voting – James Gillen

Vote? Already?

There’s a lot I could say about the Republican Senate’s confirmation hearings for Amy Comey Barrett as Supreme Court Justice, but to me it all just seems like an exercise in disingenuousness on both sides: If abortion was that popular, Democrats wouldn’t need to be ambiguous and call it “the right to choose” as though terminating a pregnancy was like deciding between Swiss or Provolone for your sandwich, and if Roe v. Wade was that UN-popular, Republicans wouldn’t need to pretend that they, or their nominee, were going to be completely neutral on a matter where both they and the nominee have made their position very clear. Nor would they need to ask why everyone is asking Barrett to recuse herself on SCOTUS’ upcoming ACA case, or on a Trump challenge to election results, when they are literally risking giving each other coronavirus knowing that they already have a 5-3 conservative majority on the Court without Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but are afraid that Chief Justice John Roberts would place the health of the nation over an “originalist” opinion that interprets the Founders’ intent for the Constitution to mean “Donald Trump can do anything he wants, not because he’s president, but because he’s Donald Trump.”

But since by design, Republicans don’t want anyone else to have control over the process, we have to focus on what we can control. In Nevada, the state government decided that for safety’s sake, every registered voter would get a mail-in ballot, although there is an option to take it to an official polling place, or to the early voting sites when that option becomes available on October 17^th. And as I did the last couple of times, I wanted to go over my decisions for the current election.

President of the United States: Joseph Biden, Democrat.

Why? Because FUCK TRUMP.

What it ought to come down to is looking at the world around you. You don’t like your loss of freedom? You don’t like the fact that your favorite restaurant had to close? That the stores that are still open reduced their hours and their floor space? That everywhere you go you have to wear a mask or people think there’s something wrong with you? Or in the case of Nevada, it’s the law? Blame Trump.

Yes, the virus DID come from China. Yes, the Communist government covered up how bad it was. But Trump helped. And he continued to cover up when everyone else in the world knew it was a pandemic, and even after the extent of the problem became clear, Trump continued to use his “bully pulpit” to belittle low-cost, common-sense measures like social distancing and wearing masks. He continues to do so even after being diagnosed with the virus himself, and part of the reason he can is that the White House won’t be straight with us about what his condition is.

Coronavirus is a little like racism: Trump didn’t invent it. So he can’t be blamed for creating it. He did, however, decide it was to his political advantage to encourage its spread as much as possible. And when it spreads too long unchecked, people get killed.

Even if you liked the Trump economy up to that point, or Trump’s picks for the courts, you have to realize that we are never getting that economy back under Trump, because he didn’t create it, he inherited it. As with his family fortune, he inherited a profit from someone else (in this case, President Obama), took credit for someone else’s work, and then proceeded to completely waste it. If you’re voting Trump and Republican, you’re not voting for the previous three years. You’re voting for four more years of the last eight months.

I was registered Libertarian, and after this election, I probably will be again. I’m not voting Libertarian this time, even though the margin in my state is probably safer than it was when I voted for Gary Johnson, assuming (correctly) that it wouldn’t cost Hillary Clinton my state. And what that comes down to is that the meta-politics have changed. Trump has greater power to interfere with the election results, and the best way to undermine the political support for him doing so is to create such a huge margin against the Party of Trump in every state, including those where Republicans were safe (such as Iowa), that such efforts cannot get off the ground.

As I’ve said before, I don’t have a lot of faith that Joe Biden has a serious plan for coronavirus control or reviving the economy that Trump decimated and that Republicans refuse to relieve. But the first day that Biden is president will be the first day that Trump is not president, and that in itself will do wonders for our recovery.

US Representative: There are several choices on the ballot in Nevada, including a Libertarian in my district, but again I have to endorse the Democrat, who in this case is Dina Titus, someone who’s been a fairly effective representative for the voters.

Why? Because FUCK TRUMP. And that means fuck EVERYONE in his party of enablers, who have revealed over the past four years that he simply represents a mentality that they always held but couldn’t admit to until swayed by his cult of personality.

