The Fix’s top 15 gubernatorial races of 2014 15NOV13

YES, we did just hold our off year elections, so many may not even want to think about the 2014 races. But for those of us who love politics this is interesting. And as a Pennsylvania native I am really glad to see PA as number one in the likely to change party for governor listing. The Commonwealth is a political mess, and gov tom corbett doesn't have the morals or the political and business knowledge to lead the state. Still, I think it will be a long, and unfortunately nasty race for governor. From the Washington Post / The Fix...

• By Sean Sullivan and Aaron Blake

• November 15 at 11:53 am

Fresh off a landslide reelection victory last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is set to take the reins of the Republican Governors Association. This much we know: Christie will inherit a landscape in which he will have his work cut out for him.

(Mel Evans/AP)

Democrats and Republicans split the 2013 gubernatorial races, with Democrat Terry McAuliffe winning in Virginia, and Christie dancing to victory in New Jersey. Now it’s on to 2014, where Republicans are playing a lot of defense.
The GOP is defending 22 seats, compared to just 14 for Democrats. More than half the seats on our list below are controlled by the GOP, including six of the top eight races most likely to flip party control and three of the top four.
Now, to our rundown of the 15 seats most likely to change party control. As always, No. 1 is most likely to flip. Since Virginia is history, several contests move up the list, making room for a new addition: Kansas, which  debuts this cycle at No. 15.
To the Line!
15. Kansas (Republican-controlled): This dark red state’s debut on our list will surprise many – especially given the state hasn’t elected a Democratic senator since the 1930s. (Democratic governors are more common.) But it’s hard to ignore polls that show Gov. Sam Brownback’s (R) approval rating well shy of 50 percent, and Democrats feel good about their recruit, state Rep. Paul Davis. This one’s worth keeping an eye on, at the very least. (Previous ranking: N/A)
14. Minnesota (Democratic-controlled): Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson solidified his status as the front-runner for the state Republican Party’s endorsement last month at the state party convention. Johnson took 35 percent of the vote in a straw poll, besting state Sen. Dave Thompson at 27 percent. Nobody else was in double digits. Gov. Mark Dayton’s (D) approval rating continues to hover around 50 percent. (Previous ranking: 15)

