Puerto Ricans have voted in favor of statehood. Now it’s up to Congress.

Christina Animashaun/Vox

Congress hasn’t taken steps to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st state.

Puerto Ricans have again voted in favor of making their island home a US state and they’re hoping that, this time around, their decision will carry actual weight.

Puerto Rico, which has been a US territory for 122 years and is the world’s oldest colony, has held five previous non-binding referendums on the issue. In 2012 and 2017, the island’s 3 million citizens overwhelmingly backed statehood, but Congress never took further action to admit Puerto Rico into the union.

This year, they were asked: “Should Puerto Rico be immediately admitted into the Union as a state?” A majority of voters answered “yes,” according to the AP, New York Times, and the island election commission, as of Wednesday afternoon. With 95 percent of precincts reporting, the margin stood at 52 percent for, and 48 percent against.

As the Times noted, the turnout figures are complicated. But Puerto Ricans are hoping that sends a clear message to Congress regarding their desire to attain the rights and privileges associated with statehood. Though Puerto Ricans are American citizens and pay into federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, they do not hold seats in Congress and cannot cast votes for president. They do vote for a resident commissioner who can introduce legislation and vote on committees in the House of Representatives, but that’s a far cry from full voting privileges.

Congress isn’t under legal obligation to abide by the outcome of the referendum — congressional lawmakers could have passed legislation that would have conferred the island with statehood depending on the outcome of the referendum, but they didn’t.

Statehood proponents hoped for higher turnout than in past referendums, feeling that would make it difficult for US lawmakers to ignore the issue after years of claiming that Puerto Ricans should decide their own fate. Less than a quarter of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2017 referendum, which was boycotted by opposition parties that support either maintaining the status quo or independence. That raised questions about the legitimacy of the vote and allowed US lawmakers to punt the issue.

Puerto Rico has a lot to gain from becoming a state. In addition to having a say in presidential elections, the new state would have two seats in the Senate and five representatives in the House. It would also likely gain federal funding; it would be a lot harder for the federal government to withhold aid, as President Donald Trump, who previously mulled selling the island, did after Hurricane Maria.

But critics have warned that it would also increase federal taxes. (Puerto Ricans and corporations headquartered on the island currently only pay federal taxes in limited circumstances.)

If Puerto Rico becomes a state, it could shake up the political dynamics in Congress. Most Puerto Ricans who have moved to the US mainland have historically backed Democrats. But it’s not clear that the island would be reliably blue. Experts say it’s more likely that it would be a swing state.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2TRJEfl

Nevada voters seal renewable energy goals in their state constitution

Christina Animashaun/Vox

The state will target 50 percent renewables by 2030.

As was widely expected, Nevada voters approved Question 6 on the ballot, which amends the state constitution to mandate that the Nevada’s electricity providers shift to at least 50 percent renewable energy by 2030, according to the New York Times and the Associated Press.

The initiative is less about voters changing where their electricity comes from than putting an exclamation point on a decision they’ve already made — Nevadans passed the exact same initiative in 2018. It just so happens that, to amend the state constitution, voters must pass an initiative twice, which landed the issue back on the ballot this year.

There’s been a significant push in recent years for Nevada to quickly move toward renewable energy — one that has seen some setbacks. In 2017, the state legislature passed a bill that would have mandated 40 percent renewable energy by 2030, but then-Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) vetoed it. In 2019, the bill was bumped up to 50 percent, passed again, and newly elected Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed it.

The success of Question 6 means there’s now a bill and a constitutional amendment mandating 50 percent renewables.

Given that the target is already law, the most substantial opposition to the initiative came from those leery about inscribing a specific target into the state constitution, not only from those who thought the target was too high, but also from those who thought it was too low — like the Center for Biological Diversity, which opposed the measure.

Nonetheless, most backers will be happy to have a target that can’t be overturned by subsequent administrations, and now, the state’s target appears to be very secure.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/3jSPBDe

Michigan Democratic Sen. Gary Peters staves off a strong challenger to keep his Senate seat

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters holds on to his Senate seat against challenger John James. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Peters’s seat was considered a must-keep for Democrats.

