text:
Minnesota's move to June primary would crunch party convention and candidate filing schedules
Late in December 2014, CBS Minnesota reported widespread support for a June primary:
The debate over when voters get to cull election fields has been around Minnesota's Capitol for years, but June primary advocates hope it has finally shifted in their favor. Their push has the backing of Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, incoming Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt and key state party officials. Opponents are fine-tuning arguments that a June election brings more pitfalls than benefits. . . .
State Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin expects to join forces with GOP counterpart Keith Downey, who has advocated for a June primary in the past. Daudt, now the top House member, has previously been chief sponsor of the legislation.
The proposal's fate rests with buy-in from rank-and-file legislators, many of whom take personal considerations into account. For one, the Legislature typically meets until late May, tying lawmakers down in St. Paul when potential primary challengers are freed up to campaign back in the district. There's also the prospect of special sessions creating a backdrop where legislators on overtime face the real-time wrath of an annoyed electorate.
Hope springs eternal, and bills (HF729/SF514) are working their way through the Minnesota House and Senate to make it so.
As we read the House bill, Minnesota's 2018 primary would be the first to be affected by the legislation (often bills that change the election calendar don't take effect until the next campaign cycle but not so here) and the 2018 primary would be held on Tuesday,June 19, 2018.
Curious about how that might affect the campaign calendar, we reached out to Secretary of State Steve Simon's communication office for a schedule. Communications director Ryan Furlong sent us this chart comparing the calendar according to current statute with the one for a June primary should the law be passed:
Schedule of Events in 2018
If the Primary is moved to the 1st Tuesday after the 3rd Monday in June
Current 2018 Proposed 2018
Party Caucuses date Feb 6 or party determined date Feb 6 or party determined date
Candidate Filing Period May 22 – June 5 March 27 – April 10
Absentee Period June 29 – Aug 13 May 4 – June 18
State Primary August 14 June 19
State Canvassing Board August 21 June 26
A few observations. First, unlike odd-years when our state lawmakers must get the party started on "on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January of each odd-numbered year. When the first Monday in January falls on January 1, it shall meet on the first Wednesday after the first Monday," there's no set date for the Minnesota Legislature to convene in even years.
According to staff at the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library (MLRL), the date to reconvene on even years is set late in the odd-year session. Following this tradition, no date has been set for the legislature to get it together in 2018.
To gain a sense of the range of even-year start dates, we were directed to a chart compiled by the MLRL, Sessions of the Minnesota State Legislature and the Minnesota Territorial Legislature, 1849-present, which reveals that since voters decided in 1972 that the legislature should meet each year in biennial sessions, the latest even year convening was on March 8, 2016. The restoration of the state capitol created logistical issues that made a late start appear reasonable.
Other March starts? March 6, 1984 and March 1, 2006. While there were a few late February convenings, the sessions mostly started between mid-January and mid-February since the 1972 amendment was passed.
Those lawmakers wishing to retain partisan endorsements will have to influence party activists by the caucus on February 6, 2018, since that's when the delegate selection and endorsement process begins. That partisan endorsement calendar will have to be truncated in order for the state parties to endorse a candidate before the filing deadline of April 10.
Without early endorsing conventions, lawmakers aspiring to higher offices will have to roll the dice as to endorsement and primaries. Take Prinsburg Republican Tim Miller, who may be exploring a bid for the Minnesota Seventh District congressional seat now held by Collin Peterson.
Dave Hughes, the 2016 Republican candidate who came relatively close to knocking the old Blue Dog off the house, is also running again. Hughes won the 2016 endorsement on April 30, 2016. Seventh District Republicans would have to hold their endorsing convention before the April 10, 2018, filing date for Miller to file for his state house seat again should the delegates give Hughes a second chance; candidates cannot file for two offices.
There's talk that the DFL might exhume and fluff up former state senator Lyle Koenen for the 17A seat; if it's an open seat, there's a chance that the salting of the earth against Koenen by the Freedom Club PAC might not deter voters from selecting the genial Clara City politician. Lots of House seniority there from the years when he served in the House prior to the late Gary Kubly's death.
It's not just Miller who will have to make the choice between a secure seat in the Minnesota House or constitutional office (and for some DFL constitutional officers, that position and the governor's office). On the Republican side, we're told in the media that Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, representative Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, and representative Matt Dean, R-Dellwood, are potential contenders for the opening left by Mark Dayton's retirement.
On the DFL side of the aisle: start with the ambitions of Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, who lost the endorsement at the state convention in 2010 to former Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis. The legislature had adjourned, but the August primary allowed Thissen to file for his House seat and stay in the game. Former Range representative Tommy Rukavina and Roseville's senator John Marty did the same.
Unless the DFL and Republican state conventions occur before the April 10 deadline, one can foresee crowded primary ballots on June 19--potentially with the likes of Daudt, Anderson and Dean gone from the House Republican caucus in 2019, while Thissen, Rochester's Tina Leibling and St. Paul's Erin Murphy gone from the DFL caucus. For state auditor Rebecca Otto, a declared candidate, and attorney general Lori Swanson, long a rumored candidate, there'd be no turning back from whatever office they filed by April 10. Congressman Tim Walz, who declared himself as a gubernatorial candidate Monday, would also have no way of doubling back in the First.
Should the parties hold all endorsing conventions for state house districts, congressional districts and state constitutional offices by April 10, Bluestem thinks that furious calendar will leave a lot of exhausted activists. Since no one knows when the 2018 session begins, we hesitate to speculate about the stamina of the lawmakers themselves.
The DFL re-do
Curiously, the state Democrats are already in the process of resetting their 2018 state convention. On March 3, the DFL posted The Minnesota DFL Announces Location for 2018 State Convention, available now only as a google cache page:.
The Minnesota DFL is proud to announce the location for the 2018 State DFL Convention. From June 8-10, 2018, Minnesota DFLers will gather in Rochester, MN at the newly remodeled Mayo Civic Center to endorse candidates and conduct official party business.
"The Minnesota DFL has a rich history of investing in our state's future, defending the civil and human rights of all citizens, and constantly working to move our state forward without leaving anyone behind. When the DFL convenes in Rochester in June of 2018, we will be making critical endorsements that will directly affect the lives of Minnesota's families.
From June 8-10, 2018 DFL delegates will vote to endorse candidates for Secretary of State, State Auditor, Attorney General, the next Governor and Lt. Governor of Minnesota, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
"We are excited to bring our delegates together at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester to endorse candidates for statewide office. With the results of the 2016 election playing out in the state legislature, Minnesotans are seeing what happens when Republicans are in control. The outcome of the 2018 election is crucial to our state's future and the DFLers who will gather in Rochester understand the responsibility to endorse great candidates that will continue to build a better Minnesota for all."
Regardless of the month of the primary, it's probably wise of the DFL to take a mulligan on this one, since even without passage of HF729/SF514, Minnesota House Democrats considering running for constitutional offices would have to chose their office by the current June 5 filing date--just before heading to Rochester. DFL communications director Rachel Boyer confirmed that the party was re-scheduling the date of the convention.
Poor planning or an evil Martinian plot to favor one contender over another? We're not close enough to speculate on just what that was about.
Images: Crunch time (above); Screengrab of Lost 2018 DFL Convention (below).
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Mar 27, 2017 at 05:23 PM in 2018 Elections, Civic engagement, Elections, Minnesota legislature, Politics, Postmoronic Politics, State Legislature, Voting | Permalink | Comments (0)
In town hall & letters sections, constituents sass back to state rep Steve Green about lots of stuff
Yet another member of the Minnesota House Environmental and Natural Resource Policy and Finance Committee is getting pushback in his district about his anti-environmental views at town hall meetings.
In the Park Rapids Enterprise, Shannon Geisen reported in Constituents flock to town hall meeting that those constituents grilled Steve Green, R-Fosston, over his support of anti-environment measures:
More than 70 constituents jammed into the Northwoods Bank community room Saturday to voice their concerns to their Minnesota legislators.
They traveled from Becker, Mahnomen, Clearwater, Beltrami and Hubbard counties. . . .
"A lot of you people out there think I'm anti-clean water. Believe me, I'm not," Green said, adding that his research finds water quality is greatly improving.
"To get to where there's no trend in pollution, you have to be improving," he stated, citing a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency report from 2014.
"Water cleans itself. We don't go in and put anything in to clean it. What we do is stop polluting it and it actually cleans itself," Green said. . . .
A retired biology teacher stood up to counter Green's assertion that there is less water pollution. Phosphorus levels are, in fact, getting worse in Minnesota's lakes and rivers, he said. . . .
Green is pushing for a state Constitutional amendment that replaces the Clean Water, Land and Legacy amendment with funding dedicated to roads and bridges.
Minnesota voters approved the Legacy amendment in 2008.
"Especially read Section 4 prohibiting any state employee from expressing opposition to the proposed amendment, which clearly violates the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech," Hitchcock said. "Those who voted for the original Legacy amendment recognized the need to protect and enhance and restore the very things that not only make Minnesota attractive to residents but also serve as an economic engine for the millions of visitors to the state."
Arts events, like the Heartland Concert Association series, are supported by Legacy funding, Hitchcock pointed out.
"Why would you gut the whole spirit of the state to fix roads and bridges rather than enact the necessary taxes for that work?"
The lengthy list of public officials who would fall under the gag order include the director of Explore Minnesota Tourism and the Governor, Hitchcock said.
Hubbard County Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor Lynn Goodrich said that he, too, would be among those prohibited from speaking against Green's amendment.
One-third of Legacy amendment funding is supposed to go toward clean water projects, Green replied, but approximately 10 percent does.
Legacy money is also used to purchase private land and convert it to public land enhancements, he continued, removes the land from tax rolls.
"Is this really how you want the money spent?" Green asked.
The audience responded with "Absolutely!" and "Yes!" . . .
Read the rest at the Park Rapids Enterprise. It's not just Green's war on the environment that voters at the town hall challenged. Among other things, there's this gem:
The Republican lawmaker suggested that most voter fraud occurs in Hennepin County. Green claimed there were 24,000 new voter registrations that had no one living at those addresses in the 2008 election of Senator Al Franken.
The audience audibly sniggered their disapproval. A few called him a "liar."
One attendee followed up with a letter to the editors of the Enterprise and the Detroit Lakes paper. Here's the letter published online at the Park Rapids paper under the headline, Representative Green has the facts wrong in which John LaFond writes:
Rep. Green, please stop casting unfounded aspersions on our voting system. On Feb. 18 at the League of Women Voters meeting in Park Rapids, Rep. Steve Green more than once made the statement that there were 24,000 same day voter registrations in the 2008 Coleman-Franken Minnesota Senate race that had no one living at that address. He further stated that these votes were fraudulently cast. When asked where he got this information from, he said that it came from the Secretary of State's office. He used this example as proof that our voting system is not secure.
Rep. Green's statement is just not true! We have called the Secretary of State and gotten the same answer — there is no record of 24,000 (or any number for that matter) of same day registrations that were fraudulent. I have also independently researched this subject and have been unable to find any evidence of these fraudulent votes. I emailed Rep. Green over a week ago letting him know what I have found and still await a response.
It's time for the truth! Our voting system is safe, secure and to be trusted.
Green's opinion about voter integrity seems to be an outlier in Minnesota politics these days. When President Donald Trump suggested voter fraud in the 2016, the Brainerd Dispatch reported in Minnesota leaders doubtful of Trump voter fraud claims:
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, a Republican from Nisswa, said he could only speak for Minnesota, but voter fraud didn't seem to be a problem in the state. Recounts that have taken place in the state changed vote tallies only slightly, he pointed out Friday.
"I'm not worried about that in Minnesota," he said. "I don't know what's happening around the country—I don't know if he's seeing information I'm not seeing—but at least in Minnesota, I think it runs very well."
Gazelka remembers the fate of the last great voter integrity scare (and the party that supported it) in 2012, as well as his own razor-thin margin for the majority in the Minnesota senate.
