A new report by Democracy North Carolina shines a light on the geography of suppression of African American voters in North Carolina. The report challenges the arguments of Republican lawyers who told a federal judge yesterday that the state’s new voting laws have not discriminated against Black voters because their turnout increased in the spring primaries by 44,500 between 2010 and 2014. However, argues Democracy North Carolina:

But an analysis of county-by-county voting patterns by the nonpartisan watchdog group Democracy North Carolina shows that focusing on the statewide total distorts large differences experienced by voters depending on where they live…Yes, more African Americans voted in the 2014 midterm primary than in the 2010 primary, but black turnout decreased in 8 of the 15 counties where African Americans are over 39% of the registered voters – that is, it decreased in the percent of registered black voters who voted and also decreased in the actual number of votes cast.

The report goes on to note that “Two thirds (66%) of the increased number of votes cast by black voters statewide came from just 7 counties where there were hot races and/or stronger Early Voting opportunities than offered in 2010.” Further, in Mecklenburg County, which had the state’s largest increase in African American voters (8,282), early voting sites increased from 1 to 13 during the last four years and there was also a hotly-contested Democratic congressional primary race. Guilford county, which had he second-largest increase, also had substantially improved early voting and an even more competitive race.
The combination of close races and expanded early voting accounts for a substantial portion of the increase of African American voter turnout in other counties that reported improvement.
Additionally, adds Democracy North Carolina,

Ironically, the State/GOP’s brief emphasizes the dominant influence of election competitiveness and investments in grassroots mobilization on voter participation in order to discount the impact of Early Voting, Same-Day Registration, and other procedures on the record turnouts in 2008 and 2012. But then the State doesn’t want to acknowledge that the increase in turnout of African- American voters from 2010 to 2014 is also heavily influenced by changes in the competitiveness of local and Congressional elections and the resources invested in grassroots mobilization…In truth, turnout is affected by access to the polls AND competitiveness of elections.

North Carolina still has what some experts believe is the nation’s most suppressive voter laws targeting African Americans and Latinos. It is encouraging, however, that the ‘Moral Monday’ movement has been able to mobilize a powerful challenge to voter suppression and other regressive laws, and the movement is now spreading to other states.
For Democrats the implications are clear. The mobilization of African American voters, with expanded and highly-leveraged early voting is critical for re-electing Sen. Kay Hagan, and perhaps preventing a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. The great work provided by the multi-racial Moral Monday movement provides a potent template for other states which are experiencing the rash of voter suppression laws. No matter what the courts ultimately conclude, energetic GOTV rooted in moral fervor and modern techniques can often overcome the worst suppression laws. Yet, as the Democracy North Carolina report shows, those laws still target people of color with burdensome voting rules and they must be invalidated.