Democratic Sen. Gary Peters will keep his US Senate seat in Michigan after defeating Republican challenger John James in the 2020 election.

Peters was one of two Senate Democrats up for reelection in a state that President Donald Trump won in 2016, and the race wound up being a surprisingly tight one. While Peters led in the polls throughout the race, James was able to close in on him in the final months of the race, and political experts thought there was a real chance he might win.

Peters, 61, was elected to the US Senate in 2014 (he was the only non-incumbent Democrat to do so that year). He is currently the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has said his top priority is job creation and the economy. He worked for 20 years as a financial adviser and has had a long career in Michigan politics, first on the local level and then national, joining the US House of Representatives in 2008.

Despite his long history in Michigan’s political sphere, Peters isn’t a super well-known figure — which wound up being part of the problem for the 2020 Senate race. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop wrote, it’s not that Peters hasn’t done a lot, it’s just that voters haven’t noticed it, or at least, they haven’t noticed him:

He has, however, racked up a record of wonky, low-profile bipartisan accomplishments — he was the lead sponsor of four bills that were signed into law under President Trump. These are a law expanding access to apprenticeship programs for veterans, a law about training programs for small businesses, a law reforming the way the government accounts for cars and laptops, and a law hiring more agricultural inspectors for airports and seaports.

Peters ranks highly as a bipartisan figure, and he touted his ability to work with others in an interview with Vox. “I’m a Democrat, I’m a proud Democrat, but I also know that we have to solve problems and we have to bring folks together to get things done,” he said.

James, 39, gave Peters more of a run for his money than expected. He has a military and business background: After graduating from West Point, he became an aviation officer and served eight years in the Army, including two in Iraq. After that, he went to work at James Group International, a supply chain management company founded by his father. He is now CEO of Renaissance Global Logistics. James challenged Democratic incumbent Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2018 and lost.

James ran a pretty Trumpy race in 2018, telling supporters during that election that he supported the president “2,000 percent.” This time around, he has been a lot less Trumpy and a bit more willing to break from the president. During a video conference with Black community leaders, Politico reported in May, he noted he has differed with Trump on “plenty of issues.”

James said those disagreements include cutting Great Lakes funding, Trump referring to certain nations as “shithole countries,” and the president “speaking ill of the dead,” an apparent reference to the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). “And so yes, there’s gonna be places that I disagree with the president, and those are just a couple,” he said.

Projections ahead of the election estimated the Peters-James race would wind up costing about $100 million, rendering it Michigan’s most expensive Senate race ever. Republicans poured money into the race, recognizing the potential to flip the seat, while Democrats spent on trying to hold on to it.

Heading into the 2020 election, the Michigan Senate seat was all but a must-hold for Democrats looking to turn the US Senate blue. And Peters held on.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/32dOGHC

Donald Trump is trying to steal the 2020 election. America is ignoring him.

President Donald Trump speaks on election night in the East Room of the White House in the early morning hours of November 4, 2020, in Washington, DC. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What’s most noteworthy — and oddly hopeful — about the 2020 election is how people are ignoring Trump’s antics.

President Donald Trump is actively trying to stop votes from being counted in the 2020 presidential election and making false claims that Democrats are stealing a win from him.

It would all be so damn terrifying if we weren’t all, well, used to it.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening: As his opponent Joe Biden edges closer to victory, Trump is launching tweet after tweet after tweet in an attempt to delegitimize the election. He’s filed lawsuits to stop the vote count in Pennsylvania and Michigan without evidence of wrongdoing. And he gave an early Wednesday address in which he prematurely claimed victory even though there were millions of votes to be counted in battleground states.

Seeing a leader aim to subvert the electoral process in an attempt to maintain power is the kind of behavior the US government would condemn if it were happening in any other nation. But it’s not. It’s happening here.

While Trump’s behavior is troubling — and make no mistake, it’s deeply troubling — what’s most noteworthy is how almost everyone is ignoring it.