That goes back to the point above about how we have to think nationally, and not just in terms of the presidential election and local election. Trump can’t do what he does without at least one of the two houses of Congress (especially the Senate) and vice versa. Mitch McConnell may have a safe seat (though he’s not doing himself any favors) but if you take the majority away from him, that’s both houses of Congress acting against a re-elected Trump, and if it gets to that point it’s that much less likely that Trump will be re-elected. It’s extremely unlikely that they will be able to foist the Republican Party maneuvers to install Trump against the popular vote and even the Electoral College if the result can be delayed to the point that it goes to the House of Representatives. Because while under the Constitution, the delegations would be per state and the Republicans currently have a majority of those, that could change under this election. And in the case of a contingent election, the Vice President is elected by the Senate, which again would be changed by this election.

I mean, everyone in the Republican Party is a professional Christian, so most of them ought to know the Book of Exodus, right? About how the Hebrews were liberated from bondage in Egypt, but fell to worshiping a golden calf, and then rejected the land that God had promised them, and so they were made to wander the desert for forty years? Well, then, they can’t be too surprised if they end up in the wilderness for at least two. These guys need to be punished for inflicting the current situation on the country. Pure and simple. We need to get them to the point that they’re going to wish for the good old days of FDR.

And if they wanna whine about Democrats turning this country socialist, we can all say, “Hey! Remember the last time you said you were gonna save this country from socialism, and you sold us a dumbfuck Putin bitch who let the virus spread here from China and it crashed the consumer economy and killed a quarter-million people cause he thought wearing a mask would shrink his weewee? Good times!”

US Senate: This go-round of rotating Senate elections, Nevada doesn’t even have a Senate race this cycle, but still. Fuck Trump. Why? BECAUSE FUCK TRUMP, that’s why.

Now that that’s out of the way – the other choices on the Nevada ballot are basically non-partisan positions that usually don’t have opposition candidates, and I don’t know enough about the local candidates in any event. So I’m moving on to the ballot questions.

Nevada State Question 1: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove provisions governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the State University and require the Legislature to provide by law for the State University’s governance, control, and management and the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at Nevada’s public higher education institutions; and (2) revise the administration of certain federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University?

In other words, should the Nevada state university system continue to be administered by the Board of Regents or by the state legislature directly? I’m not a huge fan of the Board of Regents. I’m even less a fan of the state legislature. The wording indicates that if the Board of Regents is removed, the legislature would need to create provisions for governance and control, which would probably be the same thing under a different name, only with new bureaucratic shuffling. Plus, the second part indicates that we would need to revise the administration of land grant proceeds for the university, but it is not clear as to whether this is made necessary by the abolition of the Board, nor why, nor what would need to be done. In the absence of more precise explanation, I vote NO on Question 1.

Nevada State Question 2: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove an existing provision recognizing marriage as only between a male person and a female person and require the State of Nevada and its political subdivisions to recognize marriages of and issue marriage licenses to couples, regardless of gender; (2) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law; and (3) establish a right for religious organizations and clergy members to refuse to perform a marriage and provide that no person is entitled to make any claim against them for exercising that right?

This is one of those cases (as with the Civil Rights Act nearly a century after the Reconstruction amendments) where you would think rights are self-evident enough to where they don’t need further legislation, but then it turns out they’re not.

For one thing, the Question refers to the point that there is still a provision in the State Constitution that only a marriage between a male person and a female person may be recognized and given effect in Nevada. The ballot page explains that because of a US Supreme Court decision in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges) this provision is currently unenforceable.

Well, that’s something the Party of Trump is trying to correct this week. It just gets to a huge part of what’s wrong with our current legal system. While we are seen as having a technically liberal country in that our constitution is written with specific provisions as opposed to say the United Kingdom, which political scientists call an example of an ‘unwritten constitution’ with everything being based on a body of precedents, in practice much of our Constitution (Rules As Written) has little to do with the game as actually played, and in the game as actually played, the people in government generally assume that they, in government, get to do whatever they want unless specifically prohibited and the citizen can only act where specifically allowed (against the spirit and the letter of Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

Accordingly, we need to remove loopholes from our law that statists can use to infringe civil rights when they get power. I also agree with the third provision that clergy should not be forced to perform a gay marriage against their religion, because there are plenty of places where you can get a secular marriage under a Justice of the Peace. Besides which, I’m not totally sure why a couple would want the blessing of a person who disapproves of their marriage in the first place.

I vote YES on Question 2.