NYT columnist Charles M. Blow rounds up the latest pundit predictions re the battle for control of the U.S. Senate and sums it up: “Who will win control is at the moment basically a tossup, but Republicans get the nod by narrow statistical margins.” Given the exposure of Democratic incumbents and candidates in pro-Romney states, it could be worse, and none of the top prognosticators is ruling out an upset.
Lynn Vavreck explains “Why Polls Can Sometimes Get Things So Wrong.”
Phillip Rucker reports on the launching of “every town for Gun Safety,” by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “the first big step by Bloomberg — who has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune this year to build a national grass-roots movement that will pressure lawmakers to pass more restrictive gun laws — to devise a political strategy heading into the November elections…Bloomberg has promised to spend more than double the roughly $20 million the NRA spends annually on political campaigns. Still, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it will be difficult for Everytown to counter the political network and clout that the NRA, with its 5 million dues-paying members, has built up over decades.”
Mighty big stretch here, especially assuming the tea party would suddenly come to it’s senses, such as they are.
Also at The Times, Paul Krugman’s “Beliefs, Facts and Money: Conservative Delusions About Inflation” takes on a different kind of failed prognostication, about the supposed ill-effects of monetary activism: “In fact, hardly any of the people who predicted runaway inflation have acknowledged that they were wrong, and that the error suggests something amiss with their approach. Some have offered lame excuses; some, following in the footsteps of climate-change deniers, have gone down the conspiracy-theory rabbit hole, claiming that we really do have soaring inflation, but the government is lying about the numbers (and by the way, we’re not talking about random bloggers or something; we’re talking about famous Harvard professors). Mainly, though, the currency-debasement crowd just keeps repeating the same lines, ignoring its utter failure in prognostication.”
Looks like Dems have a strong candidate to take away Republican Rep. Michael Grimm’s House seat.
Just to wrap it up, Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley have an 8-point takeaway post-mortem on Thad Cochran’s Mississippi victory.
E. J. Dionne, Jr. has an interesting case for challenging the constitutional “originalists'” argument that stokes the GOP’s hard right turn. Dionne notes: “In the May issue of the Boston University Law Review, Joseph R. Fishkin and William E. Forbath of the University of Texas School of Law show that at key turning points in our history (the Jacksonian era, the Populist and Progressive moments and the New Deal), opponents of rising inequality made strong arguments “that we cannot keep our constitutional democracy — our republican form of government — without constitutional restraints against oligarchy and a political economy that maintains a broad middle class, accessible to everyone.”…Their article is called “The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution,” though Forbath told me that he and Fishkin may give the book they’re writing on the topic the more upbeat title “The Constitution of Opportunity.” Their view is that by empowering the wealthy in our political system, Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United directly contradict the Constitution’s central commitment to shared self-rule…The idea of a Constitution of Opportunity is both refreshing and relevant. For too long, progressives have allowed conservatives to monopolize claims of fealty to our unifying national document. In fact, those who would battle rising economic inequalities to create a robust middle class should insist that it’s they who are most loyal to the Constitution’s core purpose. Broadly shared well-being is essential to the framers’ promise that “We the people” will be the stewards of our government.”
Has it come to this? A Libertarian pizza delivery guy may be the key to Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan holding her senate seat– and Dems keeping their senate majority.

At The New York Times Jackie Calmes writes “The June jobs report — showing 288,000 new hires, the unemployment rate down to 6.1 percent and positive revisions to the April and May jobs numbers — gave the White House and congressional Democrats grounds for optimism.” Calmes notes Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics : “All the signs are pointing toward strong payroll growth…It’s increasingly very difficult for the naysayers to argue that it’s not very good out there.” Shepherdson predicted that by November, the unemployment rate would be below 6 percent. Despite the usual cautionary notes about the jobs report being just a snapshot and the President’s lagging approval ratings, adds Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, “An improving economy is a twofer…It raises the president’s approval ratings, altering the environment in ways that help us, and directly improves the prospects of each Democratic candidate.”
Georgia Republicans appear to be nervous about The New Georgia Project, which “is working methodically to register 120,000 Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters in the state – the biggest voter registration drive in 20 years,” explains former NAACP head Benjamin Todd Jealous. Elizabeth Rawlins of WTOC writes that “the Secretary of State’s Office does not recognize the New Georgia Project as a non-profit organization.” Yet, it is part of Third Sector Development, a legitimate nonprofit.
Michael Tomasky makes the case for paid family medical leave as the centerpiece of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
NYT’s Jackie Calmes also has an excellent update on Democratic efforts to leverage single women voters for the midterm elections. Calmes explains why: “Half of all adult women over the age of 18 are unmarried — 56 million, up from 45 million in 2000 — and now account for one in four people of voting age. (Adult Hispanics eligible to vote, a group that gets more attention, number 25 million this year.) Single women have become Democrats’ most reliable supporters, behind African-Americans: In 2012, two-thirds of single women who voted supported President Obama. Among married women, a slim majority supported Mitt Romney.” However, “In the 2012 presidential election, 58 percent of single women voted. This fall that could slide to 39 percent, a one-third drop, according to projections from the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, which for a decade has focused on unmarried women.” Calmes notes that Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan sums up her re-election strategy as “heels on the ground.”
Toward that end, DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward has announced the launching of a new voter-mobilization program, “Rosie,” (recalling ‘Rosie the Riveter’), which stands for “Re-engaging Our Sisters in Elections.” also, reports Calmes, the Voter Participation Center has already provided registration materials for single women in 24 states, including NC, and will follow up through the fall. In addition, Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood’s action “will spend $3 million each on their top priority: Ms. Hagan’s race.” Calmes notes, “Of Planned Parenthood’s 140,000 members statewide, 50,000 joined since Republicans took power in 2011.”
Dems have an interesting candidate for Texas A.G., who has a pretty good name for the statewide race, Sam Houston. Even better, he is running against a Republican with serious ethics problems, state Sen. Ken Paxton, who has been fined by the Texas State Securities Board “for acting as the unregistered representative of an investment adviser,” reports Edgar Walters at The Times.
Speaking of dicey Republicans, check out this Daily Kos report on Maine’s twisted Governor LePage. if Maine voters don’t dump him, maybe they need a new state motto, along the lines of “Crazy in the pursuit of politics is no vice.”
It comes too late for this year. But going forward Nicholas Kristoff’s idea to make July 4th a day of celebration of public investments as an expression of what Americans can do when we are united around solving problems merits support. Anything we can do to illuminate and publicize the numerous benefits of public works is worth the effort. As Kristoff concludes, “after all, there’s not much point in saving on taxes to buy a Porsche when the roads all have potholes.”
Regarding infrastructure upgrades, Kos’s Laura Clawson spotlights President Obama’s challenge: “Well, there’s some things we could be doing right now that would make a huge difference. When I was at that bridge in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., yesterday, we were talking about the fact that we’ve got $2 trillion of deferred maintenance: roads, bridges, an air-traffic control system that’s creaky, an electrical grid that wastes too much energy and is highly inefficient, and we could be putting hundreds of thousands of folks back to work right now and not only put a big boost to the economy in the short term, but also lay the foundation for economic competitiveness in the long term. That creates a lot of middle-class jobs. The challenge we have is not that we don’t know what to do. The problem is that we’ve got a Congress right now that’s been saying no to proposals that would make a difference.” And I would add that getting our internet infrastructure up to other nations’ standards would also be a worthy project for America’s unemployed.