States are continuing to count votes, as they are legally bound to do, despite the president’s wishes. Trump-friendly networks like Fox News are denouncing Trump’s proclamation of an election win as “extremely inflammatory.” Basically, everyone is carrying on with the election even as Trump openly wars against it.

Perhaps it’s not so surprising. Trump has spent the last five years claiming elections have been rigged against him, that the press is the enemy of the people, and that a “deep state” conspires against him. He has had no problem sending militarized law enforcement around the country to dole out punishment to those ideologically opposed to him.

That Trump would say and act in such a way isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. In that sense, one would think the US would be in crisis, inching toward a democratic finish line it may not reach, all because Trump keeps pushing it back or erasing it altogether.

But it’s not. It’s moving forward with an election that, as of Wednesday evening, looks likely to have former Vice President Joe Biden legitimately replace Trump. The only people Trump has successfully rallied to his cause are those in his very immediate orbit, not the broader public and not even most of his allies.

Directly following Trump’s claim that he won on Wednesday morning, Vice President Mike Pence hedged with a simple, “We are on the road to victory,” and said that the campaign was confident Trump would win reelection after all votes were counted. The usual process, then, not Trump’s heavy-handed method.

The oddly hopeful message of the 2020 election so far may therefore be the abject failure of Trump’s authoritarian machinations to keep the country stuck where it is. If anything, it looks like the country is swiftly moving along despite him.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2TXXOeE

Live results: Ballot initiatives on democracy reform

Cheryl Longtin, chair of the “No on 2” committee, rallies in Westford, Massachusetts, on October 31. | Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Ballot initiatives on ranked-choice voting, neutralizing the Electoral College, and more.

If you have trouble viewing the results on a mobile device, try this direct link.

Alaska and Massachusetts both have major voting reforms on the ballot this year, including whether to use ranked-choice voting in future elections.

In general, ranked-choice voting means that instead of voting for a single favorite candidate, voters will be asked to order the candidates from most to least preferred. The losing candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed among other candidates.

Proponents say ranked-choice voting and other alternate voting measures combat the political polarization caused by the dominant “first past the post” voting system, where people are discouraged from voting for a third-party candidate if they have a strong preference between the major-party candidates.

Opponents, however, have warned it could be a logistical headache, though so far the cities and states that have adopted ranked-choice voting (like Maine) have conducted their elections without major problems.

In Alaska, the question of whether to adopt ranked-choice voting is part of ballot initiative Measure 2, which also asks voters whether to abolish party primaries in favor of an open primary where the top two candidates proceed to the general election.

In Massachusetts, the question is on ballot initiative Question 2, which asks voters whether to introduce ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections for state and federal congressional seats, state executive officials, and county offices.

Should both states adopt the reform, they will become the second and third states to do so. While ranked-choice voting is used in many places around the world, it is not commonplace in the US. But a successful implementation of ranked-choice voting in two more states could change that — encouraging others to begin using a system that has been found to make campaigns more civil, and that may make them more diverse.

Missouri voters have a chance to make changes to their state’s elections as well, with Amendment 3, which would limit campaign contributions to state Senate candidates and prohibit state lawmakers and their staff from accepting gifts from lobbyists. It would also change the makeup of the state’s redistricting commission, moving from a nonpartisan to a bipartisan system.

Redistricting is also at issue in Virginia’s Amendment 1, which would implement a commission to draw legislative districts in that state. Eight seats on the commission would be held by state lawmakers, and the maps would have to be approved by the state legislature, or else they will be drawn by the state Supreme Court — which is currently controlled by Republicans.

And voters in Colorado have the opportunity to advocate for changes to the US election system by joining the National Popular Vote Compact, a multi-state scheme that would effectively neutralize the Electoral College. States joining the compact pledge their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote. This means once enough states join that the compact represents 270 or more electoral votes, the Electoral College will be effectively dead.

Colorado has signed on to the compact, but a referendum called Proposition 113 seeks to withdraw the state.

Alaska Measure 2

A yes vote would abolish party primaries in favor of an open primary where the top two candidates proceed to the general election, and would introduce ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections.

A no vote keeps the current system in place.

