Mobilization Matters: Why Democrats lost the San Antonio Mayoral Race

By Melissa R. Michelson

On Saturday, June 13, San Antonio voters went to the polls in the runoff election for their city mayor, which pitted two women of color against each other: Ivy Taylor and Leticia Van de Putte, and resulted in Taylor’s election as the first African American mayor of this majority-Latino city. Unofficial results released that evening by Bexar County indicated a victory by a margin of 3,331 votes, with voter turnout at just under 14.1 percent of registered voters. Van de Putte noted the turnout issue when she conceded on Saturday evening, as did Democratic consultant Colin Strother, who told the Texas Tribune: “At the end of the day, we needed 3,000 Democrats to get off their asses and go vote, and they didn’t.” Turnout in the first round (in May) was just 12.4 percent.

Continue reading

Projecting Partisan Change Deep in the Heart of Texas

By Tiffany Cartwright Ph.D., and Tyler Young, Ed.D. candidate, Department of Political Science, Collin College

Almost every political pundit in the country has made their bet as to whether Texas will soon become a battleground state. Texas has gone for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since 1980. If Texas were to become a swing state, with its thirty-eight electoral votes, presidential candidates would want to start dusting off their old hats, breaking in their cowboy boots, and opening up their wallets to cover the twenty television markets in this vast state. In regards to presidential elections, the possible Republican loss of Texas’ 38 electoral votes (or 14% of what one needs to get to 270) would require the GOP to pick up the swing states of Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Nevada (6) just to mitigate the damage of losing that one state. If Texas’ population continues to grow steadily as it has for decades, its share of the electoral college vote will only grow with it.

Figure 1. Percentage of U.S. Population Residing in Texas, source: U.S. Census Bureau Cartwright figure 1

Continue reading

Trending blue: the politics of California’s 26th district

For the first time in 70 years Ventura County, California is represented by a Democrat in the US House of Representatives. In 2012 Democrat Julia Brownley was elected in a hotly contested race for the newly-drawn district. Elton Gallegly (R) retired in 2012 after 16 years representing the 24th district, which included most of the more Republican-leaning parts of the East County. Throughout his career Gallegly easily carried the old district, with his vote share rarely dipping below 60%, and then only barely. The newly-drawn 26th was much less favorable to the incumbent who, nonetheless, believed that he could run and win in the new district; but he retired anyway.

The 2012 election was the first to occur in the context of two major statewide electoral reforms. Passed in 2010, Proposition 14 created a “Top Two Candidates Open Primary” in which the general election nominees are identified as the top two vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation. Reformers intend the new process to result in more ideologically-moderate nominees, and it creates the possibility that two members of the same party will run against one another in the general election.

Proposition 11, narrowly passed by California voters in 2008, created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It stripped the California Legislature of the power to draw state legislative districts, transferring the power to a bipartisan Commission composed of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four who are not affiliated with the two major parties. Members of the Commission were chosen in an extended public process. Supporters of Prop 11 argued that citizens would not engage in incumbent-protection schemes (as the Legislature presumably did), promote more competitive elections, and produce more ideologically moderate representatives. Passed by a much larger margin, Proposition 20 (2010) made the Commission responsible for drawing congressional districts, and directed the commission to maintain the integrity of “communities of interest” when drawing new district lines.

The combined effects of these reforms were fully felt in the 2012 election cycle. While the national media was transfixed by the race between two Democratic heavyweights, Howard Berman and Brad Sherman—who found themselves in the same San Fernando Valley district as a result of the new lines drawn by the Commission, and the blanket primary—north of Los Angeles in Ventura County the scene was set for a more interesting pair of elections in the new 26th Congressional District in the 2012 and 2014 electoral cycles.