We're not sure what Green's thinking, if at all.
Photo: Steve Green.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Mar 05, 2017 at 10:22 AM in Civic engagement, Elections, Environment, Events , Minnesota legislature, Postmoronic Politics, Science, Voting, Water | Permalink | Comments (0)
How much did Daudt's HRCC pay for i360? Minnesota campaign finance records unclear
Behind the firewall at Politics in Minnesota's Capitol Report, Kevin Featherly reports in Did Koch brothers-funded data platform swing election outcome?:
Various explanations have emerged for the outcome of the recent Minnesota legislative elections, which saw Republicans maintain their House majority and gain back the Senate. One popular explanation is that a flawed presidential candidate depressed turnout on the Democratic side.
But another factor is being offered by Republicans as a partial explanation, at least with respect to House races: the power of digital data. . . .
Golnik acknowledged that the HRCC has access to i360's consumer data mine but that "average users" — including candidates — do not. "That's used at a higher level when we are doing our mail programs and our cables buys," Golnik said. "I would use that on the independent expenditures side." . . .
Daudt did not directly answer a question about the HRCC's costs for its i360 digital infrastructure. "It's not necessarily expensive," he said. "It's just a matter of changing people's minds that we need to do things differently."
Bluestem thought that the question about "the HRCC's cost for its i360 digital infrastructure" would be easy to answer by going to the committee's 2015 and 2016 state campaign finance reports and reading how much the Arlington, VA-based company was paid by the HRCC.
Silly us. i360 isn't listed as a vendor on the HRCC's 2014, 2015 and 2016 state campaign finance reports. Nor is it listed as a vendor for Preston Republican Greg Davids's 2016 reports; Davids talked to Featherly about using the firm's mobile app.
However, a review of the three years' of campaign committee reports does indicate changes in spending patterns, with an increased reliance in 2016 on vendors in Kansas and Alexandria Va-area over those in Minnesota that where used in 2014.
So which vendor hooked Daudt and Golnik up with the power of i360's database? After looking at the 1858 Group, which was paid $100,000 for research in 2016 by the time of the HRCC's pre-general report, we don't think it's Republican operative and former Minnesota Jobs Coalition President Mark Drake's nonprofit, which has an office on the same floor as the Minnesota Jobs Coalition in the Northwestern Building in Lowertown.
Recall that Golnik told Featherly:
Golnik acknowledged that the HRCC has access to i360's consumer data mine but that "average users" — including candidates — do not. "That's used at a higher level when we are doing our mail programs and our cables buys," Golnik said. "I would use that on the independent expenditures side." . .
According to the 2016 report (IE spending begins on page 93 in the pre-general report), Golnik used the Singularis Group of Shawnee Mission, KS for independent expenditure direct mail in MN50B against Carlson ($5,530.10); in MN44A against Klevorn ($6,459.96); in MN57A against Maye Quade ($6,502.60); in MN56B against Port ($6,377.10); in MN48 against Pryor ($6,567.56); in MN25B against Sauke ($3,377.44); and, in MN52B against T'Kach ($6,417.32). These figures are for the direct mail packages against each candidate, and may or may not include use of i360, but the firm itself does use the database.
The Topeka Capitol-Journal reported in October in Douglas County clerk plans line by line examination of mailing list after accusations from local GOP that "Singularis obtains its voter rolls from i360, a company that maintains a nationwide voter database. . ."
Singularis' website notes Americans for Prosperity and Pawlenty 2012 as clients.
There are a couple of additional interconnected vendors located in Virginia also provided voter lists or did direct mail.
Perhaps payments to i360 is also part of the $24,000 paid in July for "Mailing / Voter List Rent/Purchase: Voter File" to Enlighten Solutions, located at 1507 Dade Lane, Alexandria VA (page 71, HRCC 2016 pre-primary report). Open Secrets notes that Enlighten Solutions was a vendor for three presumably federal accounts, but we couldn't find out much about the firm.
A search of the address in the Fairfax County, Virginia, property records revealed that the address was a private home (screengrab above) owned by Aaron Leibowitz, Principal at Political Direct Mail Consulting Firm, Targeted Creative Communications, Inc., according to his Linked In profile.
Leibowitz's past includes a stint as chair of Virginia's Republican Party and work as an account executive for Karl Rove & Co in the early 1990s.
The HRCC's 2016 report also shows that Leibowitz's firm, Targeted Creative Communications, Inc., was also a vendor for Golnik's beloved independent expenditures.
Targeted Communications was the vendor for direct mail used for independent expenditures for Chad Anderson in the special election in MN50B ($6,414.76) Later, the firm was a vendor in MN5B against Anzelc ($16,090.00); in MN21A against Bayley ($14,565.00); in MN14B against Dorholt ($14,888.00); in MN24B against Fritz ($13,861.00); in MN 57B against Huot ($4,690.00); in MN2A against Loud ($7,035.00; in MN12A against McNamar ($4,690.00); in MN17B against Sawatzky ($4,690.00); in 27A against Schindler ($4,690.00); in MN54B against Slaten ($9,380.00); in MN28B against Trehus ($2,345.00); and, in MN42A against Yarusso ($7,035.00).
Up next: the HRCC's 2015 field team spending.
Image: From the December 2014 Politico story, Inside the Koch data mine Meet the guys building the right's new machine.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 33166 770th Ave, Ortonville, MN 56278) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Dec 06, 2016 at 11:58 PM in 2014 Elections, 2016 Elections, Elections, Minnesota legislature | Permalink | Comments (0)
Math isn't hard: Stewart Mills III realizes he was wasting his money, abandons MN08 recount
Earlier this week, Bluestem crossposted Stewart Mills is wasting his money on a recount, by Max Hailperin, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics at Gustavus Adolphus College. In 2014, Hailperin was awarded the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Medallion "in recognition of his service and contributions to election-related technology and legislation."
Mills could have read the post (or used some common sense) and spared everybody some time and money. Instead, he had to get both sides mobilized before he discovered what Hailperin discussed. Bluestem doesn't think that math is for smartypants; instead, those formulas pretty much work the same for everyone.
Fortunately, Mills came to his senses in time to let county election staff and volunteers from both parties spend the time with their families in this festive season.
Jerry Burnes, the managing editor of the Mesabi Daily News, reports in Mills back off recount in 8th Congressional District:
Stewart Mills dropped his effort for a recount in the 8th Congressional District race against incumbent U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan.
Nolan, DFL-Crosby, defeated the Republican challenger Mills on Nov. 8 by 2,009 votes, or 0.56 percent, just shy of an automatic recount.
Mills said earlier in the week he would request a recount at his own expense, but withdrew the effort Friday and said he would donate a portion of the money to The Salvation Army. . . .
Minnesota's Secretary of State's office said a recount would cost Mills $102,053. A margin of victory of 0.5 percent would have triggered an automatic recount paid for by the state. Mills said earlier this week he had offers to cover some of the cost, and would seek donors before paying for the rest out of pocket.
In the end, Mills said the "cost estimates of this recount in terms of volunteer time and expense was excessive."
Nolan commended Mills' decision to withdraw the request in a statement Friday.
"A carefully selected state audit of the results in each of the 18 counties found each of us gaining 1 vote, for a net change of zero. Given the precision and accuracy of Minnesota's election system, it was extremely unlikely the outcome would change," Nolan said in a statement.
Both candidates also tipped their caps to state and county election workers for their work.
Given Mills' initial petulance, safe to say the voters dodged empowering an adult baby in Minnesota's Eighth.
Photo: Stewart Mills III, failed congressional candidate. If you've got the money, honey, Minnesota has the recount. (Photo by Mark Stuart via Mesabi Daily News.)
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Dec 03, 2016 at 08:12 AM in 2016 Elections, Congress, Elections, Politics, Rick Nolan | Permalink | Comments (0)
Ineligible: should Barrett vote in special session? Update: Rep. Hansen preparing expulsion bill
UPDATE 12/5: Via the Morning Hot. the Star Tribune's J. Patrick Coolican reports:
Also, can Rep. Bob Barrett -- determined by a court not to live in his district -- vote during special session? Rep. Rick Hansen tells me he's preparing expulsion bill. [end update]
At Politics in Minnesota's Capitol Report, Kevin Featherly reports in Leaders reach tentative agreement for special session:
Many months after the idea was first broached, it now appears a special session will happen.
Four legislative caucus leaders met Friday with Gov. Mark Dayton and agreed in principle to hold a special session.
"We don't have an agreement or a deal on it, but we have outlined the parameters," Dayton told reporters after the meeting.
The leaders will meet again on Monday to hammer out full details.
According to Dayton, the special session's primary task will be to tackle the health care crisis . . .
The special session would likely take place around Dec. 20.
We're left wondering: should Rep. Bob Barrett, R-Doesn't Live in His District, be seated in the special session?
Back in September, Minnesota Public Radio's Brian Bakst reported in MN Supreme Court: GOP House lawmaker disqualified from 4th-term bid:
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled a Republican state House incumbent ineligible for November's election amid questions about his residency.
Justices ordered a February special election for that seat after accepting the findings of a court-appointed referee that Rep. Bob Barrett doesn't live in the Chisago County district northeast of St. Paul that he now represents.
Barrett owns a home in a nearby district but rented a property in the one he ran in.
The decision means the Minnesota House will start its next session with 133 members, down one, which could be pivotal if the split between parties is close. Republicans are currently in the majority.
Barrett, a three-term lawmaker, owns a home in Shafer, where his wife resides, but insists he spends sufficient time and has taken enough steps to qualify as a resident of Taylors Falls.
The distinction matters because Minnesota legislators must live in the district they represent at least six months before the election.
Rather than remove Barrett from the ballot, the court said no winner should be declared in November. Justices turned to a new state law that triggers a special election the following February.
If Barrett was ineligible to be on the ballot, should he be allowed to represent people in the district in the special session? He doesn't live in Minnesota House District 32B.
See our earlier posts for more information:
Carpetbagger Bob Barrett's bid blown
Ineligible to hold office: should Bob Barrett resign from the MN House of Representatives?
Image: Bob Barrett doesn't live in his district and the seat will be vacant until a February special election. Why should he vote in a special session?
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Dec 02, 2016 at 09:17 PM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Ethics in government, Governor Mark Dayton, Housing, Minnesota legislature, Postmoronic Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)
Stewart Mills is wasting his money on a recount
Guest post by Max Hailperin
Crossposted from Medium
Stewart Mills, a repeatedly unsuccessful candidate for Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, has decided to pay for a recount of his race, which was not close enough to qualify for a free recount. MPR's Brian Bakst reported that Mills said "we are well within the margin where a hand recount, where human eyeballs on every ballot could make the difference between victory and defeat." Bakst also reported that "he's not alleging fraud or impropriety. But he said people might not have properly darkened ovals or could have left stray marks on their ballots that confused the counting machines." In other words, Mills is making three claims:
The recount will not find signs of fraud or improper tabulation. Instead, the problems found will be limited to those that affect individual ballots, such as improperly filled ovals.
The recount does stand a good chance of finding such ballots.
The number of such ballots found might be "well within" the range that would make a difference in the election outcome.
Of these three claims, the first two are based in fact. The third is not.
There are no large tabulation errors to find
Because the total number of ballots cast in each precinct is matched to the number of voters who signed in, the only way for the tabulation to be wrong is by assigning the votes to the wrong candidate. This can happen even without fraudulent tampering. If we look for historical precedents across the nation, rather than only in Minnesota, scanners have on rare occasion been misconfigured so that two candidates' positions on the ballot are swapped, resulting in their vote counts being attributed to each other. Pre-election testing is supposed to catch such errors, but on rare occasion (again, outside Minnesota) the testing has been negligently performed such that the error slipped through.
