I guess I’m not part of the “political class” that keeps “busy with a new pastime: reading tea leaves” concerning what Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal will promote as policy when he takes office. Maybe I’m just too simple, but it seems like to me it’s all been made very obvious to us – which will give us clear benchmarks by which to assess his performance in the future.
It baffles me why one cannot go to Jindal’s campaign site and read what he has to say about important issues of the day. One columnist claims there’s only issue he seems to be clear on – ethics reform – and then thinks everybody must guess what he’s going to do. Well, it’s not hard to figure out, so let me assist:
Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
13.12.07
12.12.07
Closed primary to alter substantially election dynamics
Although the closed primary is common among the states, it’s new to Louisiana for congressional contests and, further, will debut in a special election in early 2008 for the House seat to be vacated by incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal. This could pose questions for many and, as a highly-trained specialist in this area whose graduate education in political science partly was paid for by Louisiana taxpayers, I’ll provide for its citizens some answers concerning this subject.
First, as has been pointed out by one of my colleagues, that no runoff election exists to give a final general election winner an absolute majority not only is unremarkable for federal elections in the U.S., it is practically nonexistent. A very few states have super-minority kinds of requirements such as if nobody gets at least 40 percent in the general election that there is to be a runoff, but no state requires an absolute majority for declaration of a winner as a result of federal elections held on even-numbered years the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (In fact, only about a dozen states or so even require runoff elections for any election, almost all of them in the South.)
Second, for the foreseeable future it will be rare that a winning candidate does not get an absolute majority in the general election, even if more than just a Republican and Democrat nominee run. As weak as the major parties are in Louisiana, the state of minor parties is much worse and the closed primary legislation was designed to strengthen the major parties without commensurate benefits for minor parties. It is difficult to imagine than any minor party candidate could get more of a small sliver of the vote in these kinds of contests any time soon when both major parties put up a nominee.
Third, however, the exception could be well-(probably self-) financed independent candidates along the lines such as recent gubernatorial hopeful John Georges. But even their effect will be diminished because the new law implicitly has what is called a “sore loser” provision. In their explicit versions which many states have, the law flat out mandates that a loser of a party primary cannot run in the general election. (One state that does not have any such law is Connecticut, a lacking that Sen. Joseph Lieberman exploited last election cycle when he lost the party primary to a fringe far-leftist; he then ran as an independent in the general election and won.)
Louisiana’s version is implicit because its sets qualifying for candidates who do not go through a primary nomination process at the same time as those who wish to vie for a party nomination. Normally, but not in the case for Jindal’s 1st District seat because it is a special election and all things are accelerated, that would occur four months prior to the actual general election. Thus, for a regular election in the first week of July, candidates must irrevocably choose their routes, either contesting a party primary or passing on them and going straight to the general election by qualifying as a minor party candidate (assuming these parties have not yet met the organizing threshold set by state law that would enable them to have their own nomination elections) or as no party (colloquially termed “independent”). This prevents candidates from contesting a primary and if losing it to change registrations to no party and getting in on the general election.
Thus, for federal elections we won’t see any last-minute switches less than two months to the primary/general election, such as Georges when only a few days before qualifying began he announced he would run as an independent despite having for months campaigned calling himself a Republican. Any candidate in essence would have to declare much earlier and fight all the publicity being monopolized by the races for the major party nominations. It will make a strategy of going independent more difficult to pull off successfully (although the compressed time frame of the special election might mitigate these obstacles to some degree).
Fourth, any registered voter may participate in the primary election, but not exactly because of the law’s literal wording. It gives the option, identical to the already-existing system for presidential preference primaries, of letting the qualifying (currently only the major) parties decide whether to allow non-party members to participate in their primaries. As it is, the Republicans refused to allow this but the Democrats will allow this. Thus, anybody not registered with a major party will be able to vote in the Democrats’ primary until the party decides to change it.
Fifth, the new law benefits Republicans, conservatives, blacks, and reduces the political power of white Democrats. Currently, a substantial minority of registered white Democrats routinely have voted for Republican candidates in national elections. The GOP’s complete closure of their nomination process means these individuals will have to switch registrations to Republican if they wish to participate in nomination decisions for the party whose candidates they typically have supported. In turn, this will create a more conservative nominating electorate for Republicans, and thus produce candidates who are more conservative.