13. Massachusetts (D): Republicans are seeking to draw attention to questions about Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley’s campaign finance practices dating back to her 2010 Senate bid. Coakley looks like the candidate to beat, which explains the attention she is getting from the GOP. (Previous ranking: 14)
12. Arizona (R): Gov. Jan Brewer (R) STILL hasn’t made clear whether she will challenge the state’s term-limits law, but her lengthy decision-making process has already led other Republicans to get into the race. Most formidable among them: Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who got in last month. The leading Democratic candidate is former Clinton administration official Fred DuVal, but this is a tough one for Democrats. (Previous ranking: 13)
11. Connecticut (D): Republican front-runner Tom Foley took a page out of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) book this week when he started running an ad urging disillusioned New Yorkers to come to Connecticut, where he promises a new direction when he’s governor. Before Foley gets a rematch with less-than-popular Gov. Dan Malloy (D), though, he’s got to beat state Senate President John McKinney and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton in a primary. (Previous ranking: 11)
10. Wisconsin (R): A recent Marquette Law School poll showed Gov. Scott Walker (R) running neck-and-neck against Democrat Mary Burke. Burke is largely undefined, the poll showed. What happens once Republicans start to seriously take on that task will determine whether this can become one of the cycle’s most competitive contests, or whether it will remain a second tier race. For now, though, Democrats like what they see. (Previous ranking: 12)
9. Colorado (D): You would be hard-pressed to find a non-scandal plagued pol who’s had a worse year than Gov. John Hickenlooper (D). The gun-control bill he signed cost two Democratic state senators their jobs, the tax increase he championed was rejected, and his polling numbers have declined. If the Republican field was more impressive, Colorado would be higher up on this list. (Previous ranking: 10)
8. Ohio (R): Gov. John Kasich (R) got some bipartisan love from President Obama on Thursday when Obama, speaking in Cleveland, praised Kasich for accepting the Medicaid expansion contained in Obamacare – something some other GOP governors have declined. Kasich’s likely Democratic opponent, Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald got a shout-out, too, of course. Kasich continues to have pretty good approval ratings and is favored in this swing state. (Previous ranking: 9)
7. South Carolina (R): A poll conducted for the Democratic Governors Association showed Gov. Nikki Haley (R) ahead by four points, while a poll a week later from GOP automated pollster Harper Polling showed her up nine. Democrats are certainly underdogs here, but most polls show Haley’s approval rating in dangerous territory – the low 40s. The likely Democratic nominee in South Carolina is state Sen. Vincent Sheheen. (Previous ranking: 8)
6. Michigan (R): Here’s a race in which the battles lines are drawn. Democrats will seek to paint Gov. Rick Snyder (R) as a far-right Republican whose agenda is out of step with the state. Snyder, as evidenced by his first ad, is looking to reprise the “one tough nerd,” technocratic message that got him elected in the first place. Democrats like former congressman Mark Schauer, but a key question is whether Schauer has the fundraising chops to keep up with Snyder in the long run. (Previous ranking: 7)
5. Illinois (D): Thanks to Republican Bruce Rauner pouring in $500,000 more into his campaign coffers, his opponents will be able to raise funds in unlimited sums, due to a state campaign finance law. The Republican race remains up in the air, while Gov. Pat Quinn (D), lousy as his polling numbers are, is set to coast to the Democratic nomination. Quinn is proving to be the political survivor of the cycle so far, but it’s an open question whether his outlook will change come the general election. (Previous ranking: 6)
4. Arkansas (D): Former GOP congressman Asa Hutchinson’s fundraising woes continued in the third quarter. He pulled in under $400,000 while former congressman Mike Ross (D) raised more than $1 million. The political lean of Arkansas makes it fertile territory for a GOP pickup, but Democrats are staying competitive thanks to Ross, who might be the party’s most valuable gubernatorial recruit of the cycle. (Previous ranking: 4)
3. Florida (R): Former governor Charlie Crist finally got into the race as a Democrat, setting up a presumptive matchup with Gov. Rick Scott (R). Scott’s numbers have long been subpar, but the question is how well Crist can run as a Democrat. Multiple polls now have shown Crist leading Scott by double digits, but we imagine this will be quite an interesting race. Of the three most vulnerable governors next year (all Republicans), Scott clearly has the best chance of survival. (Previous ranking: 3)
2. Maine (R): There is no governor like Paul LePage (R). It seems every month, he says something controversial that would make huge news if he came from a bigger state. And if LePage were in a two-candidate matchup, he’d likely be done for. But he’s got a three-candidate field, and a new poll shows him in a statistical tie with Rep. Mike Michaud (D), trailing 38-36. Michaud, as it happens, recently announced that he is gay. He would become the first openly gay person elected governor. (Previous ranking: 2)
1. Pennsylvania (R): Gov. Tom Corbett (R) officially launched his reelection bid last week. He begins his campaign as the most vulnerable governor in the country. Saddled with lousy polling numbers, Corbett’s challenge isn’t just about convincing Democrats and moderates to change their minds about him. Republicans, too, have demonstrated skepticism about the governor. In the contested Democratic primary, U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz is the early front-runner. (Previous ranking: 1)

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/15/the-fixs-top-15-gubernatorial-races-of-2014/