However, even if we aren't willing to credit Minnesota's election officials with being more careful than their peers, or we are concerned the same effect could be achieved through skillful tampering, we can be sure that thousands of votes haven't been shifted in this way. There are two options for how a large shift could occur: by shifting a few votes in each of a large number of precincts, or by shifting a large number of votes in a few precincts. (The former would include swapping the vote counts in lots of close precincts, while the latter would include swapping the counts in a few precincts that Mills won by a large margin.) We can rule out each of these two possibilities, for different reasons.
Mis-tabulation spread thinly over many precincts is precisely the kind of problem that Minnesota's post-election review (audit) is well equipped to detect. A random sample of precincts in each county already had their ballots hand counted for comparison with the scanners' counts. If large numbers of precincts had been mis-tabulated, the chances are very high that one of those precincts would have been chosen for review.
A few precincts with major shifts, on the other hand, would have attracted attention. For example, if some heavily DFL-leaning Duluth precincts had gone lopsidedly for Mills rather than Nolan, everyone would have noticed the oddity.
Some non-machine-readable votes will likely be discerned
Minnesotans have looked at millions of optical scan ballots in the 2008 recount of the Coleman/Franken race for US Senate and the 2010 recount of the Dayton/Emmer race for Governor. We know that some voters indicate their intent in non-standard ways. If enough ballots are looked at, some of these non-standard ones will surely be found. In addition to the incompletely filled in ovals that Mills mentions, I wouldn't be surprised if a ballot turned up where the voter had circled the candidate's name rather than marking the oval at all. We might even see a case where someone filled in both candidates' ovals, put an X through one of them, and put an arrow pointing at the other with the words "this one." These are not far-fetched conjectures. They are actual experience from past recounts.
The number of such ballots will, however, be too small to matter
The prior recounts also give us an indication of how common it is to find voter intent expressed in a non-machine-readable fashion. The answer may depend to some degree on how hard the candidates are looking for votes. In 2008, more were found than in 2010. However, even in 2008 the numbers were in the hundreds, not thousands. For example, in Saint Louis County (which provides about 1/3 of the 8th District's votes), Franken picked up 112 votes in the recount and Coleman gained 53. A third-party candidate also gained 8 votes.
Extrapolating from the 2008 experience, neither Nolan or Mills can pick up more than 350 votes in the recount. Based on the 2010 experience, the actual numbers may be substantially smaller.
Chances are that the net change in the vote margin will be smaller yet, because the two candidates extra votes will tend to cancel out. (For example, in the 2008 numbers I quoted above, Franken netted only 59 votes, as 53 of his 112 were offset by Coleman's gains.) However, even if it is only Mills's supporters, and not Nolan's, who fill out their ballots in non-machine-readable ways, nothing in the historical record suggests he could pick up enough new votes to overcome his deficit of 2,009 votes. That number just isn't "well within" the range, whatever he may say.
Minnesota's threshold for free recounts was carefully chosen. I was among the experts who helped shape the legislators' deliberation on the bill that established that threshold. They strongly valued ensuring public confidence in election outcomes, so they set the threshold conservatively high, to be absolutely sure that any election with a legitimately doubtful outcome would qualify. Any candidate who chooses to fund a recount above that threshold is apt to be wasting their money. Stewart Mills, whose margin of defeat is more than twice the threshold, is surely doing so.
Max Hailperin is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics at Gustavus Adolphus College; he earned his Ph.D at Stanford and S.B at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2014, he was awarded the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) Medallion "in recognition of his service and contributions to election-related technology and legislation." He was appointed by Governor Mark Dayton to the Electronic Roster Task Force in 2013.
Bluestem published Hailperin's analysis of the 2012 recount in the House District 8B contest in Holiday post: just how thankful should Representative Mary Franson be for her luck? and Update from Max Hailperin: just how thankful should state rep Mary Franson be for her luck?. Hailperin's analysis suggested that Franson, R-Alexandria, would prevail in a recount (one vote margin) that also included steps to overcome ballot irregularities in three precincts. As Hailperin's odds had suggested, Franson remained the winner.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Nov 30, 2016 at 12:04 PM in 2016 Elections, Congress, Elections, Politics, Postmoronic Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)
Willmar police defended voters' right to choose
From the West Central Tribune crime blotter
Tuesday, police received two reports of protesters outside Vinje Lutheran Church on the 1100 block of Willmar Avenue Southwest. Vinje was a polling place in Tuesday's election.
The first was reported around 5 p.m. A man was standing outside the polling place with an anti-abortion sign. The man had reportedly been asked to leave, but was refusing to.
At 7:15 p.m. Tuesday, police received another report of a protester in the parking lot of the same church. The man was advised of Minnesota statute barring protesters within 100 feet of a polling place
Minnesota election judges take our statutes very seriously, though it's likely many of those voting at the location agreed with the protester. The right of voters to cast their ballots without encountering persuasion or intimidation at their polling location is part of the process.
The man was persistant--and likely there to shame Clinton supporters.
According to the interactive poll finder at the Minnesota Secretary of State's website, Vinje Lutheran Church is the polling place for Willmar Ward 2, Precinct 2. The vote in the precinct heavily favored Republican candidates who opposed reproductive rights (and in the U.S. House, Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House, all DFL and GOP candidates were anti-choice; that left the Presidential race).
With the exception of conservative Blue Dog Republican Collin Peterson, the precinct voted heavily Republican. This was not the case in 2014, when citizens favored DFL candidates with the exception of Dan Severson for Minnesota Secretary of State; in 2012, the voters split their tickets, picking Romney--but Klobuchar for U.S. Senator, Republican candidate Joe Gimse over eventual winner Lyle Koenen for state senate (both were sitting senators at the time) and Sawatzky over sitting state representative Bruce Vogel.
It's a swing district, but both Republican and DFL candidates for the state legislature from Willmar are pro-life.
Photo: File photo of the church, via West Central Tribune.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM in 2016 Elections, Crime, Elections, Human rights, Minnesota legislature, Public safety, Reproductive rights | Permalink | Comments (0)
"I don't think this movement is going away": preparing for a wave of hate after November 8
Guest post by Phillip Cryan
Let's assume for the moment that Hillary Clinton will win Tuesday's election and become our next president. More than that, let's assume she wins by a large margin. Both Donald Trump the candidate and the ugly views he has championed throughout this campaign are dealt a humiliating electoral defeat. Not just Democrats and independents but also a significant percentage of Republicans join together in rejecting Trump and all he has come to stand for.
If all that happens, can the tens of millions of us who have been appalled from the beginning by Trump's open bigotry and misogyny now look forward to breathing a sigh of relief – an "our long national nightmare is over" moment, at last – on November 9th? Would a landslide defeat for Trump put this hateful chapter of our history behind us?
Hardly.
Hateful social and political forces, once given a degree of official permission and room to move in a society – and more so, once mass-mobilized around a genuine hope in their own near-term ascendance to power – do not recede because they lose one battle or one election. History just doesn't work that way.
"I don't think this movement is going away," one fervent Trump supporter in Ohio, Judy Wright, recently told a Boston Globe reporter. Don Black, one of the founders of the white-nationalist website Stormfront, put it similarly: Trump "has sparked an insurgency, and I don't think it's going to go away." On Saturday the New York Times reported on the growth of well-armed, far-right militia groups across the country. Many in these groups fear a Clinton initiative to forcibly take away their guns. Armed white men have already rallied, with their weapons on prominent display, at demonstrations in support of the Confederate flag and at public meetings on whether to allow the building of new mosques.
So let's not kid ourselves. The ugly, unapologetically white-supremacist, anti-Muslim, and sexist forces now running loose in our body politic – they've always been there, of course, but they're now out in the open again, and proud to be out in the open again – are going to be with us for a long time, no matter what happens on November 8th. In fact, their public and political expressions are likely to get uglier, their words and actions scarier, after the election – perhaps especially if it's a landslide win for Hillary.
For Judy Wright (the Trump volunteer interviewed by the Globe), if her candidate loses, "all I know is our country is not going to be a country anymore. I've heard people talk about a revolution." There has been a lot of discussion and coverage over the last couple weeks of the increasingly fevered warnings from Trump and his supporters that the election will be stolen from them, including Trump's own already-infamous refusal at the final debate to commit to accepting the results of the election. His supporter Judy Wright captures the logic of the Trumpist view concisely: "If Hillary wins, it's rigged."
Making hate normal
But even these before-the-fact declarations of a conspiracy pale – in terms of scariness and cause for concern – in comparison to the violence-infused vision of another Trump supporter interviewed in the same Boston Globe piece: Dan Bowman, a contractor, told the Globe, "If [Hillary's] in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That's how I feel about it. We're going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that's what it takes. There's going to be a lot of bloodshed."
Closer to home, when I posted a picture on social media a few days ago of my father – who served in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam and is the sort of political independent who's still proud to have voted, twice, for Perot – standing with a lawn-sign that reads "Another veteran who could never vote for Donald," one of my father's cousins immediately replied with this: "I don't believe [your dad] is foolish enough to vote Killary. Put the bitch in JAIL."
What is truly distressing about this sort of reaction is not just the vile sentiments and words themselves but the way many of us are beginning to receive them: as a known, expected part of our political discourse. I find myself noticeably less shocked and angered by such comments, today, than I would have been if I'd seen them just a few weeks ago. I honestly can't imagine that anyone I know would have posted such a statement two years ago……it just didn't happen.
Even at the worst, scariest moments of anti-Muslim sentiment and jingoism under George W. Bush, I don't remember there being widespread, self-assured use of language like this. I don't think anywhere near as many people with hateful thoughts felt comfortable or licensed to broadcast those thoughts publicly. But now this kind of hateful, often violent, often sexist, racist, anti-Muslim or xenophobic speech is becoming normal.
Many educators, journalists, and academics have expressed concerns recently about the effect Trump's words (and the words of his supporters) are having on children. You've already read, I'm sure, about the "Build the wall!" chants at high school sports events with Latino athletes. But did you know that two-thirds of teachers surveyed in a recent Southern Poverty Law Center study reported that their minority students have expressed fear about what might happen to them or their families after this election? Teachers reported kids struggling to make sense of their new belief, based on the invective of the presidential campaign, that "everyone hates them."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given Trump's focus from the first day of his campaign on maligning Mexican-Americans, many teachers reported Latino students expressing fears of deportation. (Teachers also reported white kids using "You'll be deported!" as a new playground taunt against Latinos, and white kids using "Dirty Mexican" as a new insult against other white kids in schools with no Latino students.) But Latino kids were not alone in expressing this fear: several teachers reported that Black students expressed the belief that they could "be deported to Africa" or enslaved.
We will not know all the effects the normalization of Trump's hate-speech has had on our society for many years, until we can look back on all this with some perspective and – let's pray – a renewed sense of shock that such things were actually uttered, as late as 2016, by the nominee of one of the country's two main political parties. Without knowing the specifics yet of all the effects they've had, we can be confident both that they are extensive and that they are felt especially deeply by young people who are still shaping their understanding of the society they're part of and their own place (or not) within it.
What happens when hope is gone?
As difficult as it's been to watch the newly-legitimized forces of hatefulness and division in action over the last few months – to hear the unvarnished bigotry and misogyny of what so many of our fellow citizens, even our friends and family members, have apparently been longing for many years to openly say to their Black, brown, female, Muslim, disabled, or in-any-other-way-different-from-themselves neighbors – we have to remember that what we've been watching and hearing so far is actually a version of these forces infused with hope.
They've rallied around Trump's candidacy, seen a real prospect for dramatic and (in their view) positive national transformation in having him becoming president. If he loses – and even more so, if he loses big – the hope that has been attached to their efforts until now will be largely extinguished, leaving only the deep resentments, the reflexive blaming of varied "others," the regular denial of simple and obvious facts. The rancor.
We've heard Trump celebrate vigilantism before. Most memorably, he offered to pay the legal bills for a white male supporter who sucker-punched a Black man protesting at one of his rallies. In making the offer, he explained that the assaulter "obviously loves his country." Trump's crowds have loved this rhetoric and his many threats and "jokes" about physical violence against dissenters, throughout his presidential campaign.