Ventura County’s population centers are Oxnard and Ventura in the West County, along the California Coast; Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley in the inland East County. Prior to the 2010 Census, The 24th District (see Figure 1) was literally a textbook example of gerrymandering – it was used in the book Congress and Its Members to Illustrate the concept of gerrymandering. It carved up Ventura County, placing the more liberal coastal section—which included the cities of Oxnard and Ventura—of the district into a separate, Democratic-leaning district (Represented by Democrat Lois Capps), and creating a Republican-friendly district for Gallegly. When the Commission redrew the district (see Figure 2) it combined Oxnard and Ventura with the bulk of the county, placing Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks into the 30th and 33rd districts, respectively.

KellyFrischFigure 1

Despite a Democratic registration advantage in the new district (the current partisan breakdown is 40.8% Democratic, 35.2% Republican registration), 2012 was a nail-biter for district Democrats. Republicans united behind their only candidate, State Senator Tony Strickland, in the race were assured of a spot in the general election. However a popular Republican-turned-independent, County Supervisor Linda Parks, threatened to freeze out from the general election the Democratic favorite Brownley, who also had to fend off a handful of other Democratic aspirants. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee stepped in with a barrage of negative advertising aimed at Parks. In the primary Strickland gained 44% of the vote, Brownley 27%, and Parks pulled 18%, with three Democrats sharing the remaining votes. In the general election Brownley bested Strickland 53% to 47%, almost exactly the same margin who supported President Obama in 2012.

Kelly Frisch figure 2

Julia Brownley’s narrow win, her status as a first-term member of Congress, and the close partisan complexion of the district attracted the attention of the national Republican Party, who sensed an opportunity to pick up a seat. Andrew Clark, of the National Republican Congressional Committee, claimed the 26th district looked “to be one of our top pick up opportunities, not just in California, but in the country.” Republicans united behind two-term California Assemblyman Jeff Gorrell. In the primary Brownley narrowly bested Gorrell with 45.5% to his 44.5%, with the remainder of the vote going to another Republican and an Independent. Democrats are well-aware of the stakes. Steve Israel (D-NY) head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee acknowledged that the race in the district will be “tightly contested.”

Turnout will be crucial in determining this race, and local Democrats are well aware of that. Over the past year they focused, first, on voter registration. Democratic registrations have increased in the county by about two percent. Voter registration efforts especially focused on the district’s Latino community, which makes up 44.7% of the district’s population, many of whom are employed working in the agricultural fields of the west county.

Voter registration does not matter unless registered voters turn out to vote in the election. Less than a week before Election Day former President Bill Clinton visited Oxnard College, in the heavily Latino city of Oxnard, to energize Democratic voter. Dolores Huerta—an ally of César Chávez who helped to organize agricultural field workers in the 1960s and 1970s, and a legend in Latino communities across the country—warmed up the multicultural crowd, leading them in a chant of “Sí, se puede!” (Yes we can!), the slogan of the United Farm Workers, which she co-founded with Chávez. Arturo S. Rodríguez, President of the United Farm Workers also spoke. The choice of speakers was no doubt intended to emphasize the historical linkage of Latino voters, agricultural workers, and the Democratic Party.

image001

Brownley’s committee assignments during her first term were to the committees on Science, Space and Technology, and Veterans’ Affairs. Hardly “prestigious” committee assignments, she has used her appointment to Veterans’ Affairs to great effect in the district. In her first two years in office she sought to emphasize veteran-friendly positions. From her perch on Veterans’ Affairs she is able to address issues of importance to local military veterans, and the active military interests at Naval Base Ventura, a major presence in the district. Brownley gained the endorsement of Vietnam Veterans of Ventura County, whose president expressed the organization’s support for her work for veterans on the committee at the rally. Her strong position with local military interests somewhat undercut her opponent’s own military experience, including being deployment to Iraq. Her committee assignments, though lackluster, also keep her well removed from direct involvement in more divisive policy issues.