This Study Said the South Is More Racist Than the North & The Formula & Maps Behind the Voting Rights Act 25&22JUN13

repiglicans and tea-baggers, with their racist supporters, will twist this into a liberal assault on white people. They will use it to promote fear and ignorance, to divide the people of our nation, making us more vulnerable to political and economic manipulation by the 1% who control Congress for their own gain. They are already using these tactics to prevent any congressional action on amending the 1965 Voting Rights Act, to block real immigration reform and in ongoing budget negotiations. The fanatical right wing and their racist allies fear the one thing Rev Martin Luther King alluded to in his I Have A Dream speech at the 1963 March On Washington (Monday, 28JUL13 was the 50th anniversary), that THE PEOPLE, UNITED, WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED! We are still marching, more and more of us, to make his dream a reality. From Mother Jones, and check out the NY Times article & voting rights act map. You may also want to see one of my earlier post on this Bob Cesca - Supreme Court Helps the GOP Revive the Era of Jim Crow 27JUN13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/bob-cesca-supreme-court-helps-gop.html
As a side note, I have lived in Virginia since April 1986 and have seen the racism that is still alive here, though I also see more and more people rejecting racism. Though I live in Virginia, home is still Scandia, PA. I am still a Yankee, and I am very ashamed Pennsylvania is listed as one of the most prejudiced states in the nation....

But that didn't seem to matter on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

—By Nick Baumann

| Published Tue Jun. 25, 2013 3:00 AM PDT | Updated Tue Jun. 25, 2013 8:00 AM PDT

Participants, some carrying American flags, marching in the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. BuyEnlarge/Zuma

"Is it the government's submission that the citizens of the South are more racist than the citizens of the North?" John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, asked that in February during oral arguments over the fate of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 civil rights law. Donald Verrilli, the government's chief lawyer, said no. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration was not willing to assert that citizens in Southern states were statistically more likely to hold racist beliefs. Without making such a claim, though, it was harder for the government to defend the VRA's requirement that some states—but not others—seek federal approval (which lawyers call preclearance) before changing their voting laws.

More MoJo coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act

• Supreme Court Hands the GOP a Gift for 2014
• Supreme Court: The Voting Rights Act Worked—So Now It's Unconstitutional
• Chief Justice Roberts' Long War Against the Voting Rights Act
• This Study Said the South Is More Racist Than the North
• Supreme Court Poised to Declare Racism Over
• The Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Voting Rights Act Decision

The eight states that are required to seek pre-clearance are determined by a formula intended to pick out areas with a history of discrimination. (Places that go for 10 years without discriminating can escape the requirement.) On Tuesday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down that formula as unconstitutional. Here's the idea that led to that decision: If all states are equally racist (or not racist), why not treat them equally?
Certainly plenty of people outside of the South are racist, and plenty of people in the South are not. But here's the trouble: There's social-science evidence that, 150 years after the Civil War, Southern states do have bigger racism problems than states outside the South. And many of them are the same states that the VRA requires to seek federal approval before changing their voting laws.
The key study on this subject is new. In May, Christopher Elmendorf and Douglas Spencer—law professors at the University of California-Davis and the University of Connecticut, respectively—released a paper arguing that the list of states required to obtain federal approval under the VRA "remarkably" mirrors "the geography of anti-black prejudice" in the United States. "What we have generated," Elmendorf says, "is an answer to the question that the chief justice asked during oral arguments and [Verrilli] was either unable or unwilling to answer." The answer, they argue, is yes.

.

Elmendorf and Spencer used data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey, which asked nonblacks to rank their own racial group and blacks regarding intelligence, trustworthiness, and work ethic. Respondents ranked their racial group above blacks by an average of 15 points in each of these categories, perhaps proving the Avenue Q claim that "everyone's a little bit racist." Elmendorf and Spencer, however, only counted a person as "prejudiced" if he thought his racial group was more superior to blacks than the average person—and only if he thought so in two or more of the three categories. That is, a respondent could think his race was a lot better than blacks and still not count as racist under their methodology.
The results were striking: The researchers' mathematical model suggests that of the seven states in the country with the highest percentage of people who are biased against black people, six are Southern states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—required to seek federal approval for election law changes under the VRA. Arizona and Alaska, the other two states required to get the feds' permission before changing their election laws, ranked much lower in anti-black bias. But as Elmendorf and Spencer note, these states are presumably required to seek that permission because of other bias—anti-Latino in Arizona and anti-Native American in Alaska—which their study did not measure. (Besides the eight states mentioned above, the VRA requires some counties and municipalities in seven other states to seek federal permission to change election rules.)
The researchers crunched the data several different ways to make sure they were getting valid results. But "whichever approach you pick, the Deep South states are close to the top," Elmendorf says.
Elmendorf and Spencer's study came too late: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the VRA that governs which states are and are not required to seek the feds' permission to change their election rules. Now Congress will have to come up with new rules to determine which states this section of the VRA should cover. If lawmakers decide to embrace Roberts' implication that states with more racist attitudes should receive special scrutiny, Elmendorf and Spencer's study suggests they could end up with a list of VRA-covered states that looks a lot like today's.
This story has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday morning.