Even if the election proves a landslide, a complete repudiation of Trump's candidacy, tens of millions of Americans will – despite all the horribly offensive things he has done and said – have enthusiastically voted for Trump on November 8th. We need to all try to grapple with that reality – not just with our bewilderment, anger or incredulity about it, but with a clear-eyed recognition of what it's likely to mean for us as a polity in the months and years to come.
Where do you think those tens of millions of people will take their activism and energy, their sense of grievance and anger, after a loss – especially if they believe in a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump about the election being rigged?
I am genuinely frightened about the kinds of violence, vigilantism, and other forms of abuse against "others" (i.e., anyone who is not a white male straight non-disabled Christian) we may see in the weeks and months after the election.
Indeed, the chaos of individual vigilantism or mob violence could come as soon as Election Day, if some of his supporters heed his many calls for them to go looking for non-existent voter fraud in what he calls "other" polling places. (In case you can't guess what he means by "other" polling places, here's a line from a recent Trump rally speech: "Take a look at Philadelphia, what's been going on, take a look at Chicago, take a look at St. Louis. Take a look at some of these cities, where you see things happening that are horrendous.")
Crowd pleaser
There's a revealing, horrifying story Trump repeatedly told on the campaign trail earlier this year. His crowds thrilled to it every time. It's apocryphal, has been proved pure fiction, but of course Trump didn't let that stop him. It's about General John Pershing, when he was serving the U.S. Army in the Philippines in the aftermath of the 1899-1902 war. I think it's best to let Trump speak for himself here in telling it (from the transcript of a February 19, 2016 rally in North Charleston, South Carolina):
You know, I read a story. It's a terrible story, but I'll tell you…..should I tell you, or should I not? [Cheers] Early in the century, last century, General Pershing – did you ever hear? rough guy, rough guy – and they had a terrorism problem. And you know there's the whole thing with swine and animals and pigs and you know the story, they don't like that. And they were having a tremendous problem with terrorism. And by the way, this is something you can read about in the history books. Not a lot of history books, because they don't like teaching this. And General Pershing was a rough guy. … They had terrorism problems, just like we do. And he caught fifty terrorists who did tremendous damage and killed many people. And he took the fifty terrorists, and he took fifty men and he dipped fifty bullets in pigs' blood. You heard that, right? He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pigs' blood. And he had his men load his rifles, and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot forty-nine of those people. And the fiftieth person, he said: You go back to your people, and you tell them what happened. And for twenty-five years there wasn't a problem. Okay? Twenty-five years, there wasn't a problem.
It remains difficult for me to believe – even with all the subsequent revelations of offensive, despicable things this man has said – that these are actually the words of the endorsed candidate for president of one of our two main political parties.
More important, it's difficult to believe how much his audiences loved this story.
This is not a case of a story being used to illustrate some interesting aspect of the past, or to raise questions about the present, or to give depth or color to things we already know. Instead, this is a story with an unequivocal, bang-you-over-the-head moral. Trump expected the lesson to be clear to his rally crowds, and I'm confident it was. I hope it's equally clear to you. The prescription here is for unapologetically brutal violence against "others" – in this case, specifically Muslims. The prescription is not just for violence but for relishing cruelty.
There have been many far bigger moments – the bragging-about-sexual-assault tape with Billy Bush; the refusal in advance to accept the results of the election; the attacks on Alicia Machado, the Khans, and so many others – that have defined Trump for voters in recent weeks. But I think this story about Gen. Pershing – a complete fabrication, like so much of what Trump says – captures better than any other moment in the campaign the frighteningly ignorant worldview this candidate espouses and the danger our country faces now that tens of millions of his supporters have come to believe that it's acceptable to utter such racist, ignorant, bloodlust-infused nonsense in public.
Because here's the most important thing: what's scary about Trump isn't Trump.
There have always been cranks, avowed white nationalists, and assorted conspiracy-theorists saying the same sorts of things Trump is now saying. What's different and very scary right now is that tens of millions of Americans are rallying openly to their cause.
We've all become so focused – transfixed even – on the daily videos of this awful man and the shocking, horrible things he says that we are missing the larger story. To understand what's really significant about this moment in our history, we need to turn our attention away from Donald Trump. We need to turn it toward the people in his rally crowds.
When Trump told the bullets-in-pigs'-blood story at rallies earlier this year, his crowds would become delirious with glee. Loud as hell, with roaring cheers, applause, laughter. They were exultant. Ecstatic.
More recently, we've all seen the footage of his supporters chanting things like "Lock her up!" and "Trump that bitch!"
These are the forces we are going to be dealing with in the weeks and months to come, after Election Day is behind us. There are tens of millions of people looking forward with great hope, today, to voting for Donald Trump on Tuesday, with an active embrace of his unapologetic racism, sexism and hate. Pandora's box is open.
Regardless of whether Trump decides to parlay his fame into a new television station or retreats into real estate, whether he retires from the political scene (incredibly unlikely, but we can dream, right?) or continues as the standard-bearer and mouthpiece for a mass movement opposing the Hillary Clinton administration, all those people shouting "Trump that bitch!" at his rallies – and all the family members or friends I'm sure I'm not alone in having, suddenly saying things like "Put the bitch in JAIL" on our Facebook pages – are not going anywhere. They are emboldened and angry and ready to take action.
Those of us who are appalled by their open bigotry and misogyny must be prepared, starting the very day after this election – or maybe even the day of, if his army of "poll watchers" emerges as an actual force – to fight back vigorously against jingoism, ignorance, racism, misogyny, hate.
Taking matters into their own hands
Many observers today are far too quick to dismiss the possibility of mob violence and vigilantism emerging out of Trump's base of supporters. Large-scale, systematic white mob violence against people of color, as a regular occurrence, is only two generations back in our history. (And systematic violence by whites against people of color continues today with considerable ferocity – it just tends to manifest now through official channels like the police, not vigilantism.)
As Isabel Wilkerson observes in The Warmth of Other Suns, her Pulitzer-winning history of the Great Migration: "Contrary to modern-day assumptions, for much of the history of the United States – from the Draft Riots of the 1860s to the violence over desegregation a century later – riots were often carried out by disaffected whites against groups perceived as threats to their survival." Her account of white riots against Black migrants who were seeking housing in white neighborhoods of northern cities in the 1960s – including destruction of apartments and houses, firebombing, stoning, overturned police cars, and rampaging mobs as large as 4,000, in riots that sometimes lasted for several days – is truly chilling to read.
I fear that aggrieved, angry Trump supporters will seek to take our country back to such times – will be inciting violence, not just in words but in deeds, against Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, women, or anyone that's not part of their vision of the America that used to be "great." Whether Trump concedes or not will of course play a huge role in shaping whether his supporters accept the legitimacy of the election. But even if Trump immediately concedes – perhaps because it's an historic rout – I don't think we should expect the racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and hate given new permission and room to move in our society by his campaign to go quietly into the night. Instead, I think we should expect them to flare up in dramatic and violent new forms.
Maybe I'm wrong, and this is all overblown and unnecessary. I pray that is so.
But if it turns out I'm not wrong – and after all the ugly, unpredicted twists and turns of this campaign since its "Mexicans are rapists" start, how could you possibly be sure? – we need to be ready to fight, and fight like hell, in defense of American decency and diversity, in defense of the dignity and safety of all people, the second Hillary wins.
Preparing for the worst, hoping for the best
Between now and Tuesday, we of course all need to just buckle down and work as hard as we possibly can to win this election – knocking doors, making calls, busting our asses to achieve a decisive, message-sending margin in the presidential race and to win all the other vitally-important state, local and federal races we're engaged in. The world is anxiously waiting to see what message the majority of Americans send in this election. The larger the margin, the stronger the message. And frankly we need to send a message to ourselves as well – that there is still something kind and good and hopeful about our country, something worth standing up and fighting for. That hate is not one of our core values.
But at the same time we do all that work to win on Nov. 8th, we should be preparing ourselves for Nov. 9th. Progressives should be getting prepared to hold Hillary to the many strong policy positions she's taken over the course of her campaign, to provide an active pull from the left in a way we failed utterly to provide in the first couple years after President Obama's election in 2008. Just as important, we should be preparing for the possibility that some of Trump's supporters respond after this election with not just vitriol but violence.
Getting ourselves ready to deal with a new wave of ugliness and vigilantism after the election, but then finding out things are unexpectedly calm, would be a glorious way for us all to experience the next few weeks. But facing a new wave of ugliness and vigilantism unprepared, shocked by it out of a complacent celebration of an electoral repudiation of Trump, would be the opposite: hellish. It could set us back in many different ways all at once. So the rational choice right now is to get prepared, while hoping the preparations prove to have been needless.
Those of us unlikely to ever find ourselves under direct attack by the forces of hate and division – straight white males like me, for example – have a particular responsibility to stand up and fight back. Why? There's a certain justice – if most of the hatefulness and violence comes, as it almost certainly will, from white men – in having white men be the ones to go confront it. And on a practical level, we are the ones most likely to be able to do so without jeopardizing our safety.
A brief and personal illustration: the lunchroom supervisor at my kids' elementary school – an unfailingly kind, generous, loving young man, beloved by all the kids whose lives he touched and known by them as "Mr. Phil," Philando Castile – was murdered by the police while he strived to follow the very letter of the law. In contrast, if I choose to openly break the law in order to stand up for something I believe in politically (which I've done a few times, so I speak from direct experience), it is almost certain that I will be able to do so without ever fearing for my own physical well-being.
So here's my suggestion about what we should do, after this election, if it turns out I'm right about the ugliness soon to come: we should take seriously the recent words of the clearest, strongest, most moral voice in our country right now, Michelle Obama. "An attack on any one of us is an attack on all of us," she said in a speech last week. Let's take that literally. When and if any aggrieved Trump supporter first commits an act of violence against any Latino, Black, Native, Asian-American, female, LGBTQ, disabled, Muslim, Jewish, or in any other way "othered" fellow American, we should show up by the thousands – white men especially – in that place as soon as we hear about it, to nonviolently condemn what they've done, to commit ourselves to peaceful resistance against all such attacks, and to dramatically, massively demonstrate to other people who might be thinking about engaging in such acts what sort of response they can expect if they follow through.
Again, I sincerely hope I'm wrong in having these fears of what's to come after this election. I hope we can all just celebrate a decisive victory, put this ugly chapter behind us, restore a basic shared commitment to civility and truthfulness in our politics, and move on with the many debates and policy initiatives needed to make progress and win justice.
But if, sadly, I'm right about the violence and vigilantism to come, and if we do manage to rise to the occasion and do something dramatic to put a stop to it, when we get there let's recite together a few lines from Langston Hughes – in the faith and hope that we can somehow still build a country, almost a half-century after he died, that is worthy of his faith in it:
O, let America be America again –
The land that never has been yet –
And yet must be – the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine – the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME –
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.
Sure, call me any ugly name you choose–
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath –
America will be!
Phillip Cryan holds a Masters in Public Policy from the Goldman School at the University of California, Berkeley. He is Executive Vice President of SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, a union of more than 35,000 hospital, clinic, nursing home, and home care workers.
If you liked this post, Bluestem recommends Cryan's essay published last April in Salon, It's so much worse than Trump: The history of the modern GOP is a history of racism, bigotry and dog-whistles.
Photo: Phillip Cryan, taking part in a 2011 protest over bank foreclosures on homes.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Nov 06, 2016 at 06:56 PM in 2016 Elections, Children & Families, Civic engagement, Civil liberties, Elections, Ethics in government, Human rights, Immigration, Indigenous Minnesotans, Labor, Politics, Refugees, Religion | Permalink | Comments (1)
National Association of Realtors Fund dumps IE cash into North Mankato municipal races
The influx of independent expenditures by the Chicago-based National Association of Realtors Fund (NARF) into municipal races has been news in Rochester, Minnesota's third-largest city. Check out this Catharine Richert story at Minnesota Public Radio, Development, money and tension dominate Rochester council races and an earlier Post Bulletin story by Andrew Setterholm, Outside group spends big on council candidates.