Massachusetts Question 2

A yes vote would introduce ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections for state and federal congressional seats, state executive officials, and county offices.

A no vote keeps the current system in place.

Missouri Amendment 3

A yes vote would limit campaign contributions to state Senate candidates and prohibit lawmakers, and their staff, from accepting gifts from lobbyists. It would also change the state’s redistricting commission from a nonpartisan one to a bipartisan one.

A no vote would mean none of these changes would go into effect.

Virginia Question 1

A yes vote would create an eight-seat commission of state lawmakers and task them with drawing the state’s legislative districts; their maps would have to be approved by the state legislature, or else they will be drawn by the state Supreme Court.

A no vote leaves redistricting in the hands of the state legislature.

Colorado Proposition 113

A yes vote would keep Colorado in the National Popular Vote Compact.

A no vote would remove it from the compact.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/32aUAJl

Live results for 2020’s criminal justice ballot initiatives

In California, voters will consider three separate criminal justice ballot initiatives. | Al Seib/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Voters are being asked whether they want to scale back mass incarceration.

If you have trouble viewing the results on a mobile device, try this direct link.

The United States incarcerates more people than any country in the world — even more than authoritarian regimes like China, Cuba, and Russia. Over the past decade and a half, criminal justice reformers, led by leaders of both political parties, have moved to scale back the country’s system of mass incarceration. Voters have a chance to continue that work on Election Day.

In Oklahoma, voters could ban harsh sentencing enhancements that can keep people in prison longer for nonviolent crimes. In California, voters will consider three measures: one to affirm the end of cash bail, another to let people vote while on parole, and a third to roll back recent criminal justice reforms. In Nebraska and Utah, voters could prohibit slavery as a criminal punishment, including forced prison labor. And in Kentucky, voters could approve a controversial crime victims’ rights law.

Not all of these are for reform as many people think of it today. Some of the initiatives, particularly in California and Kentucky, have been criticized by activists seeking to end mass incarceration and the war on drugs.

But depending on how voters decide on these initiatives, they could continue the broader work of the past decade to fix America’s punitive criminal justice system.

Oklahoma Question 805

A yes vote would ban harsh sentencing enhancements for people with a record of nonviolent crimes, which in some cases could add years — up to life — to a prison sentence.

A no vote would leave current sentencing enhancements in place.

California Proposition 17

A yes vote on Proposition 17 would restore the right to vote for people on parole — which could have allowed nearly 120,000 people in the state to vote in this year’s election.

A no vote would mean those on parole would continue to be prohibited from voting.

California Proposition 20

A yes vote on Proposition 20 would roll back recently passed criminal justice reforms, elevating several crimes — particularly types of theft and fraud — so they can be charged as felonies, rather than only misdemeanors. It would also make it harder for certain inmates to qualify for parole, and make it easier to lock people up for a probation violation.

A no vote would keep the recently passed reforms on the books.

California Proposition 25

A yes vote on Proposition 25 would end the use of cash bail and replace it with a risk assessment system.

A no vote would mean cash bail remains in the state.

Nebraska Amendment 1

A yes vote would ban slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments.

A no vote would mean slavery and involuntary servitude could still be used as criminal punishments.

Utah Amendment C

A yes vote would ban slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments.

A no vote would mean slavery and involuntary servitude could still be used as criminal punishments.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1

A yes vote would mean the adoption of Marsy’s Law, a controversial measure that would enshrine specific crime victims’ rights into law.

A no vote would mean Kentucky would not adopt Marsy’s Law.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/32cyMgx

I’m obsessed with The West Wing’s truly wild Electoral College maps

The pioneers of a bold new Electoral College map. | NBC/Getty Images

A Democrat winning South Carolina? A Republican winning Vermont? C’mon!

True fans of Aaron Sorkin’s center-left fantasia The West Wing (a show that has plenty of flaws but that also makes for magnificent comfort food sometimes) know that the series takes place in an alternate timeline where America has presidential elections in the years when our reality has midterm elections and vice versa. For instance, Democratic President Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen) was voted into office in 1998 and then again in 2002, and the series concludes with the election of Democrat Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) to the presidency in 2006.