This same dynamic will drain whites from the Democrats, strengthening the power of black voters in the party. It does not necessarily mean more black Democrat registrants, since non-party members will be allowed to vote, but black independents support Democrat candidates at a level close to what those registered with the party do. Still, the proportion of blacks participating in party primaries will increase relative to whites, meaning nominees are more likely to be black and liberal.
Thus, the “moderate” white Democrat will become an endangered species as a candidate and this process is likely to produce a white conservative Republican matched against (depending on district demographics) white or black liberal Democrat for House elections. Given the electorate generally is right of center in Louisiana, this means more Republicans who are more conservative will get elected. It could be, depending upon census numbers and who has control of state government after the 2011 elections, that this system will produce an entirely Republican, conservative slate of members of the House after the 2012 elections. (The dynamics for Senate contests are just as interesting, but that’s a subject for another time.)
Thus, the closed primary system for Louisiana federal elections will alter substantially election dynamics in the state.
First, as has been pointed out by one of my colleagues, that no runoff election exists to give a final general election winner an absolute majority not only is unremarkable for federal elections in the U.S., it is practically nonexistent. A very few states have super-minority kinds of requirements such as if nobody gets at least 40 percent in the general election that there is to be a runoff, but no state requires an absolute majority for declaration of a winner as a result of federal elections held on even-numbered years the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (In fact, only about a dozen states or so even require runoff elections for any election, almost all of them in the South.)
Second, for the foreseeable future it will be rare that a winning candidate does not get an absolute majority in the general election, even if more than just a Republican and Democrat nominee run. As weak as the major parties are in Louisiana, the state of minor parties is much worse and the closed primary legislation was designed to strengthen the major parties without commensurate benefits for minor parties. It is difficult to imagine than any minor party candidate could get more of a small sliver of the vote in these kinds of contests any time soon when both major parties put up a nominee.
Third, however, the exception could be well-(probably self-) financed independent candidates along the lines such as recent gubernatorial hopeful John Georges. But even their effect will be diminished because the new law implicitly has what is called a “sore loser” provision. In their explicit versions which many states have, the law flat out mandates that a loser of a party primary cannot run in the general election. (One state that does not have any such law is Connecticut, a lacking that Sen. Joseph Lieberman exploited last election cycle when he lost the party primary to a fringe far-leftist; he then ran as an independent in the general election and won.)
Louisiana’s version is implicit because its sets qualifying for candidates who do not go through a primary nomination process at the same time as those who wish to vie for a party nomination. Normally, but not in the case for Jindal’s 1st District seat because it is a special election and all things are accelerated, that would occur four months prior to the actual general election. Thus, for a regular election in the first week of July, candidates must irrevocably choose their routes, either contesting a party primary or passing on them and going straight to the general election by qualifying as a minor party candidate (assuming these parties have not yet met the organizing threshold set by state law that would enable them to have their own nomination elections) or as no party (colloquially termed “independent”). This prevents candidates from contesting a primary and if losing it to change registrations to no party and getting in on the general election.
Thus, for federal elections we won’t see any last-minute switches less than two months to the primary/general election, such as Georges when only a few days before qualifying began he announced he would run as an independent despite having for months campaigned calling himself a Republican. Any candidate in essence would have to declare much earlier and fight all the publicity being monopolized by the races for the major party nominations. It will make a strategy of going independent more difficult to pull off successfully (although the compressed time frame of the special election might mitigate these obstacles to some degree).
Fourth, any registered voter may participate in the primary election, but not exactly because of the law’s literal wording. It gives the option, identical to the already-existing system for presidential preference primaries, of letting the qualifying (currently only the major) parties decide whether to allow non-party members to participate in their primaries. As it is, the Republicans refused to allow this but the Democrats will allow this. Thus, anybody not registered with a major party will be able to vote in the Democrats’ primary until the party decides to change it.