The NARF dropped "a combined $30,000 to help commercial realtor Scott Hoss unseat an incumbent, and to re-elect city council president Randy Staver," Richter reports.
With development anticipated to blossom as Rochester's DMC (Destination Medical Center) rams up, it's not hard to ascertain the national group's purpose in spending on candidates it believes will help members' business interests.
But what's the stake in North Mankato, population estimated 13,529 in 2015?
According to campaign finance records on file at the South Central Minnesota city's website, the same political fund had spent $4,758.83 in independent expenditures by October 13 for a single mailing supporting the candidacies of Tom Hagen for Mayor and Matthias Leyrer for City Council.
Word arrived yesterday that a second independent expenditure arrived in voters' mailboxes this week--so it's possible out-of-state group is spending close to $9400 in a local election in a city where 8186 people were registered to vote at the beginning of Election Day 2014.
We called Tom Hagen, a humanities professor at Minnesota State University-Mankato, about the independent expenditures. He said that he was surprised to see the mailing but assumed that the fund's nod came from his opposition to North Mankato council approval of a rental cap of 10-percent in September.
Hagen said the he disagreed with the 10 percent rental-per-block ordinance, a position spelled out on his website in the post, 10 Percent Rental Rule:
Recently the City of North Mankato established a new rental cap of 10%. I proposed an alternative to the city that was based on clear rules and strong enforcement, but the city chose to not even discuss it. . . .
The rental rules in North Mankato are definitely in need of change, all agree to that, but what really needs changing is the way in which North Mankato City Government involves citizens in the decision making process. Many of us, as concerned citizens, believe that non-compliant landlords and tenants should be made to answer for their actions, but that the city should not paint all tenants and landlords with the same broad brush. The involvement of concerned citizens in the process of government is helpful to the process. No one has all the answers , but by working together we can come to better solutions to challenging issues. . . .
Read the entire post on the blog. Hagen assumed his public opposition to the rule caught the PAC's eye; he stressed that although his objections to the new rule stemmed from a concern for property rights, he also was in agreement with the American Civic Liberty Union's assessment of the ordinance.
Trey Mewes at the Mankato Free Press reported in North Mankato passes controversial rental density cap:
Some took issue with the cap's 10 percent threshold, while others worried the cap would cause rents to rise and rental options to become scarce. And some were concerned with the way city officials conducted its public meetings on the cap issue.
Many of them spoke out at a public hearing in opposition to the cap.
"The problem lies in the zoning codes and the land use regulations," said Matthias Leyrer.
Leyrer, a City Council candidate who blogs on urban planning and architecture, believed the council's decision would negatively affect the local housing market.
He wasn't the only one. Local realtors representing the Realtors Association of Southern Minnesota Board of Directors publicly opposed the cap, as did a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
"We see that historically these initiatives, these ordinances, have been used to exclude minorities in cities or neighborhoods," said Julio Zelaya, a coordinator of ACLU's Greater Minnesota Racial Justice Project. . . .
Mayoral candidate Tom Hagen, who has had issues in the past with the city of North Mankato over its handling of noise complaints, took the city to task for the way city officials handled the rental density cap issue. While the public meetings were open to everyone, city officials only mailed meeting notices to property owners.
"You need to get the citizens of this community involved in this process, everyone who's here, and come up with a reasonable process that works for all of us," he said.
Bluestem Prairie didn't speak to Leyrer about the independent expenditures, but the young candidate addresses them on his website:
You may have been sent to my website by a mailer that was sent by the National Realtors Association. In small type on that mailer, you will see that it says the mailer was not mailed by direction of the candidates. I would like to restate this. This mailer was sent without my knowledge as per campaign finance laws.
While I am very grateful that a group that promotes home ownership and works with property owners of all types have endorsed me, I want to make two things very clear:
I did not know about this mailer, nor did I ask or suggest that it be sent on my behalf in any way.
This does not mean that my vote is for sale. Period.
If you hear anyone talking about me trading my vote to the realtors association to overturn a ordinance or anything of the sort, please have them reach out to me. I would be happy to talk.
Bluestem hopes that voters understand that both candidates had nothing to do with the mail piece--which fortunately isn't a nasty attack on the others running for the same offices.
That being said, we are nonetheless discouraged to see a national organization's spending reaching down this level. Both candidates speak to the need to engage local citizens in them local government processes; this is a fine goal.
Big national PAC dimes clanging? Not so much. Unfortunately, in the era of Citizens United (oh the irony) little can be done to make Hagen's and Leyrer's voices stand out to voters rather than mail from absentee interests.
The state realtors' PAC--a separate entity--is spending IE dollars in the 17B race (for Dave Baker, R-Willmar); SD39 ( for Karin Housley, R-Forest Lake); SD24 (for Vicki Jensen, DFL-Owatonna); and SD10 (Carrie Ruud, R-Brezy Point). A friend has heard pro-Baker ads on Willmar-area radio.
Photo: The first NARF mailer to North Mankato voters.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Nov 03, 2016 at 05:12 PM in 2016 Elections, Cities, Civic engagement, Civil liberties, Elections, Fundraising | Permalink | Comments (1)
What does Rep. Miller do for a living, anyway?
The October 26, 2016 Clara City News profiles Minnesota House District 17A and Senate District 17 candidates;on its front page this week. The articles are well-written and informative, as are the profiles of the House District 17B candidates.
The last sentence of the profile of Representative Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, however, made Bluestem pause: "He currently works in non profit strategic planning and development."
That differs from the occupation listed on his official page on the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he's a "business owner."
That listing, in its turn, varies from the information in his legally required information in his Economic Interest Statement (EIS), online at the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. In his EIS, Miller lists his occupation as "clerk" for hardware store. Sadly, the store in Willmar closed at the end of July, a casualty of changing consumer attitudes toward retail in the age of big box stores, the owner told the West Central Tribune.
Miller also appears to drive a sugar beet truck for David Daughtery's farm in Renville and Kandiyohi Counties. In an October 14, 2016 Minnesota House 17A radio debate on a Willmar radio station this year, Miller gave a shout out to the Daughtery beet truck crew (3:23 minute mark on the audio archive).
The screenshot above is taken from Miller's personal Facebook page last October; US DOT records show that Daughtery has a fleet of four trucks to haul crops. Under Minnesota law, farm truck drivers don't need commercial drivers' licenses so long as the vehicle has special plates and remains within 150 miles of the farm, the Forum News Service reported last fall in Amid sugar beet truck accidents, some question Minnesota, North Dakota regulations for ag drivers.
The freshman lawmaker's prowess as a driver isn't an issue here as far as we're concerned. Rather, it's the likely fact that Miller is paid to drive a beet truck, and has been paid to drive a beet truck in the past. If we read the handbook for reporting sources of income correctly, if a public official was paid " more than $50 in a month" (page 7), then that income must be listed on any EIS filed after the first statement:
If your employer is one of the types of entities listed in Column A , you would list your employer in the sources of compensation section and check the employee box for this line. On your first Statement of Economic Interest, you look at only the month before you became a public or local official to determine if you met the $50 income threshold. On later Statements of Economic Interest, you report the income if you reached the $50 threshold in any month since the date of your last statement.
The EIS is intended to let the public know about conflicts of interest that might arise for public officials.
As we reported this July in Beet coop PAC pours sugar on Renville Co RPM; Renville Co RPM sweetens Tim Miller committee, Representative Miller enjoys strong relationship with the sugar beet industry, if on would measure that in terms of political action committee (PAC) sugar sprinkled on Miller and the Renville County RPM.
Is he driving that beet truck as a volunteer? Neither do we believe that the farm is a non-profit that the Prinsburg Republican is advising. A little more transparency on the EIS might be in order, all things considered.
Photo: From Miller's Facebook page, posted on October 2, 2015.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Oct 28, 2016 at 10:58 PM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Ethics in government, Minnesota legislature, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Hybrid warfare and the American body politic: the case of Trump's presidential campaign
Guest post by Samuel Twitchell
From the outset, Donald Trump's presidential campaign has been anything but conventional. Despite a litany of words, actions, and behaviors that would have ended any other candidate's ambitions, Trump defeated a deep roster of Republican presidential hopefuls and remains, to the incredulity of many, a viable candidate for the most powerful office in the world.
While writing his success off as a product of luck or celebrity culture may be comforting, beneath the surface of his campaign lies a recognizable structure indicative of a strategy that is actually quite sophisticated. Indeed, it is accurate to characterize the Trump campaign as an example of hybrid warfare, and by analyzing the race in these terms, it is possible to find order in the chaos of his candidacy.
There is no single agreed-upon definition of hybrid warfare among military professionals, but all of the definitions coalesce around one characteristic: offsetting the conventional military strength of an opponent by reconceptualizing both the nature of war and the means used to wage it. Through a careful application of a mix of tools, including high-intensity military battles, low-intensity insurgent and guerilla campaigns, economic and political pressure, and propaganda, an adversary seeks to aggregate small victories into achieving strategic goals while avoiding the risks and costs of a more traditional confrontation.
The exact mix of tools employed is less important than the ability to be highly agile in their use and to confront the enemy with a mix of problems at every level of the conflict. Above all, hybrid warfare recognizes the military advantages in information, disinformation, and propaganda as instrumental in shaping the international and domestic political environment to help achieve war aims.
This definition of hybrid warfare may seem superficially vague, and dismissing the very concept of hybrid warfare as an inconsequential remix of already existing military tools and practices is tempting. However, the fact that describing the difference between hybrid warfare and older military ideas is difficult should not conceal the significance of these changes.
To illustrate the gravity of this difference, it helps to examine the emergence of the German blitzkrieg between 1939 and 1941. Although the exact nature of blitzkrieg is interesting in its own right, a detailed description of it is beyond the scope of this analysis. It is enough to say that when the Second World War broke out in 1939, every major nation possessed the physical tools of blitzkrieg—tanks, armored infantry vehicles, and close air support. Indeed, some of the nations targeted by the German blitzkrieg possessed these tools in greater numbers than the Germans. However, only the Germans had reconceptualized the use of these tools and put these ideas fully into the field.
Although hybrid warfare has only emerged in the last two decades or so, there are already several examples of its successful implementation, including the 2006 Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah, and recent Iranian efforts to exert power in the Middle East. However, the single most accomplished practitioner of hybrid warfare is Russia.
For at least ten years, Russia has used hybrid warfare methodologies to re-exert its power over its traditional sphere of influence, intimidate its neighbors, and generally diminish the power and credibility of the United States. This effort has included the 2008 Georgia-Russia War, the 2011 annexation of Crimea by "little green men", and the ongoing conflicts in Syria and the Ukraine. While I have no evidence other than conjecture of the existence between the Trump campaign and Russian strategy, such a connection would not surprise me.
When viewed in terms of hybrid warfare, the actions of Trump begin to make a lot more sense. Trump has never bought into the conventions of electoral politics, and while this is a major factor in why he seems to be immune to the normal criticisms of a candidate, it also conceals differences with his opponent's campaigns that are deeper and more significant. Traditionally, candidates see their campaigns in terms of two domains fought more or less sequentially.
The first of these domains is the nominating process, in which a candidate seeks to garner enough support by a major party to earn its endorsement. Following the successful conclusion of this fight is the battle for the next domain: the general election. Winning this domain requires appealing to a broader segment of the population. Consequently, the transition to this domain is characterized by a pivot from either the political left or the right (for Democrats and Republicans, respectively) toward the center of the political spectrum.