Nevada Question 3: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) require the State Board of Pardons Commissioners—whose members are the Governor, the justices of the Nevada Supreme Court, and the Nevada Attorney General—to meet at least quarterly; (2) authorize each member of the Board to submit matters for consideration by the Board; and (3) authorize the Board to grant pardons and make other clemency decisions by a majority vote of its members without requiring the Governor to be part of the majority of the Board that votes in favor of such decisions?

This Question standardizes the parole and pardons procedure. A “No” vote would maintain the current standard where there is no set schedule for the State Board and the Board is not authorized to vote on clemency decisions unless the Governor is part of the vote.

I ultimately decided to vote NO on Question 3, not because I do not see the rationale behind it, but because the Board under the Constitution already consists of the state Supreme Court plus the Attorney General and the Governor, and it is unlikely that the Governor will be able to veto any decision where the Board already has a consensus. Plus which, the authors do say there would be necessary expenses to the state (including the creation of an additional administrative position) and since we already have at least one meeting of the State Board of Pardons Commissioners per year, this ought to be sufficient for parole demands, and more meetings can be called if the government is petitioned.

Nevada Question 4: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended by adding a new section guaranteeing specific voting rights to all qualified and registered voters in the State?

Simply put: YES. This is another case where we can’t just assume that we have rights, we have to make sure they are in the system. In particular, Americans assert there is such a thing as a “right” to vote, yet state governments and the US Supreme Court are ultimately asserting the position that voting is a privilege that they can restrict or grant in such a selective way that the political class pick their voters instead of the other way around.

According to the ballot explanation: https://cms8.revize.com/revize/clarknv/Election%20Department/2020/NV4-20G.pdf?t=1602112454755&t=1602112454755

“This ballot measure would amend the Nevada Constitution by providing an enumerated list of voting rights guaranteed to all qualified and registered voters in the State similar to the enumerated list of voting rights currently protected by existing statutes. Specifically, each voter would be guaranteed the constitutional right to:

•Receive and cast a ballot that is written in a format which allows the clear identification of candidates and accurately records the voter’s selection of candidates;

•Have questions concerning voting procedures answered and have an explanation of the procedures for voting posted conspicuously at the polling place;

•Vote without being intimidated, threatened, or coerced;

•Vote during any period of early voting or on Election Day if the voter has not yet voted and, at the time that the polls close, the voter is waiting in line to vote at a polling place at which, by law, thevoter is entitled to vote;

•Return a spoiled ballot and receive a replacement ballot;

•Request assistance in voting, if needed;

•Receive a sample ballot that is accurate, informative, and delivered in a timely manner as provided by law;

•Receive instruction on the use of voting equipment during any period of early voting or on Election Day;

•Have equal access to the elections system without discrimination;

•Have a uniform, statewide standard for counting and recounting all votes accurately as provided by law; and

•Have complaints about elections and election contests resolved fairly, accurately, and efficiently as provided by law. “

I don’t have a problem with any of this. The wording specifically addresses the concerns a lot of voters’ groups have (especially ‘vote without being intimidated, threatened or coerced’) and the long-standing issues that exist with the voting process, in particular not having a uniform standard for how to vote, whether we can vote on Election Day without being effectively suppressed because the state government didn’t create enough polling places for everyone to get in before deadline, and whether there are standardized, straightforward systems for recount and resolution of votes.

I’ve mentioned at several other points that Nevada actually seems to assert much of this principle anyway, as demonstrated by the fact that we’ve already had early voting, and the state mandated a mail-in ballot for pandemic purposes without having to be dragged into it (as opposed to some places like Texas where they’re doing everything they can to restrict the vote) but it’s good to have a standard that is legal and clarified. Of course the fact that Nevada already is better in most states in that respect just illustrates the problem that the greater the need for certain legislation, the less likely it is to happen, precisely because of the forces that made things dysfunctional in the first place.

“Please Note: There is no State Question Number 5 on the ballot. The next question is State Question Number 6.” Why didn’t they just take Question 6 and make that 5? Welcome to Nevada.

Nevada Question 6: Shall Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require, beginning in calendar year 2022, that all providers of electric utility services who sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada generate or acquire incrementally larger percentages of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year 2030 not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources?