Nick Baumann

Senior EditorNick Baumann covers national politics and civil liberties issues for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Supreme Court Poised to Declare Racism Over

  Conservative justices on the high court look set to scrap a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

• Chief Justice Roberts' Long War Against the Voting Rights Act

  Roberts has been a critic of the Voting Rights Act for 30 years. Now he will help decide whether the law's most important section lives or dies.

• Justice Scalia and the Voting Rights Act

• The Republican Who Could Kill Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights Act

  Edward Blum, a failed GOP congressional candidate, may end up dramatically reshaping US law.

• The Voting Wars Continue

  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/south-more-racist-north?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NickBaumann+%28MoJo+Author+Feeds%3A+Nick+Baumann+|+Mother+Jones%29

The Formula Behind the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court ruled that a formula used to define which areas fell under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Section 5 required some places, mostly in the South, to obtain federal permission before changing voting laws. Related Article »

Places covered by the law

Covered since 1965 Section 5 was first applied to places that had voter registration or turnout rates below 50 percent in 1964 and also “devices” to discourage voting, like literacy tests.

Added in 1970 or 1975 On renewal, the law used data from 1968 and 1972 and defined a “device” to include English-only ballots in places where at least 5 percent of voting-age citizens spoke a single language other than English.

Bailed out

Places that had been free of any voting discrimination for 10 years could be released from coverage by a court.

What if the Formula Were Different?

Without the formula, Section 5 is largely without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered. It's unlikely Congress could agree on a new formula, but here are some of the variables that have been discussed by lawmakers, judges and legal scholars.

States and counties with estimated citizen turnout below 50 percent in 2012

Places with low turnout now

When Congress reauthorized the law in 2006, one amendment proposed to use data from more recent elections. It failed by a wide margin.
While the places with low turnout now are very different from those with low turnout in the 1960s and 1970s, a trial court ruling in the case considered by the Supreme Court, Shelby County v. Holder, suggested the more recent data was irrelevant.
The years used as triggers, Judge John D. Bates ruled, “were never selected because of something special that occurred in those years; instead, they were chosen as mere proxies for identifying those jurisdictions with established histories of discriminating against racial and language minority voters.”

White-black gap of at least 5 percentage points in 2008, 2010 and 2012 (citizens only)

States with consistently large registration gaps

During oral arguments, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that Massachusetts, a state that is not covered, had the greatest disparity in registration between whites and blacks, referring to data from 2004.
While that data comes with a high margin of error, five states — none covered — had registration gaps of at least five percentage points in all of the last three elections.
Some members of the court dismiss these sorts of statistics. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Congress said up front: We know that the registration is fine. That is no longer the problem. But the discrimination continues in other forms.”

At least 1.1 cases between 1982 and 2005, per million people

Lost the most voting discrimination lawsuits

Lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which applies to the entire nation, offer one way to compare discrimination across the country.
A study of cases that were published on two legal databases, Westlaw or Lexis, between 1982 and 2005 found that jurisdictions covered by Section 5 lost more such cases than the rest of the country, even though being covered might seem to deter discrimination.
Judge Stephen F. Williams, who dissented from the federal appeals court decision reviewed by the Supreme Court, considered this data in his opinion. Based on it, he found that “a more narrowly tailored coverage formula — capturing only Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and possibly the covered portions of South Dakota and North Carolina — might be defensible.” But, he continued, “beyond these, the covered jurisdictions appear indistinguishable from their uncovered peers.”