In contrast to this two domain model of U.S. presidential campaigns, Trump has always conceptualized this election as at least three separate domains, all of which he fought simultaneously instead of sequentially. We will call the first of these domains the white nationalist domain--that is, the largely white, largely rural voters who see the changes of the last fifty years as a departure from something better (this "golden era" is largely a myth, but let's ignore that for the moment).
These voters are alienated by the social and economic changes that began in the 1960s and continue to this day. Previous GOP candidates have done what they could to appeal to this segment of the population, because they are a significant conservative voting bloc. That said, these white nationalists have traditionally had little real political power; to some extent, Republicans took them for granted. Trump's campaign has flipped that script.
Literally, from the first day of his campaign, when Trump described Mexican immigrants as racists, he has placed white nationalists at the center of his entire election effort. His campaign slogan--Make America Great Again--speaks to this voting bloc in a language that they understand while avoiding at least some of the backlash that more extreme language would create. In this way, Trump has earned the loyal support of white nationalists while not stepping out-of-bounds of conservative voters.
The second domain is the Republican Party itself. By placing the white nationalists at the center of his campaign, Trump has created a powerful tool to manipulate both Republican candidates and the party elite. While it is clear that many in the GOP view Trump with distaste, fear of losing the white nationalist voting bloc that they need to win elections forces most Republicans to acquiesce to his campaign. Because of this, Trump's support of this bloc is a powerfully coercive tool, as it forces other candidates to confront a set of choices they would rather not make. Moreover, if Republicans bail on him, Trump does not need to change his tactics a bit. He can simply lump them in with the elites he is already criticizing, strengthening his own election narrative while casting doubt on theirs.
The final domain is much broader, and it includes both traditional media and the Democratic Party. I feel comfortable lumping these together because, on some level, they have shown a reluctance to stray from the traditional tools of the trade. This is understandable in the case of the media, as they are ethically compelled to abide by a certain set of practices. As such, they are excellent foil for the Trump campaign's sophisticated use of propaganda. As far as the Democratic Party is concerned, for all of their claims of superior intelligence and flexibility, they tend to abide by a set of orthodoxies that, in the end, make them an utterly conventional opponent vulnerable to unconventional tactics.
Notice how much time Democrats have spent on the issue of Trump's tax returns. While this is a legitimate issue, and it has become somewhat more important in recent weeks, has the return on the investment been worth it for Democrats? At best, the answer is a qualified yes. Democrats have used large amounts of political capital attacking Trump on this and several other issues, but these attacks have yielded only marginal results. This asymmetry of return on resources invested is another hallmark of hybrid warfare.
You will also notice that, although Secretary Clinton's candidacy has been the primary beneficiary of the recent revelations of Trump's sexual misconduct--which, let's be honest, we all saw coming--the domain in which Trump is losing this election is the second of the three domains discussed above--within the GOP itself. There is finally enough evidence of Trump's behavior to give the Republican elite and many mainstream Republican voters abandon the candidate, come what may in the general election. While this is partly speculation on my part because the events have yet to play out and I have not yet seen enough polling since last Friday, I feel confident in this assertion. If the rise in Secretary Clinton's electoral chances is not matched by a fall in her unfavorability numbers, that would be evidence that I might be right.
Secretary Clinton will almost certainly win this election, and it is possible the Senate flips along the way, but there is a real danger that this will be a short-term victory. Another characteristic of hybrid warfare is that it takes a long time. The Crimean Annexation took place over two years ago. The Syrian Civil War has been going on since 2011. The Russo-Georgian War happened in 2008. As stated before, all of these events can be tied into a long-term campaign to weaken U.S. power in the world in general and in Europe in particular.
If Trump is indeed following a hybrid warfare model of electoral politics, this would indicate that this type of politics--whether with Trump at its center or not--is here to stay.
Samuel Twitchell is a PhD candidate in the Department of History at Iowa State University, where he studies the history of military technology and 20th century military history. He lives in Johnston, IA. This post is adapted from a Facebook post by Mr. Twitchell.
Photo: Donald Trump.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Oct 23, 2016 at 06:13 PM in 2016 Elections, Elections, War | Permalink | Comments (1)
League of Women Voters Minnesota responds to Leilani Holmstadt's Facebook flame attack
In "Find a rendering plant": MNGOP senate hopeful's Facebook pals take low road on LWV, Bluestem posted about a Facebook flame against the League Of Women Voters by endorsed Republican Minnesota Senate District 54 Leilani Holmstadt and some of her fans' uncouth comments.
The League of Women Voters Minnesota has issued the following response to Holmstadt's rant:
A recent article in the SWC Bulletin regarding Leilani Holmstadt's opinions about the League of Women Voters (as found on her campaign's official Facebook post) calls into questions the 97-year history of the League of Women Voters Minnesota and our work on behalf of all Minnesota residents. The League grew out of the suffragette movement and its successful effort to secure passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Since that time, the League's members have focused their volunteer time on voting rights and voter education.
Are readers aware that League members volunteer at every citizenship ceremony registering thousands of new voters and welcoming them as part of our democratic process? If you've never attended a naturalization ceremony, I urge you to do so to witness the joy and enthusiasm our newest voters share on that day.
From our earliest days League has been actively engaged in protecting the Constitutional right to vote for all citizens. We do this through education and advocacy. Our voter education efforts are best seen during election years when Leagues all across Minnesota host hundreds of candidate forums. These forums are often the only opportunity voters have to compare candidates' views side-by-side. The questions are submitted by voters and reflect the concerns of the community. Our other educational work is done on the issues Minnesota faces. Were you in the audience for a community forum on sex trafficking? How about the one on racial equity? Preventing gun violence? Cultural diversity? Community policing in the wake of the shooting of Philando Castile? Had you attended any one of these or any other League forum, you would have learned that League brings together diverse points of view and conducts a civil discussion where all voices are heard.
Ms. Holmstadt also called into question the League's position on various issues. Our Program for Action can be found on our website at lwvmn.org. In it, readers will learn that League's positions on issues are arrived at only after our members research and study issues, hold thoughtful discussions, and arrive at a consensus. Many of our positions predate current topics by decades. In it, our positions on topics ranging from clean water to education to government transparency. But, to clear up just a couple of Ms. Holmstadt's misstatements, please allow me the courtesy of providing facts (and the dates these positions were adopted):
Gun Violence — "Protect the health and safety of citizens through limiting the accessibility and regulating the ownership of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons, and support the allocation of resources to better regulate and monitor gun dealers. (1990, 1994, 1998)
Immigration — "Reform should promote reunification of immediate families; meet the economic, business and employment needs of the United States and be responsive to those facing political persecution or humanitarian crises. Provisions should also be made for qualified persons to enter the U.S. on student visas. All persons should receive fair treatment under the law. (2008)
Reproductive Choice — "Protect the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices. (1983)
Finally, the League of Women Voters Minnesota is a 501(c)3 nonprofit nonpartisan organization. The League does not endorse candidates for office or political parties. Membership is open to all regardless of gender, citizenship or political point of view. League members do "prowl the halls" of the Capitol, as Ms. Holmstadt wrote. Did she mean to imply that citizens should not be participating in our government or advocating for things like the rights of children, protecting the environment?
Had Ms. Holmstadt, attended the candidate forum held earlier in the week for the SD54 race, she would have participated in a thoughtful discussion of topics voters in her district care most about. Her failure to appear was noted and will be seen by all those who view the video on your community access television station. Voters across Minnesota are turning out for candidate forums in unprecedented numbers because they want access to candidates and to know that the candidates will hear their concerns and represent their interests. Her decision not to participate short-changed the voters of SD54.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet with Ms. Holmstadt and to provide her with additional background about the League's work. Perhaps together we could attend an upcoming naturalization ceremony and register voters? Together we could hear first-hand about how much voting and our democracy means to our newest voters. I hope she will take me up on this invitation
Terry Kalil, President
League of Women Voters Minnesota
Kalil mentions Scott Wente's article in the South Washington County Bulletin, Holmstadt cites League of Women Voters' advocacy in refusing to take part in candidate forum. Wente reports in part:
. . . League organizers had a chair and sign for Holmstadt next to her opponent, Democrat Dan Schoen, but removed the sign when the forum started. The moderator announced Holmstadt was invited but was not participating. The League's policy is to allow a candidate to participate even if the opponent does not.
"It's unfortunate my opponent isn't here tonight to visit with us as well," said Schoen, DFL-St. Paul Park, who currently represents House District 54A. The other Republican candidates, House District 54A's Keith Franke and House District 54B's Tony Jurgens, participated. . . .
Bluestem has to wonder if voters in the district are impressed by her hard-shell conservative views and refusal to engage with the impure.
Photo: State Representative Dan Schoen, DFL-Cottage Grove, answering voters' questions, without the pleasure of his opponent's company. Photo by Scott Wente, via the South Washington County Bulletin.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Oct 22, 2016 at 04:21 PM in 2016 Elections, Civic engagement, Civil liberties, Conspiracy theories, Elections, Events , Minnesota legislature, Politics, Postmoronic Politics, Social Media, State Legislature, Voting | Permalink | Comments (0)
Could a pattern exist? Former MnDOT employee fact checks Tim Miller's transportation brags
We've noticed that Representative Miller likes to claim things that aren't true or particularly accurate. That's an added charm to changing his positions on issues. Take Sunday sales and legal medical marijuana, which he was for before he was against them.
Former MnDOT employee Galen Henjum identifies one special wrinkle in Miller's veracity in a letter to the editor of the West Central Tribune, Taking credit for work by others:
I'm amazed when I see elected officials taking credit for things they didn't do. Tim Miller claims responsibility for getting Highway 12 resurfaced between Benson and Kerkhoven and this is simply not true. That project was included in the state transportation improvement program as far back as 2013 when Andrew Falk was serving as our state representative. I know because I was working there (MnDOT).
Tim Miller takes credit for passing a large transportation bill that is rebuilding roads and bridges. The truth is, Tim Miller passed no long-term comprehensive transportation bill. He simply voted for a "lights-on" transportation bill, which was a continuation of the bill and policies passed by Andrew Falk and the DFL in 2013-2014. . . .
Taking credit for others' work joins the Miller catalog, which also includes flat-out misrepresenting his opponent's record, as we saw in Fact check: Did Andrew Falk never author legislation related to Appleton private prison? as well as asserting that developments are progressing on projects when they are not, as we learned in research for the post Minnesota isn't negotiating to buy CCA's Prairie Correctional Facility. What's it worth, anyway?.
Photo: Representative Tim Miller. Are the eyes the "tell"?
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Oct 19, 2016 at 10:00 AM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Fact Check, Minnesota legislature, Politics, Postmoronic Politics, State Legislature, Transportation | Permalink | Comments (0)
"Find a rendering plant": MNGOP senate hopeful's Facebook pals take low road on LWV
In Tuesday's Morning Take, Blois Olson called attention to Republican Leilani Holmstadt's Facebook rant about the Minnesota League of Women Voters:
LWV: via Facebook from Leilani Holmstadt, GOP candidate for SD54, VERBATIM: "Voters in Minnesota Senate District 54 need to know about the partisan nature of the League of Women Voters (LWV), how phony their stated focus on good governance is, and how little they represent the interests of women...Here is the truth which is easily verified by visiting the LWV website. The LWV is a lobbying organization. LWV leaders prowl the halls of the Minnesota State Capitol promoting an agenda fully aligned with the DFL Party's...The LWV fashions a public image of being a neutral party in elections as a distraction and reputation enhancer for its advocacy activities...Those operations advance abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration, among a host of other far left objectives. The League certainly doesn't represent fetuses who would grow up to be women; it doesn't represent women who want to protect themselves with legal firearms; and it certainly doesn't represent women who lose their jobs to persons in the country illegally...I urge other responsible candidates for elected office to join me in refusing to participate in the LWV candidate forums and to, instead, call out the LWV for the left-wing lobbying organization it is." LINK: http://bit.ly/2dkka7k
We've posted a screengrab of the comments on the post at the top of this post. Here's the thread as it stands now:
Kris Froelke Ugliest bunch of women I've ever seen, I mean Dykes
John Bilski "Dykes" is a vulgar and inappropriate word Kris.