The Hobby Lobby decision will likely go down in the annals of political mistakes as one of the most poorly-reasoned high court rulings of the last century, and it should be condemned for it’s assault on worker rights, as well as reproductive rights. But it did overshadow another disastrous Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn, which the New York Times op-ed by Cynthia Eastlund and William E. Fortbath describes as a “salvo on unions” in “the war on workers.” Further, opine the authors:

…Though its decision in Harris v. Quinn was narrow, saying that, in some cases, unions could not collect fees from one particular class of public employees who did not want to join, its language suggests that this may be the court’s first step toward nationalizing the “right to work” gospel by embedding it in constitutional law.
The petitioners in Harris were several home-care workers who did not want to join a union, though a majority of their co-workers had voted in favor of joining one. Under Illinois law, they were still required to contribute their “fair share” to the costs of representation — a provision, known as an “agency fee,” that is prohibited in “right to work” states.
The ability of unions to collect an agency fee reflects a constitutional balance that has governed American labor for some 40 years: Workers can’t be forced to join a union or contribute to its political and ideological activities, but they can be required to pay for the cost of the union’s collective bargaining and contract-administration activities.
The majority in Harris saw things differently. Making workers pay anything to a union they oppose is in tension with their First Amendment rights — “something of an anomaly,” in the words of the majority. But the real anomaly lies in according dissenters a right to refuse to pay for the union’s services — services that cost money to deliver, and that put money in the pockets of all employees.
Once selected by a majority of workers in a bargaining unit, a union becomes the exclusive representative, with a duty to fairly represent all of them. That is the bedrock of our public and private sector labor laws.

