Domenico Montenaro’s “Would Automatic Voter Registration Increase Turnout?” at NPR.org examines a tantalizing prospect for Democrats. As Montaro reports:

Go to renew your driver’s license in Oregon, and you will now be signed up to vote automatically…It’s the first state in the country with that sort of law, which is designed to make voting easier, and stands in contrast to the trend seen in the past several years in more conservative states…In Oregon, the law could swell voter rolls by hundreds of thousands. If other states follow suit, it could have a dramatic effect on the U.S. voting process.

Montenaro reports that Vermont and Pennsylvania are considering similar proposals. If it catches on in other blue states, it could dramatically increase voter registration rolls, political participation and perhaps spread to purple and even red states, as the public realizes the savings in taxpayer dollars. Sean McElwee recently reported, “if all states used a “motor voter” system, which allows voters to register at local DMVs, it would increase registration by 18 million. These measures have reduced political inequality, particularly in states with registration bias. EDR consistently leads to higher turnout.”
As Oregon Gov. Kate Brown put it at the law’s signing ceremony, “We have the tools to make voter registration more cost-effective, more secure and more convenient for Oregonians, so why wouldn’t we?” Voters are allowed to opt out of the system in Oregon, with three weeks notice.

A CNN/ORC poll conducted 3/13-15 indicates that Senator Cotton’s letter signed by 47 Republican Senators was a net negative for the GOP, as reported by Jennifer Agiesta, CNN’s Polling Director. Was Agiesta reports:

Direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran are broadly popular, 68% favor them, while 29% oppose them. That support cuts across party lines, with 77% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 64% of independents in favor of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
…All told, 49% of Americans say the letter went too far, while 39% think it was an appropriate response to the way negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were going. Opinions on the letter were divided along partisan lines, with 67% of Democrats saying it went too far while 52% of Republicans called it appropriate. Among independents, 47% thought it went too far, 42% that it was appropriate.

The poll found that nearly half of respondents, 49% say “some Republican senators went too far by sending a letter to Iran’s leaders warning that any agreement with the Obama administration would require Senate approval” with 39% agreeing that “the letter hurt U.S. efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” reports Agiesta.
Agiesta concludes, “Americans have greater confidence in President Barack Obama than the Republicans in Congress in dealing with major issues, whether those are domestic or related to foreign policy.” Approximately half said they have faith in President Obama “on major issues and major foreign policy issues,” while 4-in-10 expressed more confidence in the GOP, with 1-in-10 saying they “trust neither side on the big issues.”

Demos research associate Sean McElwee has a post up at Al Jazeera America, “If everyone voted, progressives would win,” which makes a strong case that recruiting new progressive voters may be a more productive strategy for Dems than targeting likely voters. McElwee explains:

…Progressives do not need a charismatic leader. Instead, they need to invest in unleashing the disgruntled progressive majority. A longer-term strategy for progressives should be to strengthen unions and boost turnout among politically marginalized populations.
“If everybody in this country voted,” the economist John Kenneth Galbraith said, “the Democrats would be in for the next 100 years.” There is strong evidence to support his claim. A 2007 study by Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler found that nonvoters are more economically liberal than voters, preferring government health insurance, easier union organizing and more federal spending on schools. Nonvoters preferred Barack Obama to Mitt Romney by 59 percent to 24 percent, while likely voters were split 47 percent for each, according to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll. Nonvoters are far less likely to identify as Republican, and voters tend to be more opposed to redistribution than nonvoters.
In a recent nationwide study, Stockton College professor James Avery found a strong correlation between the electorate’s class bias and the Gini coefficient, a commonly used measure of inequality. In short, the lower the turnout, the higher the class bias and the greater the support for policies that lead to inequality. His study builds on previous research by political scientists Christopher Witko, Nathan Kelly and William Franko showing how class bias in voting reinforces economic inequalities. Their findings are not confined to the U.S. Around the world, voter turnout is correlated with redistributive policies. For example, the turnout of low-income voters has been linked to regressive state tax systems and higher social spending.

