If one simply buys the label ‘civilian’, for these types of workers, then Kos’ comments seem far beyond what any normal human would say. If one understands the role of these kind of contractors or more accurately, mercenaries, in US foreign policy, Kos’ comments are still unacceptable, but a hell of a lot more understandable when one considers it was a reaction that wasn’t thought out.

He retracted that statement. It should be done. What is most disturbing to me is that the person who led part of the effort to get his advertisers to discontinue their ads has this to say about Rachel Corrie:

Personally, I would not have gloated the way some people did – it is still sad that a young woman died in a pretty nasty way – but I can’t work up any righteous indignation about the gloating.

Rachel Corrie was stupid and naive, but she also was doing nothing more than a peaceful act of nonviolent resistance. She was not a combatant, though she certainly chose to put herself in harm’s way. But here, we see, a person who doesn’t think those who gloated over her death as bad as even Kos. Now say some of those retracted as Kos did, I could forgive that pretty easily, but this clown doesn’t even think that such gloating is all that bad. To be clear, to this clown, it isn’t about the loss of humanity in either case, it is about which side one is on–as if there are only two in the world.

To make it even worse, this guy seems to think that Little Green Footballs is some sort of sane site, when its sole purpose appears to be denigrating Islam and its adherents, Arabs, and anyone who doesn’t agree that Islam is the root of all problems. Sort of like taking Christian Reconstructionists and claiming they are representative of all Americans or all Christians–just hatred run amock.

Even better, he compares Kos to the Council of Conservative Citizens. You know, the clowns who grew out of an organization built on white supremacy compared to a guy who said one dumb thing. Oh, and one of the CofCC guys sent me this. Yeah, just the same.

To a larger point, military service is noble and it is noble because it is done in the context of duty to your country and in service of a cause greater than oneself. More important it is in context of following the rules of war and US law governing our soldiers to ensure that decisions made by members of the military are consistent with our morality. Contractor mercenaries are not bound by the sames rules, they are not fighting the same fight, and they don’t have the same checks on their behavior. Jan Schakowsky has led efforts to end the funding of these sorts of contractors. For that effort she deserves to be rewarded with campaign contributions. But don’t. Why not? She has no opposition, but Barack Obama does–click on the Obama pic at the right and donate! Or go down and give her more colleages through the DCCC.

As for my blog? I’m going to open up my ads to anyone. I used to have reservations about who might advertise and place restrictions on racists or others. No more. In fact, if the CofCC wants to place an ad on my site–fantastic! I can then use it to highlight their history of racism. As for individual candidates, I am pretty confident that my blog won’t be too out there for anyone. The only exceptions are when I post on strong separation of church and state and marriage, but frankly, Steve Chapman of the Trib and Slate argues the same things. If you won’t advertise in the Trib, don’t advertise here.

The Rest of the Nation Learns About Patrick Fitzgerald

There was some concern amongst pundits on the left whether Patrick Fitzgerald would be tough enough for the Plame investigation. Given reports that he is expanding the investigation, we can put those concerns to bed.

Two important things to note. Fitzgerald is a registered Republican, but if you ever heard him talk, it is like he had to make a choice so he did. He seems far more interested in integrity than partisan politics. Interestingly, Schumer wanted him for the Manhattan Federal Prosecuter if Peter Fitzgerald hadn’t tapped him first.

Second, the expansion isn’t a willy-nilly expansion into unrelated matters, but appears focused on the Plame investigation. That is fine, but let’s make sure we don’t end up with one guy tracking down 10 different investigations. It leads to bizarre results as we’ve seen in the past.

Lawyers, Guns and Money

After the Trib suggested he trade the bills, it appears that is what Blagojevich is going to do. 18 year olds can get a FOID card without parental permission, but a state ban on assault weapons is put in place.

Dumb, dumb dumb. First, the assault weapons ban is pretty damn near useless. The differences between weapons allowed and banned are miniscule. Worse, at a state level, it won’t do any good because someone can go to Indiana and buy the same gun. Or Missouri or …….

Second, there is a bigger problem–that of non-dealer sales at gun shows. Already, Illinois has pretty restrictive laws regarding gun shows–compared to virtually no laws in Missouri. But one thing that can happen legally is an unlicensed dealer can sell without a background check. This should be closed. To buy a gun in Illinois you essentially need to meet the minimal federal rules, have an FOID, and have a background check. It’s been a while, but that background check used to cost $3 and be done through a 900 phone call to a state police line. None of these requirements hinder legitimate gun owners who want to hunt or defend themselves. There is no excuse not to require every gun transaction to go through a background check–private sale or not. It is cheap and easy to do and does nothing to threaten responsible gun owners.

Other possibilities mentioned in the Trib article are really not that helpful unless they are national policy. The reality is that putting limits on gun sales other than checking the eligibility of buyers doesn’t work well given other states don’t have similar restrictions. This just results in gunrunning of the type mentioned in this article.

A law on private sales could go along way to making the obtaining of illegal firearms difficult. Beyond that, making cross state transactions difficult is a national issue that Illinois cannot effectively deal with alone. If the Governor wants to trade, trade for mandatory background checks and put pressure on the Congressional Delegation for other laws. Responsible Illinois gun owners are simply held to reasonable laws and allowed to continue on their own.