Kris Froelke I'm with you Leilani 😁👍🏻
Charles Keiser LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEY SHOULD FIND A RENDERING PLANT AND DUMP ALL THAT EXTRA LARD !
John Bilski I'm not surprised some women have body image issues with men like you in the world Charles.
Mike Skweres thanks
Jerry Lindberg LWV - Liberal Women Vetters; - vetting conservatives and shining the light of tolerance on all things liberal - for 80 years!
Bryan Strawser WTF is up with some of these comments - that's really way over the line.
Kris Froelke No it really isn't👳🏾 🔫👍🏻
Bryan Strawser Kris Froelke Yes, they totally are. And if you don't think there are lesbian women in the Republican party, you're blind.
Kris Froelke You must be a Arnie Carlson Republican, which she was not, worst governor other than Dayton 😩
Steven Gallagher Seriously? Next post * the election will be rigged too...?!?
This sort of thing doesn't just recall Trump's dismissal of women, but also that 2010 classic moment in Minnesota discourse captured by Jessica Lussenhop, then with the City Pages, in Minnesota GOP distracted by ugly Democrat babes.
Will Leilani Holmstadt be as classy as GOP candidate for District 56B Andrea Kieffer was in 2010--and remove the juvenile comments?
Perhaps for some Republicans, thinking shaming women for their appearance is a smart tactic. We're hoping she'll understand why Bryan Strawser called the anti-lesbian remarks and the "rendering plant" crack which echoes a certain fate of Polish psychiatric patients under Nazi German rule as "over the top."
One would think that Holmstadt might take Strawser seriously. By day the head of a " strategic advisory firm specializing in global risk, business continuity, crisis management, crisis communications, and public affairs," by night, he's a Second Amendment activist, City Pages recently reported:
As an individual, however, Strawser serves as chairman of the board for a group of gun rights organizations, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus; he co-hosts a podcast that focuses on gun legislation; and has been quoted in news media like the Star Tribune, City Pages, and MPR advocating for pro-gun policy.
But perhaps enabling social media fans to call lesbians names matters more to the Republican nominee than common sense from a respected conservative activist..
Leilani Holmstadt's opponent in the race for the open Senate seat created by the retirement of Katie Sieben, DFL-Cottage Grove, is Democratic state representative and Cottage Grove police officer Danny Schoen.
Image: Screengrab.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Oct 18, 2016 at 01:23 PM in 2016 Elections, Civic engagement, Civil liberties, Conspiracy theories, Elections, Minnesota legislature, Politics, Postmoronic Politics, Social Media | Permalink | Comments (0)
Greater MN mayors condemn placebaiting notion that only way to help rural is to take from metro
Bluestem Prairie isn't the only voice in Greater Minnesota scrutinizing the tactic that we call "placebaiting," in which different regions of the state are played off against each other.
Most frequently, urban lawmakers are cast as villains, rural voters are the target, and Republicans are the perpetrators in this divisive rhetoric. Regional differences and needs do exist, but one region's gain doesn't automatically mean that another area must lose.
In Elect candidates who'll compromise, Sara Carlson, the Mayor of Alexandria, and Dave Smiglewski, the Mayor of sunny Granite Falls, describe and condemn the frame:
Let's not mince words: Minnesota's 2016 legislative session was, by and large, a massive failure. Political posturing led to the demise of the transportation bill and bonding bill, while a typo that would have cost the state $100 million compelled Gov. Mark Dayton to veto an otherwise good tax bill. . . .
There is plenty of blame to go around — and many sore fingers from all that pointing —but with just weeks until the election, it's time to stop complaining and start looking for solutions.
As voters, we need to ask the candidates and ourselves how things will be different in 2017. Whether we send back the same cast of characters or elect new ones, we need leaders who refuse to accept the inaction of the last biennium as the status quo. "Compromise" must be more than just a buzzword. It must be a course of action if we are going to see real results for Greater Minnesota.
Last session, it was disappointing to see that some rural legislators appeared to operate under the impression that in order to help Greater Minnesota, they needed to take something away from the metro area.
This strategy of attempting to hurt the metro — by cutting state aid to Minneapolis and St. Paul and preventing construction of light rail transit, even if it was paid for by metro-area dollars — proved to be counterproductive. Trying to poke holes in the metro's bucket did nothing to actually improve Greater Minnesota. Instead, it only fueled more of the divisiveness that prevents progress and harms our entire state.
This cannot continue. We need legislators who will focus on accomplishing good things for the communities they represent rather than devote their time and energy to trying to stop the other party or region from getting things they need. . . .
Read the whole column at the Grand Forks Herald. We think that it will likely be published in newspapers across the state.
Carlson and Smiglewski serve as president and vice president, respectively, of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.
Photo: Pop some corn at home, because the Granite Falls' Kiwanis Club's terrific popcorn stand is closed for the season.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Oct 12, 2016 at 11:51 PM in 2016 Elections, Cities, Counties, Elections, Ethics in government, Lobbying, Minnesota legislature, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Two familiar Republican faces seek to take Bob Barrett's place in the Minnesota legislature
Following the ruling by the Minnesota State Supreme Court declaring Bob Barrett ineligible to hold the Minnesota House District 32B seat and nullifying the November ballot in the district, two familiar Republican faces have declared their intention to seeks their party's endorsement for the February 14, 2017 special election.
Sheldon Anderson, former Mayor of Wyoming, MN and aide to one-term wonder congressman Chip Cravaack, and Anne Neu, Minnesota House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC) executive director, fundraiser and Chair of the new Friends of GOP Women committee, have declared their intent to run.
At the Pioneer Press, David Montgomery summed up problem about Bob and its resolution in Lawmaker doesn't live in district, MN Supreme Court rules; ballot won't count:
State Rep. Bob Barrett doesn't live in the legislative district he's elected to represent, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
That makes Barrett an ineligible candidate for this November's election — and pre-emptively nullifies the vote in Barrett's District 32B. That's because Barrett was found to be ineligible less than 80 days before the Nov. 8 election. Under a 2015 law, if a legislative candidate is tossed off the ballot this late, the seat will be filled in a February special election.
Sheldon Anderson: Miss Me Yet?
Some Minnesotans may remember Anderson from the 2010 City Pages' Hart Van Denburg report in Sheldon Anderson, Wyoming mayor, defends "Miss me yet?" Bush billboard on MSNBC:
The "Miss me yet?" billboard story we told you about last week has now made it possible for Wyoming, Minn., Mayor Sheldon Anderson, a Republican, to get his 15 minutes of fame thanks to MSNBC -- and some free campaign advertising in his bid to unseat state DFL Rep. Jeremy Kalin. . . .
That 15 minutes didn't work out so well for the mayor. Kalin chose to retire, and Anderson lost the 2010 primary to Republican endorsed candidate Bob Barrett, who actually lived within the confines of the district for which he ran--then called 17B before redistricting in 2012. Anderson then lost the race for mayor in November to Eric Peterson.
Anderson's luck improved a bit after that, according to his campaign website's About Sheldon page:
After Congressman Chip Cravaack's historic victory in 2010, Sheldon served as district director through 2012 with offices across Minnesota's 8th Congressional District in Duluth, Brainerd and North Branch.
Since Cravaack lost his job in 2012 to Rick Nolan, Sheldon returned to running his business, Capital Investigations & Security Services, Inc. while starting up a political consulting firm.
He's conservative--and he lives in the district. He registered his committee with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board on September 13.
Anne Neu: HRCC Insider
Like Sheldon Anderson, Neu is conservative and lives in the district; the candidates essentially agree on issues and priorities (Anderson's issues here and Neu's issues here).
Neu's About page plays down her insider status:
I am a resident of North Branch where I have lived for 7 years and I'm a homeschool mom to my five children ages 8 to 17.
I work part-time but also enjoy serving in the community. I am an avid supporter of the Boy Scouts and have served on the North Branch Planning Commission. I've also served as Vice President of Minnesota Excellence in Public Service Series, which provides leadership training to conservative women so they can fulfill leadership roles in their careers, communities and government. I have engaged in political advocacy at every level from walking in parades to organizing campaigns.
For those details, one needs to check out her Linked In profile:
MN House Republican Campaign Committee
March 2014 – Present (2 years 7 months)St. Paul, MN
Minnesota Excellence in Public Service
June 2011 – Present (5 years 4 months)St. Paul, MN
Interim Finance Director
Mike McFadden for U.S. Senate
May 2013 – August 2013 (4 months)St. Paul, MN
Pete Hegseth for Senate
February 2012 – June 2012 (5 months)St. Paul, MN
Cravaack for Congress
October 2009 – November 2010 (1 year 2 months)8th Congressional District, MN
Neu is recently widowed after her husband's long struggle with ALS; her touching duet with him can be viewed here on YouTube.
In Friday's announcement of her candidacy, Neu declares:
Because of Democrat activists employing under-handed tactics, our district now faces the unfortunate situation where we need a new Republican candidate on the ballot for the February 14, 2017 special election. . . .The best response to the devious tactics by local Democrat activists is winning convincingly at the ballot box.
Bluestem thinks that actually living in the district one purports to serve is an even better means to prevent those tactics from being effective. Like Anderson and Neu, presumptive DFL candidate Laurie Warner lives in the district.
Screengrab: From 2011 series of Youtubes of Neu speaking to the Metropolitan Republicans Women, "Anne Neu was the Campaign Manager for Chip Cravaack for Congress. Very powerful woman."
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Sep 24, 2016 at 07:28 PM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Ethics in government, Minnesota legislature | Permalink | Comments (0)
After we posted Carpetbagger Bob Barrett's bid blown, Representative Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, tweeted at our editor:
@sallyjos he should resign now
— Rep. Rick hansen (@reprickhansen) September 8, 2016
It's a fair suggestion. If an individual isn't eligible to run in for office in a district because of failure to meet a residency requirement, she or he isn't eligible to hold office.
Not only is Barrett still representing the people among whom he doesn't live, but he's able to use state resources such as staff, facilities and the like. Moreover, it's likely he's still drawing a paycheck (the meager $31,000 and change annual salary is typically paid across twelve months.
At the Pioneer Press, David Montgomery sums up the issue in Lawmaker doesn't live in district, MN Supreme Court rules; ballot won't count:
Barrett should do the right thing and resign, as he has been caught in a falsehood.
Photo: We fixed Bob's banner.
Watch live video at 11:00 a.m.: MN Supremes to hear oral arguments in Barrett residency case
Sept 6 state supremes showdown: judge rules Barrett lives outside district, should be off ballot
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Sep 09, 2016 at 12:11 AM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Ethics in government, Minnesota legislature | Permalink | Comments (0)
Empathy has its limits: GOP senate candidate tells county fair audience he can't afford MNSure
Answering a question about MNSure, Minnesota's health insurance exchange for those who don't receive affordable health care insurance from their employers or don't qualify for Medical Assistance/MinnesotaCare, Andrew Lang, the endorsed Republican candidate for state senate district 17 told listeners he couldn't afford MNSure.
Lang said:
. . .I've talked to a lot of people door-to-door, and what they're always saying, that's one of their big main concerns is health care has become so expensive, I can't afford it.
I know for myself personally, I can't afford the MNSure program. It would . . . (laughs) It's as much as my mortgage payment. The deductibles are outrageous. I can't afford it. There's no way I can go with it.
Here's the clip:
The cry to the heavens about expensive health care insurance came during a Kandiyohi County Fair forum earlier this month. One can listen to the whole debate here (along with those for the Minnesota House candidates for 17A and 17B).