Brownley Clinton

Presumably the Democratic Party deploys its resources strategically. A top draw like Bill Clinton will be employed for maximum effect. Thus, his appearance in Oxnard (as opposed to elsewhere in Southern California) is pregnant with meaning. It is in a heavily Democratic part of the district; turnout in Oxnard will likely be decisive in this election. But Oxnard is also a part of the Los Angeles television market; his appearance was heavily covered by LA news stations. This helps to explain the presence of two other congressional candidates on stage. Raul Ruiz, also a first term incumbent, and Pete Aguilar who is competing for an open seat centered in Redlands, also joined the former president on stage. It seems as though the party believes that voters in the Brownley district needed the excitement of a Clinton visit, while the other two candidates would benefit sufficiently from the coverage they received in the LA media market.

LA media

 

So far there seems to be reason for mild optimism among Democratic activists. Statewide the Democratic Party invested in encouraging partisans to vote by mail According to a memo circulated by one group involved in the GOTV effort:

As of [10/30/2014] 44,558 people have voted early in this election, back to a slight increase on the 2010 early voting returns (this time in 2010 it was 42,131). Of these, 42% are registered Democrats and 39% are registered Republicans (compared to 39% Democrat and 44% Republican in the 2010 election). While the early voting returns are less than the same time as in 2012 (55,381), it is ahead of the 2012 figure in one aspect as in 2012 39% of early voters were registered Democrats while 41% were registered Republicans. 16% of early voters this election are Latino, a slight improvement to date on the 2012 figure of 15% of early voters being Latino and 14% of early voters in 2010.

The caution in these results is how they compare to total voter registration. Thanks to solid voter registration drives, the Democrats have extended the lead in voters registered as Democrat v Republican (a consistent 41% in 2010, 2012 and 2014, while for the Republicans it has dropped a point every two years from 35% in 2010 to 33% in 2014). When you compare registration proportions to those voting early, registered Democrats are voting early 1% higher than the registered total, while registered Republicans are voting 6% higher than their registered total.

In short, the voting so far is better than in 2010, but while the proportion of voters voting early being Democrat is strong, the total number of votes is only slightly better than in 2010, making GOTV for election day more critical.

For their part Republicans do not appear as concerned about turning out their voters. Their focus is on a media-heavy approach to defeating Brownley. Speaker Boehner visited the district about two weeks prior to Election Day, but the trip was more of a media availability than a rally. Republicans seem to be banking on depressed Democratic turnout. Gorrell ads seek to bolster support among women by focusing on his pro-choice position, and questioning Brownley’s commitment to women’s issues, an approach that the Democrats pushed back against. The Koch-affiliated American Future Fund has dedicated $834,000 to run ads critical of Brownley.

If Brownley wins chances are that the district will stay in Democratic hands, at least in the medium term. In 2016, with a Democratic presidential candidate on the ticket Republicans will likely not invest in California 26, and after three terms in Congress Brownley would likely be safe. If Gorrell wins chances are that he will face a very stiff challenge, and probably lose, in 2016. In a presidential election year energized Democrats probably will head to the polls with a decided advantage in the race, especially as the Democratic registration advantage continues to swell. In the short run, California’s electoral reforms created the sort of competitive district that reformers envisioned. In the long run California 26 will trend blue, and become a reliable Democratic district for decades.

Scott A. Frisch is Professor and Chair of Political Science at California State University Channel Islands. A native of New Jersey, Scott received his undergraduate degree at Lafayette College, his Masters at the University of Pennsylvania and his doctorate at Claremont Graduate University.  

Sean Q. Kelly is also Professor at California State University Channel Islands. He earned his B.A. degree in political science from Seattle University in 1986, and his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Colorado in 1992. 

Frisch and Kelly have coauthored several books: Committee Assignment Politics in the U.S. House of Representatives (University of Oklahoma, 2006), Jimmy Carter and the Water Wars: Presidential Influence and the Politics of Pork (Cambria, 2008), and Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy (Paradigm Publishers, 2011). They also co-wrote Doing Archival Research in Political Science (Cambria, 2012) with Douglas B. Harris and David C.W. Parker. 