The decision cements the current Supreme Court majority’s rep as the most anti-labor high court justices in memory of just about anyone still alive. That’s just fine with them. Worker rights are not anywhere near their collective radar screen. Anything to weaken unions — and undermine working peoples’ living standards — is OK with them. They are in-yer-face one-percenters, smug and comfy in their untouchable perches.
For Democrats, it’s another sobering reminder of the folly of giving Supreme Court nominees a pass on their economic ideology. Most of the confirmation battles in the post-war period have centered around nominees’ ethical issues or positions on racial discrimination, reproductive rights and social issues, all important concerns.
But the current majority has given a green light to ‘free riders,’ who want to benefit from union contracts without paying any union dues. The decision is aimed at destroying unions, even though they know it will exacerbate widening economic inequality. From now on Democrats ought to refuse to give any Supreme Court nominees a free ride on their economic philosophy and “Bork” any anti-union nominees without reservation.

Tip of the hat to the American Civil Liberties Union for their great work in fighting voter suppression. From Dale Ho’s “Four Bad Voter Suppression Measures We Have to Kill in Four Months“:

North Carolina. North Carolina’s sweeping voter suppression law, among other things, cuts early voting, bans same-day registration, and prohibits the counting of ballots cast at the wrong precinct. The ACLU and co-counsel, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, filed suit against this voter suppression, and on May 19 filed a motion to stop the law before the November election. A hearing on our motion is scheduled in federal court in North Carolina on July 7.
Arkansas. On April 24, the ACLU of Arkansas won a court order ruling that Arkansas’ strict voter ID law violates the Arkansas Constitution. The trial court, however, halted the decision, permitting the ID law to go into effect for the primary elections. That meant nearly 1,000 voters were disenfranchised. On June 24, the ACLU filed a motion with the trial court to lift the stay, and block the ID law for the November election. Meanwhile, the case is headed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Kansas. The ACLU is challenging Kansas’s dual registration system, which segregates voters into two separate and unequal classes: those who can vote in all elections (who need to show a photo ID when they vote), and those who can vote for federal offices only. On June 27, we filed a motion to stop this illegal system, as a violation of Kansas law. A hearing on our motion is scheduled for July 11 in Topeka.
Ohio. The ACLU is challenging Ohio’s elimination of a week of early voting, evening voting hours, all but one Sunday of early voting, and same-day registration. Yesterday we filed our motion in federal court to stop these cutbacks before the November elections.

The post goes on to note that the ACLU’s win vs. Iowa’s shameless voter purge program is being appealed to the state’s Supreme Court. The ACLU’s victory in striking down Wisconsin’s voter ID law is also being appealed in the federal Seventh Circuit court.
The ACLU doesn’t get as much news coverage as it used to. But it’s still providing critical leadership in the fight against voter suppression laws designed to disenfranchise minorities. Killing these suppression laws before election day is a tough challenge. But if it can be done the ACLU will find a way. For more information about their fight against voter suppression, click here.

As the staff post earlier today noted, this is the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And yes, the anniversary reminds us of a time when many Republicans were staunch supporters of civil rights.
But it’s also the 50th anniversary of Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign, in which the Party of Lincoln chose to nominate for president a candidate who voted against the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds.
The standard analysis of the current right-wing trend in the GOP is that the conservative movement is trying to pull the Republican Party back into the Reagan era. But if you listen carefully to the arguments of the powerful “constitutional conservative” faction of the GOP, which rejects the entire “Commerce Clause”-based line of Supreme Court decisions that provided the basis for the Civil Rights Act along with much of the New Deal/Great Society legacy, there’s a very good case for saying the Goldwater campaign never ended, and is in fact reconquering the GOP.
Rand Paul has tried to walk back his personal opposition to the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds. That opposition, however, is entirely consistent with his general views on the appropriate powers of the federal government, and that of so many “constitutional conservatives” today.
Democrats need to challenge such conservatives as often as the occasion arises to clarify their views on the Civil Rights Act. I strongly suspect their actual attitude towards Goldwater’s vote against that crucial legislation is: “In your heart, you know he’s right.”