While some of McElwee’s conclusions will be familiar to those following voter turnout trends, he includes some interesting new revelations which suggest a new turnout tactic or two. For example, McElwee notes, “72.8 percent of those who do not vote because of weather support the Democratic Party. In fact, weather may have contributed to Electoral College victories for the Democrats in 1960 and the Republicans in 2000.” Improving bad weather contingency plans might make a significant difference in close elections. McElwee cites data which suggest that, in some circumstances, governors may have coattails that help turnout in presidential elections — producing as much as a 6.4 percent edge for Dems.
McElwee also cites overwhelming evidence that “electoral structures dramatically affect turnout.” and that “the more black people in a county — a group that tends to vote for Democrats — the fewer early voting sites there are.” He argues that existing get-out-the-vote campaigns tend to target those who already have high turnout rates, under-investing in turning out new voters who are overwhelmingly inclined to vote for Democrats. And for Dems, election day registration is the pivotal reform, which would increase registration by 18 million nationwide.
Concluding on a hopeful note, McElwee adds “Democrats should mobilize the marginalized progressive majority…Now with Democrats on the defensive across the country, conservatives fighting full franchise and progressives realizing the limits of hero leftism, there may be an effort to mobilize the marginalized progressive majority.”
Perhaps the clincher for McElwee’s contention is that even a small improvement in turnout of these voters could make a huge difference. An extra effort to get marginalized voters to the polls in some key battleground states may be the most cost-effective investment Democrats could make in the 19 months until election day 2016.

From the text of the Logan Act, passed in 1799:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

From Justice Sutherland’s majority Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936):

“[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.’

As of this morning more than 264,000 Americans have signed a petition designating the 47 Republican senators’ letter warning Iran against making an agreement on nuclear arms with President Obama as “treason” and urging that charges be filed for violation of the Logan Act. It’s not likely to happen but it is a growing protest nonetheless, and some of the signatories are beginning to squirm, equivocate and suggest that it was all a big “cheeky” joke.
More temperate progressives, like Slatsg at Daily Kos, are urging a less over-the-top response. Daily Kos also has an on-line petition which takes a slightly different tack, urging Senators who signed it to “Recant your signature from this outrageous letter immediately.”
An interesting side-show is what this political boomerang will do to Sen. Cotton’s grandiose political ambitions. The GOP’s new golden boy may end up replacing Ted Cruz as poster boy for wing-nut lunacy.

The following article, by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
Ever since Republicans published their letter trying to sabotage U.S. negotiations to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, right-wing pundits have searched in vain to find historic parallels for their action.
They have twisted themselves into knots trying to argue that past actions by Democrats are even remotely similar. None even come close.
MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports that the U.S. Senate Historian’s Office has been unable to find any other example “in the chamber’s history where one political party tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy.”
A report by McClatchy quotes Alan K. Henrikson, director of Diplomatic Studies and professor of diplomatic history at Tufts University as saying: “Neither the Senate nor the House has sought to interfere with actual conduct of negotiations by writing an open letter to the leadership of a country with which the U.S. is negotiating.”
And of course, neither has sought to discourage an adversary from signing an agreement that would avoid war by arguing that our own government cannot be trusted to keep the terms of the deal. That is exactly what the 47 GOP saboteurs did in their letter to Iran on Monday.
The right has dragged out House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria in 2007 trying desperately to draw a parallel. But Pelosi’s trip had nothing in common with the GOP letter to the Ayatollah’s.
For those who don’t recall, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a bi-partisan delegation went to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a trip to the Middle East in late 2007.
The delegation included two of the most ardent backers of Israel then in the United States Congress, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). It also included a senior Republican, Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio), as well as Arab American, Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), Muslim Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY).
Pelosi notified both the White House and the State Department in advance of the trip, received a policy briefing from the Bush administration and was told that the staff of the U.S. embassy in Damascus would be available to provide support if needed.
Most important, no one in the bi-partisan Pelosi-led delegation tried to encourage President Assad to ignore the Republican White House, or distrust American foreign policy.