Messing with Montana: Get-out-the-Vote Experiment Raises Ethics Questions

by Melissa R. Michelson

Today, the Internet exploded with news about and reactions to a get-out-the-vote field experiment fielded by three political science professors that may have broken Montana state law and, at a minimum, called into question the ethics of conducting experiments that might impact election results. No stranger to such controversy myself—a postage experiment I conducted with some colleagues in November 2010 (Michelson et al 2012) raised the ire of one losing candidate and generated some unpleasant media coverage—I am sympathetic to the idea that the researchers meant no harm. But harm has indeed been done, to the experiments subfield and to the discipline more broadly, if not to the people of Montana.

First, let’s review the facts. Adam Bonica and Jonathan Rodden, Political Science professors and fellows at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, along with Dartmouth Political Scientist Kyle Dropp, obtained $250,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and a matching $100,000 grant from Stanford University to conduct the experiment. According to Stanford spokeswoman Lisa Lapin, the project was approved by the Dartmouth Institutional Review Board (IRB).

The experiment was conducted in three states, including Montana (100,000 mailers), New Hampshire (66,000 mailers) and California (143,000 mailers). The mailers sent to Montana voters, where the controversy is raging, included the state seal and information about the ideological placement (compared to President Barack Obama and former Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney) of candidates for two non-partisan elections to the Montana Supreme Court. The mailer was labeled “2014 Montana General Election Voter Information Guide.” The ideological placement of the judicial candidates is based on a methodology developed for Bonica’s dissertation research, using a large-scale database of campaign contributions. One of those judicial races, between incumbent Justice Mike Wheat and challenger Lawrence VanDyke, is hotly contested, and has seen significant outside spending.

Using the state seal without permission may have violated Montana election law, which states that it is a misdemeanor to “knowingly or purposely disseminate to any elector information about election procedures that is incorrect or misleading or gives the impression that the information has been officially disseminated by an election administrator.”

In addition to a charge of violating that law, Secretary of State Linda McCulloch has filed a legal complaint charging that the mailers also violate three campaign laws: 1) A ban on “fraudulent contrivance” that could cause a person to vote a certain way; 2) A prohibition on the dissemination of information that gives incorrect or misleading election procedures; and 3) A requirement that a person or group engaging in political activity register with the state.

U.S. Senator Jon Tester sent a strongly worded letter to the presidents of Stanford and Dartmouth on October 24 that began, “As I am sure you are now aware, Montanans recently received a misleading campaign flier in their mailboxes that sought to inject partisanship into non-partisan Montana Supreme Court elections.” Tester goes on to denounce the “so-called research project,” and adds, “Efforts to undermine elections in Montana – whether by fraud or merely by poorly-designed experiments – must not be tolerated.”

To me, this is more important than the possible violations of election and campaign law, which perhaps will result in the Bonica team paying some fines. The grouping together of fraud and experiments, and the interpretation of the mailers as an effort to undermine the Montana elections, illustrates the true price that is being paid in terms of public perceptions of political science experiments, if not the broader discipline.

Montanans are sensitive to outside groups coming to their state trying to influence elections. One of the top stories of the year in 2012 was the “dark money”—money whose sources and donors don’t have to be disclosed, thanks to Citizens United—that flooded the state with television ads and mailers. This followed scandals in the previous two election cycles, 2008 and 2010, of illegal coordination between funders and candidates by Western Tradition Partnership.

The sordid details of those previous dark-money scandals set the backdrop to Montanans’ outrage at the idea that an outside source was coming in to try to influence their election; the Bonica group blundered in not anticipating how that context might color reaction to their mailers.

Was the experiment ethical? The Bonica team chose to experiment with non-partisan Montana judicial races, as opposed to legislative races where ideology and partisanship often play a visible role, inserting partisanship (by placing the judicial candidates on a continuum with Obama and Romney) in a place where many think it does not belong. The tradition of a non-partisan, independent judiciary has deep roots in the West, stemming from the Progressive Era; regardless of whether or not laws were broken, the mailers blatantly violated that tradition. An interesting research question? Perhaps. But just because something is interesting doesn’t mean you should do the experiment.