We grew worried that Andrew Lang and his family might become homeless from having to pay for both "MNSure" and that mortgage, but further investigation revealed that Lang, who works as Supervisor of Parks for Renville County, receives health insurance benefits from his employer (Lang's wife also works for the county). A friend who works in a non-union supervisory position in the county said that the employer-provided insurance for "management" is very good.
While anyone can obtain insurance through MNSure, there's not much point searching for a policy through the exchange if the employer-provided insurance is affordable. Could Lang afford MNSure if his family didn't receive paid health care benefits from an employer? We'll leave that question for when that alternative universe happens.
One has to wonder if Renville County supervisors' insurance is close to AFSCME union members working for the county receive under their contracts, negotiated by Council 65. We dipped into a few of those for Renville County workers and found this language for health insurance benefits across the county:
Why is MNSure too expensive for Andrew Lang? Probably because his existing, quality, employer-provided insurance doesn't cost his family more 9.66 percent of his income, so no tax credits on MNSure for him.
There's also another option for the Lang family as well, since he serves as an officer in the Minnesota National Guard: TRICARE, which offers various plans to Guard members and their families depending upon their status.
Bluestem is all for members of all branches of the military--including the National Guard--receiving quality health care insurance. Our friends who serve are ready to make to ultimate sacrifice--and short of that, spend months away from their families and friends. Health care is the least we owe them.
While county employees aren't asked to make the same sacrifice as those serving in the armed forces, those we know work hard and take pride in helping their communities, so we don't begrudge them the benefits they receive. Indeed, we don't like the race to the bottom that's happened to private sector workers' benefits that in part triggered the need for health care reform.
What we don't have sympathy for is a wannabe lawmaker copping fake empathy about the cost of insurance. Lang should be honest about his own circumstances.
The West Central Tribune reported that the forum "drew a sparse crowd at the fair but was broadcast on KWLM." Let's hope those listening or downloading the audio online apply critical thinking tools to Lang's "feels" about the cost of policies obtainable from private insurance companies in the MNSure exchange.
Photos: Andrew Lang, via the Republican Party of Minnesota (top); screengrab from one of the AFSCME Council 65 contracts with Renville County (bottom)
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Aug 20, 2016 at 06:45 PM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Ethics in government, Fact Check, Health care, Military, Minnesota legislature, Politics, Postmoronic Politics, Radio, State Legislature | Permalink | Comments (0)
Lettermandate: Rep Peggy Bennett recites fake top ten list to Freeborn County GOP picnic
Minnesota State Representative Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, campaigns online under the slogan of "People Before Politics" and a public persona who will:
Listen carefully to your concerns and represent you reliably in the legislature
Engage in healthy debate and endeavor to find common goals and common ground
Be fair-minded in addressing constituent concerns, firm in standing for conservative principles
That's not the person who showed up at the Freeborn County Republican Summer Picnic on Monday.
Instead of Everybody's Favorite Elementary Teacher, Bennett put in an appearance as Your Bitter Aunt Who Fills Your Inbox with nastygrams long discredited by Snopes and other fact-checking sites. A DFL tracker audiotaped her sharing a staple of ultra-partisan sniping, a piece examined in the Snopes article, Lettermandate Rumor: David Letterman presented a 'Top Ten Reasons to Vote Democrat' list.
The piece equates the freedom to marry the person one loves with the ability to marry a German Shepherd, the notion that immigration reform would take Social Security away from those who paid into it, and other non sequiturs that would be comic, save for the fact that they're presented as "accurate."
Among Republican friends, Bennett shares what she thinks of her Democratic constituents (transcript of audio below as Bennett reads the list, while providing her own side commentary; Bluestem has placed the latter in bold). Her remarks begin with the reading of the list, so we're not sure how she introduced this loving (but definitely not-Letterman) portrait of the loyal opposition:
I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I can even marry my German Shepherd.
Number 9 I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies profits are 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon 15% is not.
Number 8, I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending money I earned than I would. Let me tell you, I heard that over and over again when I was sitting on the floor last year. You're not spending enough, we have a surplus, they would spend it all over time
Number 7, I vote Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
Number 6, I vote Democrat because I'm way to irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves, I'm also thankful that I have a 9-1-1 service that gets the police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.
Number 5, I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about billions of babies being aborted, so long as we can keep Death Row inmates alive and comfy.
Number 4, I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free healthcare, education, and social security benefits and we should take away social security benefits from those who paid into it.
Number 3, I vote Democrat because businesses should not be allowed make profits for themselves, they need to break even and give the rest to away to the government for redistribution as the Democratic Party sees fit.
Number 2, I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to re-write the constitution every few days to see the fringe groups who would never get their agenda's past the voters. And last but not least,
Number 1, I vote Democrat because I think it's better to take pay billions of dollars in oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own oil because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about beetles, gophers, or fish in the oil countries, just as long as they're in America. So there ya go, the top ten reasons to Vote Democrat.
Here's the audio:
Perhaps Kurt Daudt can let Bennett know that Minnesota doesn't have a Death Row--or perhaps one shouldn't sweat the details when choosing to let hyper-partisanship all hang out.
Is it wise to mock Democrats in Minnesota House District 27A?
Revealing her sarcastically nasty partisan side might not be the wisest move for the retired elementary teacher and freshman state lawmaker, since the swing district includes a lot of Democratic voters. In 2014, US Senator Al Franken received 54.06 percent of the vote; Congressman Tim Walz earned 59.47 percent; Governor Dayton and Lt. Gov. Smith received a plurality of 49.84 percent, and so on.
On the other hand voters selected three Republican-endorsed candidates, including state Supreme Court Justice candidate Michelle MacDonald, Secretary of State wannabe Dan Severson and Bennett. Her first term incumbent opponent, Shannon Savick, stumbled badly in the race.
The district swung more heavily Democratic in the 2012 presidential year, election results reveal. President Barack Obama captured 55.37 percent of the vote, while United States Senator Amy Klobuchar and Walz crushed with 68.32 percent and 63.80 percent respectively. State senator Dan Sparks--on the ballot again this year--nabbed 67.00 percent of the vote, while Savick received 47.70 percent of the vote in the three-way race to defeat one-term incumbent Rich Murray.
The Austin Herald reports that outside spending was heavy in the district:
The district has historically been a swing district, and in 2014 more than $377,000 in independent expenditures were reported for [and against] Bennett and DFLer Shannon Savick of Wells in the 10 months leading up to the election.
Bennett is being challenged by Riverland Community College Dean Gary Schindler. Bennett enjoys a fundraising cash-on-hand advantage over Schindler, though the $19,854.26 to $8,403.11 split isn't insurmountable if the race heats up.
This isn't the first time we've caught Bennett sharing mean-spirited social media fodder, as we noted last summer in Rejected by Willmar voters but shared by Draz & Bennett: Bob Enos continues anti-refugee rants. Given her vote on an amendment to conduct an expensive witchhunt of an audit of non-profits assisting refugees (p. 7828, Journal of the House) ,perhaps Bennett could sit down with St Cloud area Republican Jim Knoblach for a little education about this issue; Willmar Republican Dave Baker might also fill her in as well.
Photo: Peggy Bennett and her Shiloh Shepherd Coulter, who can read so don't write mean things online (Via Bennett campaign website, top); 2016 DFL opponent and community college dean Gary Schindler (via Austin Herald, bottom).
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Aug 17, 2016 at 01:35 PM in 2014 Elections, 2016 Elections, Elections, Events , Fact Check, Fundraising, Minnesota legislature, Politics, Postmoronic Politics, Refugees, Social Media, State Legislature | Permalink | Comments (0)
Push polling or message testing? Survey Sampling International calling voters in MN12A
An unknown entity has hired Survey Sampling International (SSI) to conduct a survey of voters in Minnesota House District 12A, but one voter who picked up a call IDed as SSI. 320-335-2732 described what appears to be very close to a push-poll.
Bluestem established the identity of the survey company by calling the number above.
Former state representative Jay McNamar is challenging Jeff Backer, R-Browns Valley, for the seat once more. The race is a reprise of the 2014 contest in which Backer defeated McNamar by 660 votes. MinnPost places it among The 25 legislative races to watch in Minnesota in 2016 in a year when all 201 of the Minnesota state senate and house seats are up for election.
A reader from Pope County forwarded us the following email from a voter in the district:
. . .Caller ID says SSI. 320-335-2732
They asked to speak to a registered voter and said they were conducting a poll. I asked who they were were and they gave some neutral u(n) recognizable name.
The first 3 sets of questions or so were pretty straight up regarding conservative v. liberal perspective, likelihood of voting in the upcoming election, DFL v. Republican v. Libertarian, etc. Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election - Obama or Romney. (I declined to answer some.)
Then it moved to campaign message sorts of questions that were quite long and quite slanted - all extremely positive for Backer - i.e. Something like Jeff Backer voted to return taxes to middle class Minnesotans ball blah blah . Does this make likely to vote for Backer, less likely to vote for Backer, much less/more likely. Jeff Backer supports law enforcement etc. Does this make you more likely to vote for Backer, etc.
The next set of questions were similar items about McNamar but clearly reversed and posited a very negative voting record for him and then asked if it made you less likely or more likely to vote for him. I concluded my participation with the first question after noting that it was incredibly slanted and biased.
Is this message testing on behalf of the incumbent? Or message testing by another Independent Expenditure committee whose funders' names we'll never really know?
Or is it push-polling?
Without an exact transcript, it's hard to tell. For reference sake, we recommend Marjorie Connelly's 2014 post in the New York Times' The Upshot: Ask a Pollster, Push Polls, Defined:
"Push polls" — which are not really polls at all — are often criticized as a particularly sleazy form of negative political campaigning. Voters pick up the phone to hear what sounds like a research poll. But there is no effort to collect information, which is what a legitimate poll does.
The questions are skewed to one side of an issue or candidate, the goal being to sway large numbers of voters under the guise of survey research.
But the fact that a poll contains questions with negative information about one or more candidates does not make it a push poll. Campaigns regularly conduct genuine surveys that test campaign messages and advertising, including negative content.
Push polling is so incompatible with authentic polling that the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the American Association of Political Consultants (A.A.P.C.), the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (CMOR) and the National Council on Public Polls (N.C.P.P.) have all denounced the practice.
"Survey research organizations are always concerned about establishing a good rapport with respondents, both in order to complete the interview and more generally to maintain a positive image for the industry," said Michael Traugott, a professor of communication studies and political science at the University of Michigan. "Having a bad experience with something that seems like a very biased poll is harmful to both these interests." . . .
A legitimate survey will identify the call center, although it often does not mention the candidate or political party sponsoring the research because that could influence the results. The survey will contain more than a few questions and generally will ask about more than one candidate or mention both sides of an issue. Demographic questions, such as those on age, race and education, will come at the end of the questionnaire. And the number of respondents to legitimate surveys will normally be between 500 and 1,000.
"Good message testing includes pro and con statements about both your candidate and his or her opponent," said Nancy Belden, partner of Belden Russonello Strategists. "You need to explore the strength and weaknesses on both sides."
If what the voter describes is accurate--that all the messages about Backer are positive--this was a push-poll or a relative too close to be a kissing cousin.
Moreover, it's possible that some retired voters might pick up the call thinking that it's the Social Security Administration when seeing "SSI" pop up on their phones.
The general tone is par for the course from the Republican side and its allies in this race, which have been engaging in place-baiting and worse. See our posts Backer's fundraising letter divides Minnesota, district voter declares in Fergus Falls paper and Backer backer blames Rep. Wagenius for buffer legislation she voted against 2 years running.
Photo: Would seeing a photo of Jeff Backer (left) standing next to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton make you more likely to vote for the Browns Valley Republican? Less Likely? No difference? Would it change if neither man wore aprons to grill turkey burgers? Photo via MPR's Tim Pugmire.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Aug 14, 2016 at 01:38 PM in 2016 Elections, Elections, Minnesota legislature, State Legislature, Voting | Permalink | Comments (1)