Photograph by white house photographer Cecil Stoughton
In the photo above Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands behind President Lyndon B. Johnson, as he signs the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964 — 50 years ago today. The act desegregated public facilities and began a profound transformation of American society toward racial equality. Credit Dr. King and the movement he led for providing the courageous leadership needed to make it happen. As Sheryll Cashin puts it in today’s New York Times, “And Presidents Kennedy and Johnson would not have advocated for the bill without being pressured to do so by a multiracial grass-roots movement.”
On May 29 the house where Dr. King was staying during the movement to desegregate St. Augustine was riddled with gunfire, but he was out at a speaking engagement. On June 11th he was arrested in a protest at St. Augustine’s Monson Motor Lodge. King returned to St. Augustine after the signing to protest against resistance to the Act and continued violence against the protesters. The Monson Motor Lodge was firebombed on July 24th because the owner complied with the new law. As King’s top aide, Rev. Andrew Young, who was brutally beaten at the town square on June 9th, explained, the St. Augustine campaign was “the only movement where our hospital bills were larger than our bond bills.”
JFK, before he was assassinated, and other Democrats along with LBJ, stood up and took a stand for the legislation, while Dixiecrats opposed the bill. Some Republicans like Senators Everett Dirksen, Jacob Javits and Ken Keating and House Minority Leader Charles Halleck (pictured at far left) and others joined progressive Democrats in supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in stark contrast to today’s GOP, which overwhelmingly supports suppression of minority voters and opposes other measures to reduce racial discrimination.

If anyone had remaining doubts about how meddlesome the phony ‘strict-constructionalists’ on the U.S. Supreme Court are willing to get, the Hobby Lobby ruling should set them straight. Here we have the highly-partisan Republican majority of the Supreme Court in solid agreement that your employer can cherry-pick and eliminate coverage for medical procedures you and your physician choose. Why? Because your employer’s religious beliefs trump yours even though it’s your body, silly.
Never mind the First Amendment bit about respecting no establishment of religion. Nor is it important that you’re paying for your preferred medical care out of your earnings and benefits. Your boss gets to veto your medical choices that you pay for with your money.
Don’t buy any of the crap about the narrowness or ‘nuances’ of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It established a precedent that begs to be broadened, and this is a High Court majority that is willing to go there. It’s only a matter of time.
No one should be shocked either, that the court’s right-wing (the term ‘conservative’ would be an insult to real conservative jurists in this context) majority is oblivious/hostile to worker rights. They have demonstrated that proclivity at every opportunity.
And it will likely get worse if Republicans win a senate majority in November. If they do, they will prevent vacancies on the court from being filled by any nominees who fit into the moderate-liberal spectrum.
In their Huffpollster post on “Reviewing the Polling on Hobby Lobby,” Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy write that “Results depend on how you ask.” They quote from Aaron Blake’s post at The Fix:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that “closely held” companies with religious owners cannot be required to provide their employees with birth control if they have religious objections to it. Do the American people agree? Well, no. And yes. Contraception is one of those issues on which you can get vastly different opinions from the American people just by asking the question in a slightly different way….It suggests that Americans’ opinions on the topic are quite malleable and — by extension — pretty soft. If Americans can offer such different responses based on just a few words being changed in the question, they probably don’t feel all that strongly about the issue or haven’t really paid attention. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who feel very strongly. It just means they they are probably in the minority.

Blumenthal and Edwards-Levy report that an early June Gallup Poll indicates that confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is at an all-time low (30 percent). Naturally, the poll failed to make a significant distinction between the Republican majority, which calls the shots, and the appointees of Democratic presidents, which is kind of the larger point. But it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to infer that most of the discontent is about the decisions of the majority.
That raises the possibility that Democrats can get some benefit, however small, from reminding voters what is at stake regarding the Supreme Court if Republicans win the senate. It’s not likely that such a focus on the court will sway many voters — it never has. But, in a close election, maybe, just maybe it could help mobilize single women voters in particular, who have the most to lose from a High Court that encourages employers to meddle in their medical care even more.
The Supreme Court of the United States has been dominated by politicized hacks since Bush v. Gore, although too many Dems have trod gingerly around the strong language needed to make it a front and center issue. The Hobby Lobby decision sends a clear warning that those days should be over. And if we needed an additional reminder that employer-linked insurance is a booby-trapped mess, and we really need to push harder for a single-payer system, here it is.