Another ethics issue arises from the closeness of the election, and the possibility that the content of the mailers might have influenced the outcome. To maximize external validity, experimenters logically want to conduct their research in real elections. But should such experiments, particularly persuasion experiments, be conducted in contexts where they might determine outcomes? This is precisely the sort of experimentation that raises eyebrows about the ethics of doing work outside of laboratories or without informed consent. Dawn Teele claims in Field Experiments and Their Critics (2012: 119) that ethical field research requires that the research itself leave no trace.

Just last year, the Coburn Amendment struck a major blow to political science National Science Foundation grants. Political science was dismissed as wasteful and not in the national interest. Experiments that strike the public as unethical, possibly illegal, and deceptive, are harmful to our image as a discipline and will make it more difficult for future studies to obtain funding and IRB approval. Intentionally or not, these researchers are guilty of damaging the field.

Melissa R. Michelson is a professor of political science at Menlo College. She holds a Ph.D. from Yale University. Her publications Living the Dream: New Immigration Policies and the Lives of Undocumented Latino Youth (Paradigm Publishers, 2014) and Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate Through Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns (Yale University Press, 2012).

The New Wild West: Colorado and Legalized Recreational Marijuana

by Courtenay W. Daum

Imagine a world where parents legally unwind with a joint instead of a glass of wine after a long day , weddings have marijuana bars to complement bars serving alcoholic beverages, and treats such as candy and cookies are forbidden to children not because of high sugar content but because they are laced with THC. You need not look far because this is the new state of affairs in Colorado which became the first state to legalize and launch recreational marijuana in 2014.

In Colorado, citizens may use the initiative process—petitions are circulated and if enough valid signatures are obtained the question is put to the voters of the state—to place policy and revenue issues on the ballot as an exercise in direct democracy. In November 2012, a majority of Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 on “Use and Regulation of Marijuana” and legalized the sale and consumption of recreational marijuana as well as industrial hemp within the state. Shortly thereafter, Governor John Hickenlooper convened a taskforce to draft regulations for the implementation and regulation of recreational marijuana sales and consumption, and on January 1, 2014 the first recreational stores opened to adults age 21 and older. While Amendment 64 decriminalized private possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by adults 21 years and older across the state, local governments retain discretion on allowing retail establishments within their borders as well as the authority to implement time, place, and manner restrictions resulting in variation across the state.

Despite the numerous regulations and revenue laws passed by the state in advance of the 2014 launch, new issues have presented themselves in the past nine months and additional government regulations have been devised in response to unforeseen developments. Not surprisingly, one of the biggest challenges associated with legalized recreational marijuana is securing the large amounts of cash coming into retail establishments. Due to the fact that federal laws criminalize marijuana, retailers in Colorado are struggling to find safe outlets for their revenue because banks subject to federal laws are unwilling to accept their money out of fear that they will be charged with violating federal laws including the RICO Act and prohibitions on money laundering and aiding suspicious and illegal activities. This has led to some bizarre developments including retailers laundering their money in Febreeze to remove the smell of marijuana in order to deposit the cash in their bank accounts. In response to these banking challenges, Colorado passed a law in June authorizing the establishment of marijuana banking cooperatives but the viability of this option is limited because the U.S. Federal Reserve is unlikely to sanction these entities. In a recent Forbes article, a leading marijuana retailer in Colorado was asked where the company keeps its money and he responded “We actually have strong banking relationships…[but w]e don’t talk about them. Asking someone about their banking is like asking them what they wear to bed at night. It’s an intensely personal question, even within the industry.” This evasive response reflects the complicated relationship among banks, the federal government and the marijuana industry. It is clear that some banks are allowing marijuana businesses to operate accounts but these relationships are incredibly covert given the risks. Yet, the lack of viable banking options creates practical and logistical problems for business owners as well as government efforts to regulate and tax marijuana sales not to mention the safety concerns associated with a multi-million dollar primarily cash industry that has limited access to financial institutions.