Read more…

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
According to Bloomberg News:

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Their action is a brazen, breathtaking attempt to sabotage U.S. foreign policy and stampede America into another war in the Middle East.
While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to negotiate the most critical elements of a deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid war, the Republicans are actively trying to undermine his efforts to get a deal.
Can you imagine the reaction if members of Congress had sent a similar letter to the Soviets urging them not to sign an arms control agreement because the United States would not keep our end of the bargain?
If the Iranians are unwilling to sign a verifiable agreement with the international community to limit the application of their nuclear know-how to peaceful purposes, the U.S. will be left with two horrible options: a nuclear Iran or war.
Unbelievably, these GOP senators are actively discouraging Iran from signing such a deal by arguing that the United States cannot be trusted to keep up our end. That is shocking. It’s like someone interfering with negotiations being conducted by a hostage negotiator by trying to convince a hostage taker not to surrender because he will shoot him anyway.

Read more…

At The Daily Beast Michael Tomasky describes President Obama’s speech at the 50th anniversary commemoration of the Selma to Montgomery March for Voting Rights: “It was the strongest statement about the liberal definition of patriotism I’ve ever heard a president deliver. It was also confrontational and challenging–an unapologetic manifesto for the values of blue America.” (text of speech here). Tomasky adds,

That’s something we don’t hear a lot about, the values of blue America. No, it isn’t because we don’t have them. It’s that we don’t parade them in the public square quite as much as conservatives do, while conservatives aren’t exactly shy about caricaturing in public their version of liberal values (we love sodomy and baby-killing and so on).
But there are liberal values. Some, we all know about–tolerance, diversity, etc. But another central one has to do with the way in which liberals love our country, and it goes like this: Yes, of course this is a great country. But it is change that has made it so. It’s a country that was founded on the highest ideals of the day, many of which are eternal, but it was also a country where ownership of human beings of a certain race was legal. So no, it wasn’t so great. It had to be made great. And by the way it’s not really as great as it should be yet. That’s a process that, the human condition being what it is, will never have an end.

Calling the president’s speech “a stirring defense of one vision of the country that was also an implicit and sometimes explicit critique of the other vision,” Tomasky elaborates: “In paragraph after paragraph, the speech essentially says: These are the truest Americans–the protesters, the outsiders, and the agitators who read the words of the founding texts and forced the system to live up to them.” Tomasky quotes from the speech:

What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this; what greater form of patriotism is there; than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?…That’s America!”

Tomasky notes that even Presidents Reagan and Bush signed legislation extending the Voting Rights Act, while today’s Republicans dodge the issue at best, with few exceptions. Further, says Tomasky, “The Republican Party has never in its history been as flagrantly open about specifically seeing to it that as few black people vote as possible as it has been in these last few years (and yes, yes, the Democratic Party was once worse, but that was a very different Democratic Party).”
Tomasky explains in his conclusion, “Conservatives don’t think that change is what makes this country great” and are “terrified of the greater changes (demographic, etc.) that everyone knows are coming.” For now, however, Americans can be grateful that we have a president with the vision and eloquence needed to affirm the best of our country’s values, as we remember and honor the courageous heroes of Selma and their passion for real democracy.

Stuart Naifeh has a lengthy post Democrats should find of interest up at Demos, “Driving the Vote: Are the States Complying with the Motor Voter Requirements of the National Voter Registration Act?” Naifeh opens with a snapshot of the current reality:

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) with the goal of increasing voter participation in elections by requiring states to make voter registration more accessible. One of the key provisions of the NVRA, known as “Motor Voter,” requires state motor vehicles departments (“DMVs”) to incorporate voter registration into the driver’s license application, renewal and change-of-address processes. Despite the popularity of this mode of voter registration, the “Motor Voter” provision is not performing up to its potential, and, in many states, implementation of the statute’s requirements is severely wanting.