This was the Question 6 from the previous election ballot of 2018, and as required, needs to be approved twice by voters in order to take effect. Last time I decided to vote NO, mainly because voters (or rather, NV Energy) had already defeated a ballot question requiring the state to create an open and competitive energy market, so any requirement from Question 6 would be administered by the NV Energy monopoly anyway. Nothing I’ve seen has changed that decision. Still, the ballot question arguments against passage almost turned me off enough to vote Yes, with cites from Fox News and Washington Times and quotes like “Home means Nevada! Let Nevadans decide, not some San Francisco billionaire.” Who writes this shit?

Vote, Already Continued

As I said last time, I want to go over the ballot questions for Nevada on the 2018 ballot. This is probably of limited utility elsewhere, but these ballot questions are worth reviewing as general examples of how the ballot is used to post policy to voters. This is especially important because as I noticed in 2016, the ballot questions are phrased very generically as to what is being proposed, and even though the sample ballot sent in the mail gives a lot of Pro and Con arguments for each ballot question, these also are fairly generic when they are not slanted towards one opinion or the other. Thus in my efforts to examine each question for myself before voting, I usually relied more on other sources, especially ballotpedia.org.

Nevada Question 1 (aka ‘Marsy’s Law’)

“Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove existng provisions that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victms; and (2) adopt in their place certain expressly stated constitutional rights that crime victms may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process?”

While it isn’t referred to as “Marsy’s Law” on the ballot, Question 1 is based on legislation called “Marsy’s Law” in California and taken up as ballot initiatives in other states besides Nevada. It refers to Marsy Nicholas, whose ex-boyfriend killed her after he was released from prison after assaulting her and her family had not been made aware of his release on bail.

The fact that the text of the question was adopted from another state’s bill is one reason that the “No” lobby on Question 1 gives for opposing the legislation. I myself was leery of the phrasing that the amendment will “remove existing provisions” that already provide for statutory rights for victims. However, on Ballotpedia, the actual text of the measure is reviewed including the parts where it actually amends the Nevada Constitution. It would add a Section 23 to the Nevada Constitution, specifically asserting: “Each person who is the victim of a crime has the following rights”. These include “(to) be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant”, “(to) have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered as a factor in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant” and “(to) prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family.” It goes on in this manner, but the text is intended to replace Section 8, Article 1 of the state Constitution, which states that victims of crime are to be informed of the status of a criminal deposition “only upon written request”. Thus, the burden is not on the victim (or plaintiff) to prove need in these cases, and there is an acknowledgement that defendants can attempt to intimidate victims in criminal cases.

Thus I ended up voting YES on Question 1, albeit with some reservation. Still, this is another example of where you really need to research the fine print in order to make an informed choice.

Nevada Question 2

“Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption of feminine hygiene products?”

A libertarian would still question whether we really need taxes at all. I would like to try funding government by Kickstarter. Or, as the hippies once suggested, a bake sale. But as long as we do need taxes to fund government, the burden should not fall primarily on consumers and end-users who have the least disposable income. But that’s what Nevada does with sales taxes. Question 2 is meant to modify Nevada’s Sales and Use Tax Act to add onto the existing list of tax exemptions “feminine hygiene product” which is interpreted to include tampons and sanitary napkins.

I voted YES to add this tax exemption. Incidentally, the Bernie Sanders-founded Our Revolution announced itself in favor of the initiative. Which proves that libertarians and “progressives” can agree on one thing: It is not progressive to nickel and dime the average person to fuel government, and if government is going to go bankrupt unless we charge women extra for tampons, there really needs to be better budgeting.

Nevada Question 3

“Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the establishment of an open, competitive retail electric energy market that prohibits the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity?”

This is a ballot initiative that was first proposed in 2016 and by procedure needs to be approved by vote a second time after passing. I mentioned in 2016 why I voted YES, and my reasons haven’t changed. For one thing, if the consumer protection agency (Public Utilities Commission) charged with monitoring the state monopoly energy company (NV Energy) acts more in favor of that company than the consumer, and generally discourages efforts to create cleaner energy sources outside the provisions of NV Energy, then it’s not acting in any “public interest.”

This year, there has been a LOT more advertising, especially on TV, for the “No” vote, largely on the point that the text of Question 3. According to Ballotpedia, the “Yes on 3” political action committee had raised $33.26 million. The “No on 3” committee has raised $66.13 million. “The top contributor to the committee was NV Energy, which provided 99.99 of the committee’s total funds.”

It’s a good thing NV Energy was able to finance their position almost single-handedly. It makes it seem like no one else was supporting it.