At least 2.0 cases between 1982 and 2005, per million people

Lost or settled the most voting discrimination suits

Some voting discrimination suits, including those with a court-approved settlement, are resolved without a published opinion.
Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority in the appeals court's decision, found that “the difference between covered and non-covered jurisdictions becomes even more pronounced,” when including cases settled in favor of minority voters.
Critics of this metric, as well as one that includes only published cases, argue that adjusting for population is unfair to small states and that patterns have changed since the data was assembled.

At least 75% of non-blacks more prejudiced than the U.S. average

The most ‘prejudiced’ states

Law professors at the University of California, Davis, and the University of Connecticut have created an estimate of prejudice using survey data from 2008.
The National Annenberg Election Survey asked people to rank the intelligence, trustworthiness and work effort of different groups of people, on a scale from 0 to 100. Christopher S. Elmendorf and Douglas M. Spencer estimated prejudice based on how people rate their own ethnic group, compared with how they rate blacks.
“It may be argued that Virginia and perhaps South Carolina should not be covered, but the rest of the covered states in the Deep South top the list of the most prejudiced states by anti-black stereotyping,” the professors found.

Sources: Justice Department (covered and bailed out jurisdictions); Census Bureau (population estimates, citizenship estimates; 2012 registration statistics); Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (2012 turnout); The Voting Rights Initiative at the University of Michigan Law School (published Section 2 cases); Declaration of Peyton McCrary, historian at the Department of Justice (unpublished Section 2 cases); Christopher S. Elmendorf, University of California, Davis and Douglas M. Spencer, University of Connecticut, "The Geography of Discrimination in Voting: MRP Meets the VRA" (prejudice estimates)

Related Links

• Supreme Court Weighs Cases Redefining Legal Equality

  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/23/us/voting-rights-act-map.html?_r=0 

Five states. Five lawsuits from the ACLU 14JUL11

PAPIERE BITTE, has a nazi, totalitarian sound to it, doesn't it. Nobody should be randomly subjected to this in the U.S., we have laws against this, protecting our civil rights as outlined in the 4th Amendment. From the ACLU....
 

Before Arizona's notorious anti-immigrant SB1070 bill was even law, ACLU client Jim Shee — an American citizen — was stopped twice by police and asked to produce his "papers."

There's only one reason Jim Shee was pulled over on his 70th birthday. He was a brown man in Arizona.

Jim Shee — an American citizen of Chinese and Spanish descent — was driving to his 70th birthday party when he was questioned by police demanding to see his "papers." It happened again a few days later.

This is precisely the kind of unwarranted, biased suspicion and racial profiling that Arizona's SB1070 law — and each of the copycat measures now sweeping the country — invites.

But there are other things the laws invite — ACLU lawsuits. In fact, the ACLU has swiftly responded to every single bill that has passed with a lawsuit. We have already brought Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Georgia and Alabama to court and will do the same with South Carolina later this summer. This kind of racial profiling has no place in America.

The ACLU is taking care of business in the states, but we need the Obama administration to do its part to stop the anti-immigrant activists from putting these laws on the books. Tell Attorney General Holder: There is no place in our country for "show me your papers" laws.

These state laws reflect a growing civil rights crisis that must be addressed nationally. They institutionalize racial profiling and discrimination in states and localities throughout the nation and are in direct violation of the Constitution.

We've won preliminary injunctions in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia to stop these laws from taking effect. And on Friday, we went to court in Alabama. Like laws passed in other states, Alabama's new statute doesn't just give police the authority to carry out discriminatory and unconstitutional practices. It actually requires that everyone in Alabama carry the right sort of ID card or else be presumed an undocumented immigrant.

We don't intend to sit still for this kind of hateful legislation. And we are counting on you to not sit still, either. Tell Attorney General Holder: Stop these racial profiling laws.

Don't let this massive erosion of people's fundamental rights go unanswered. Act today by signing our ACLU "No place for racial profiling" petition.

Thanks for acting, Anthony D. Romero Executive Director, ACLU

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004