Naifeh says there are “radical variations among states in the numbers of motor vehicle department transactions that result in a voter registration application…Some states are generating voter registration applications from a large proportion of those who come into the DMV to obtain or update a driver’s license or ID card while in others, the DMV registers only a tiny fraction of voters engaging in licensing or ID card transactions.”
While many would say that the motor voter legislation has been a failure, judging by overall registration statistics in recent years, Naifeh believes the law still has great potential: “According to Demos’ analysis, over 18 million additional voter registration applications could be submitted through DMVs in a two-year period if lower-performing states increased their performance to the level of states at the 75th percentile…”
Further, adds Naifeh, “the most successful states typically use technology solutions to further streamline the process, reduce errors, and ensure voters remain registered when they move.” He devises complex metrics to evaluate the states’ compliance with the motor voter law in light of the wiggle room states are allowed in their implementation policies and procedures.
He concludes that Michigan (“Robust Integration of Voter Registration”) and Delaware (“Effective Use of Technology”) lead the states in using the motor voter law effectively. The worst are California (“Separate Voter Registration Application Requiring Duplication”) and Nevada (“No Integration, Duplication, and Confusing Forms”). In between, a broad range of states have plenty of room for improvement
Naifeh suggests a range of “model procedures” states can use to improve their compliance with motor voter legislation. He concludes,

Twenty years after the enactment of the NVRA, many states are failing to offer meaningful opportunities for individuals to register to vote during motor vehicles department transactions. To realize the NVRA’s promise of “enhanc[ing] the participation of eligible citizens as voters,” states must take seriously Section 5’s mandate to make registering to vote an integral part of obtaining, renewing, or updating a driver’s license or state identification card. The states that are most successfully implementing Motor Voter provide evidence that by adopting cost-effective, commonsense procedures and relying on existing technology and infrastructure, this goal is attainable…

It appears Naifeh has done the most serious research to date on how to make the NVRA live up to its considerable potential. If more Democratic leaders in the underperforming states will study and accept his challenge with the seriousness it deserves, the party — and the nation — would benefit significantly.

From Larry J. Sabato’s Politico post, “Can Democrats Retake the Senate in 2016?“:

It’s still too early to predict the Senate’s makeup in 2016, but it’s not too early to start thinking about who could land on the list of endangered senators. And in the 2016 cycle, it’s more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat.
…Republicans must defend seven incumbents that represent states carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. An eighth state Obama carried in 2008 but narrowly lost in 2012–North Carolina, home to two-term Republican Richard Burr–also merits mention with these other states.
…under the right conditions–i.e., strong Democratic Senate candidates combined with a solid national lead for the Democratic presidential nominee–all seven of the other seats are vulnerable. Three of the states (Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) are more Democratic than the nation as a whole and have a history of voting Democratic for president even when the party loses a close race nationally, as in 2000 and 2004. This reality has placed Kirk, Toomey and Johnson at the top of the endangered senators list.
In recent presidential cycles, there has been a consistent uptick in the correlation between Senate and presidential election outcomes. That is to say, the Senate result in a state has tended to be increasingly aligned with the state’s presidential result. Excluding Maine and Vermont (where independents Angus King and Bernie Sanders won, respectively), the correlation in 2012 between Senate and presidential results was a strong .78 (1.0 would be strongest). This was the third straight cycle to see an increase in this correlation, and it is the highest since 1956…

Sabato adds, “More and more, voters are inclined to cast straight-ticket ballots when they enter the voting booth.” He explains that “the most competitive races–the three toss-ups and the six leaners (two Democratic seats and four Republican ones) also take place in what should be among the most competitive presidential states.”
“This,” Sabato concludes, “is a recipe for Senate elections that are mainly tied to the presidential results.” It’s early yet, but, given Sabato’s impressive track record in political predictions, Dems should allocate resources with his insights in mind.