Nevada Question 4

“Shall Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for use by a licensed health care provider from any tax upon the sale, storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property?”

This is another ballot initiative that had been approved in 2016 and needs to go for another pass. As in 2016, I voted YES. Similar to Question 2, I do not see why taxes in this state or any other have to fall on those who are least able to pay. Such objections as there are to this ballot question hinge on the point that the text requires a constitutional amendment that is not spelled out (unlike Question 1). One will note that similar objections were raised against Question 3 (the initiative to remove the energy monopoly) but there were no serious campaigns against Question 4 in 2016, nor are there any PACs set up to oppose it now. The fact that the same constitutional objection applies to both Question 3 and Question 4, but one is encountering much more, and much wealthier, opposition, should tell you something about Nevada establishment priorities.

Nevada Question 5

“Shall Chapter 293 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to establish a system that will automatically register an eligible person to vote, or update that person’s existing Nevada voter registration information, at the time the person applies to the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance or renewal of any type of driver’s license or identification card, or makes a request to change the address on such a license or identification card, unless the person affirmatively declines in writing?”

From my knowledge, once you are registered to vote in Nevada, the state actually makes it pretty easy to go to the polls – for one thing, they mail you a voter guide which you can take to your polls to check against registration. Thus, if you’ve already been registered, they set up the system to work with you, not against you, as opposed to some places I could mention. Measures such as Nevada Question 5 are supported mainly by the Democratic Party after they lost enough elections to realize that they couldn’t take voters for granted. Republicans generally oppose such measures in favor of a default “opt-in” system in which the citizen has to take the initiative to confirm a right to vote by registering. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. Moderate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval had vetoed the initiative when it was first proposed, saying “IP1 advances a worthy goal by encouraging more eligible Nevadans to register to vote. However, such a result must partner with sound policy. IP1 fails this test because it extinguishes a fundamental, individual choice—the right of eligible voters to decide for themselves whether they desire to apply to register to vote—forfeiting this basic decision to state government. … the core freedom of deciding whether one wishes to initiate voter registration belongs to the individual, not the government. ”

Philosophically, I’m inclined to agree. Still, if we assert that a thing is a right rather than a privilege, we shouldn’t have to “opt in” to it, because that creates the opportunity for government to put barriers in the path of the ostensible right. This is why the Miranda rule says “You have the right to remain silent.” You do not need to opt in to it, and it is the government’s responsibility to confirm that this right is protected unless one decides to “opt out” by speaking to law enforcement after being informed of one’s rights in the matter. All the more odd that this is the “conservative” position being that the philosophical Right has always asserted the premise of “negative rights” that are inherent and cannot be restricted without cause.

There is also the strictly pragmatic matter that I referred to last time, namely that you’re not going to have any checks on abusive government unless Republicans are flushed out of power, and if you can’t even elect Democrats they sure as hell aren’t going to let in Libertarians or anyone else. So I ended up voting YES on 5. Still, it’s worth noting that the more likely a given state is to need such legislation, the less likely it is to pass it.

Nevada Question 6

“Shall Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require, beginning in calendar year 2022, that all providers of electric utility services who sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada generate or acquire incrementally larger percentages of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year 2030 not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources?”

This measure mandates that energy companies derive an increasing percentage of their energy production from renewable resources. It is technically not related to Question 3 and could apply to “all providers of electric utility services” whether they are provided by a monopoly or multiple companies.

Again though, it’s telling that Question 6 hasn’t attracted nearly as much negative attention or campaigning as Question 3. I ended up voting NO on Question 6, though I could just as easily have gone the other way. I agree with “fiscal conservatives” who think that mandates are difficult to implement and sometimes counterproductive. However, we have seen that most “fiscal conservatives” don’t care much about budgets when they’re in the majority. With regard to the ecology and climate change, other parts of the world may be worried about a world where the temperature is 100 degrees at midnight. In Nevada, we’re already there. And again, I think that the history of NV Energy has demonstrated that we’re not going to get that far on an ecology “mandate” if there’s only one company in charge of energy. That is, if you want the state to “invest” more in renewable energy, that will be more likely if you vote Yes on 3 to provide market competition, as opposed to voting Yes on 6 and No on 3, in which case progress is determined by the monopoly whose “juice” is more political than electrical.