Some West Wing fans have speculated (mostly in, like, online forums and comment sections) that the reason for this is that in the world of the show, Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974 triggered a special presidential election that year (instead of leading to Gerald Ford ascending to the presidency, as happened in our reality). But the fact remains: The West Wing’s reality is not our own.

Perhaps that explains the show’s truly out-there Electoral College maps.

We see two presidential elections during the series’ run — Bartlet’s reelection in 2002 and Santos’s election in 2006 — and the electoral maps it cooks up for them are, well, they’re weird.

Here’s the one for the 2002 reelection of President Bartlet, courtesy of the West Wing fan wiki:

westwing.fandom.com

How did Bartlet win the Dakotas??

Now, in the 2002 election of the West Wing universe, President Bartlet won with an 11-point edge in the popular vote, which translated to 419 out of 538 electoral votes, with the other 119 taken by his Republican challenger Robert Ritchie. (Ritchie, alas, never realized he was running against the protagonist of a TV show, which would have been helpful information for his campaign to have.) I don’t really know why Bartlet would be that popular but for the fact of Sorkin stacking the deck in his favor, but let’s go with it.

At first blush, the map above is pretty darn odd. Bartlet wins a bunch of traditional Democratic strongholds on the West Coast and in the Northeast. But he also wins the Dakotas and Nebraska? And every swing state except notoriously swingy Florida (which the show said Bartlet won in 1998)? And the strip of states that borders the Mississippi River, from Minnesota down to Louisiana? Yeah, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton won that Mississippi River strip in 1992 and 1996, but he was from Arkansas. Bartlet (from New Hampshire) boasts no such geographical advantage.

Once you understand that Bartlet won the popular vote by 11 points, however, all sorts of goofy things become plausible. When a presidential candidate wins by a double-digit margin in the popular vote, states you wouldn’t expect them to win flip to that candidate’s column (though double-digit popular vote winners also typically sweep all the swing states, so Florida still doesn’t make sense). In our world, for instance, Clinton won reelection in 1996 with an 8.5 percent edge in the popular vote, and he won a number of states people might not have predicted him to win, including Arizona, which had been a Republican stronghold to that point (and which flipped back to George W. Bush in 2000).

Regardless: I don’t know that I would predict the Dakotas and Nebraska to fall into the blue-state column, even in a Democratic-friendly year, but maybe Bartlet had an amazing agricultural policy I’m forgetting about.

Anyway, the even more bizarre West Wing electoral map is the one from the show’s version of 2006:

westwing.fandom.com

What is happening here?

The obviously wild thing here is Democratic Santos winning Texas and Republican Arnold Vinick winning California, but Santos is from Texas and Vinick is from California, and the “home state effect” apparently remains potent in the West Wing universe. (It isn’t really as potent in our universe — Al Gore lost Tennessee in 2000, and Donald Trump didn’t take New York in 2016.)

But even if you account for the series attempting to reverse-engineer an impossibly close election — Vinick wins the popular vote 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent while Santos wins 272 electoral votes to Vinick’s 266 — one that eventually results in both parties deciding to work together for the good of the country (because we’re all Americans!), this map is really strange.

It shows Vinick winning both Ohio and Florida, the two most crucial swing states of the 21st century, then losing South Carolina, when North Carolina is the much swingier state. Conversely, Santos wins South Carolina (somehow) but loses Vermont? There is no way a Democratic candidate loses Vermont to someone running to his right. Similarly, Arizona was still a Republican stronghold in our universe in 2006; I suppose you could argue that Santos, the first major Latino candidate for the presidency, created high turnout among Latino Americans across the Southwest (though somehow not in California). But still!

Anyway, if Donald Trump wins Vermont and Joe Biden wins South Carolina in 2020, I will retract this post with a full apology to the staff of The West Wing. Until then, I continue to believe these electoral maps are a mess, concocted not to reflect reality but, rather, to create drama and high stakes on a TV show. The gall.

from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2TRp3I8