Another major issue and one that may have taken retailers and the government by surprise relates to the regulation and consumption of edible marijuana products. Due to the fact that edibles often take the form of baked goods and candies there have been numerous reports of children (and house pets) consuming the products unaware that these foods are laced with THC resulting in emergency room visits. Adults have struggled with edibles as well because when an individual eats or drinks marijuana products the onset of the drug is often delayed whereas smoking marijuana results in an immediate high. As a result of these differences, many individuals purchasing edibles consume an entire cookie or candy bar without realizing that one item contains multiple doses of THC. The results of edible overdoses may be catastrophic as exemplified by the death of a young man who leapt from the roof of a building in downtown Denver after consuming an entire marijuana cookie that contained approximately 6.5 servings of THC. In a now infamous editorial, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd described her own experience overdosing on a marijuana candy bar on a visit to Denver as follows, “I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.”

In response to the myriad problems resulting from the consumption of edibles, Colorado issued new regulations governing serving sizes and labeling requirements that will take effect in February 2015. In the meantime, distributors are taking steps to address these issues including producing “rookie” versions of edible products and beverages that contain minimal amounts of THC to ensure that individuals consuming an entire cookie, piece of chocolate or beverage will not become totally inebriated. In addition, many marijuana stores distribute guidelines on edible consumption and the industry has launched a public service campaign that spreads the motto “Low and Slow” encouraging individuals to begin with a low dosage (5 milligrams) and not rush to take another dose until they feel the effects of the prior dose.

Other issues include the challenges associated with prosecuting individuals charged with driving while high, public consumption of marijuana, weed tourism, and the movement of marijuana from Colorado to neighboring states where it is prohibited consistent with state and federal laws. In addition, the people of Colorado remain divided about the legal recreational marijuana industry. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor this election cycle have stated that they oppose recreational marijuana but according to a recent poll, fifty-five percent of Coloradans support it. Given that Amendment 64 was a popular initiative and passed directly by the voters, the only way to overturn the law within the state is to return the issue to the voters and ask a majority of them to repeal it. There are two ways to place a repeal question on the ballot in Colorado: 1) citizens’ initiative via petition and 2) a 2/3 vote of the state legislature. Of the two, the first is likely to be a more viable option because Colorado only requires approximately 86,000 valid signatures—a number equal to five percent of the votes cast in the previous election for Secretary of States—to get an initiative on the ballot. Yet, given continued popular support for legalized recreational marijuana it does not appear likely that a majority of voters would favor repealing Amendment 64 at this time. That being said, popular support for legal marijuana is moot if the federal government begins to enforce national prohibitions on marijuana in the state. While the Obama Administration has taken a hands-off approach to the situation in Colorado it remains to be seen if future executives will follow suit or if they will take legal action to force Colorado into compliance with federal law by challenging Amendment 64 in the federal courts. In the meantime, it is likely that the Colorado state government will continue to adapt existing regulations and create new ones in response to unforeseen developments, and the people of Colorado will continue to adjust to our new reality where discussions about the pros and cons of flowers versus edibles versus concentrates are overheard while waiting at the checkout line at the supermarket.

Courtenay W. Daum received her Ph.D. from Georgetown University and is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University. Her research interests include organized interest mobilization and litigation in the courts, feminist legal theory, and gender and politics. Recent publications include: State of Change: Colorado Politics in the Twenty-first Century and “At the Intersection of Social Media and Rape Culture: How Facebook, Texting and Other Personal Communications Challenge the “Real” Rape Myth in the Criminal Justice System” (forthcoming in the Journal of Law, Technology & Policy). At CSU, Professor Daum teaches a variety of classes including American Constitutional Law and U.S. Civil Rights and Liberties.