Fifth, the new law benefits Republicans, conservatives, blacks, and reduces the political power of white Democrats. Currently, a substantial minority of registered white Democrats routinely have voted for Republican candidates in national elections. The GOP’s complete closure of their nomination process means these individuals will have to switch registrations to Republican if they wish to participate in nomination decisions for the party whose candidates they typically have supported. In turn, this will create a more conservative nominating electorate for Republicans, and thus produce candidates who are more conservative.
This same dynamic will drain whites from the Democrats, strengthening the power of black voters in the party. It does not necessarily mean more black Democrat registrants, since non-party members will be allowed to vote, but black independents support Democrat candidates at a level close to what those registered with the party do. Still, the proportion of blacks participating in party primaries will increase relative to whites, meaning nominees are more likely to be black and liberal.
Thus, the “moderate” white Democrat will become an endangered species as a candidate and this process is likely to produce a white conservative Republican matched against (depending on district demographics) white or black liberal Democrat for House elections. Given the electorate generally is right of center in Louisiana, this means more Republicans who are more conservative will get elected. It could be, depending upon census numbers and who has control of state government after the 2011 elections, that this system will produce an entirely Republican, conservative slate of members of the House after the 2012 elections. (The dynamics for Senate contests are just as interesting, but that’s a subject for another time.)
Thus, the closed primary system for Louisiana federal elections will alter substantially election dynamics in the state.
11.12.07
Adley switch paints stripes on horse, calls it zebra
You can’t paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra. State Rep. Billy Montgomery found that out when he changed parties prior to this year’s elections, then was defeated by a genuine conservative and Republican when he tried to extend his legislative life into the Senate. Now his ideological and Bossier Parish fellow traveler state Sen. Robert Adley has done the same.
New Republican Adley claims he chose now to switch, almost two months after his reelection, because of his enthusiasm for the agenda of the Republican incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal. One wonders whether he spent too much time campaigning against a lightweight Republican challenger to be aware that Jindal’s agenda hardly has changed since he last ran for governor in 2003, so why didn’t this happen before the election?
Instead, it’s almost comical the reasons he stated for the switch now, describing himself as a conservative reformer, saying "I'm excited we have a new governor with the same philosophy, and I want to be as effective as possible in dealing with him." Of course, his record in the Senate just from the past year violates truth-in-labeling.
Jindal repeatedly has said ethics reform is his top priority; Adley was one of the two senators most responsible for killing meaningful reform in the 2007 session. Jindal also has stated he would like to see the reduction, if not outright elimination, of income taxes; Adley in Senate committee hearings has publicly disparaged the idea and help ram through only the most miniscule tax relief despite an enormous budget surplus. Give Adley some credit for a skill most people can’t perform (although politicians often can), talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The real reason why Adley switched likely is he realizes his power and privilege in the Senate is endangered under a Jindal Administration. Currently vice chairman of the Senate’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, his past contrary stance to Jindal’s agenda leaves him less likely to retain that position under the anticipated election of Sen. Joel Chaisson to the Senate’s Presidency, especially as Chaisson, supported by Jindal, wishes to increase Republican representation on key committees and to give leadership positions to more Republicans. For example, this committee ended the session with Democrats holding an 8-3 advantage in a chamber where there were fewer than two to one Democrats over Republicans, and both leaders of it Democrats.
The proof will be in the pudding, if Adley does vote a much more conservative line starting next year. Still, this switch, like Montgomery’s, seems more of convenience than from actual belief, if Adley’s past actions compared to current rhetoric apply.
New Republican Adley claims he chose now to switch, almost two months after his reelection, because of his enthusiasm for the agenda of the Republican incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal. One wonders whether he spent too much time campaigning against a lightweight Republican challenger to be aware that Jindal’s agenda hardly has changed since he last ran for governor in 2003, so why didn’t this happen before the election?
Instead, it’s almost comical the reasons he stated for the switch now, describing himself as a conservative reformer, saying "I'm excited we have a new governor with the same philosophy, and I want to be as effective as possible in dealing with him." Of course, his record in the Senate just from the past year violates truth-in-labeling.
Jindal repeatedly has said ethics reform is his top priority; Adley was one of the two senators most responsible for killing meaningful reform in the 2007 session. Jindal also has stated he would like to see the reduction, if not outright elimination, of income taxes; Adley in Senate committee hearings has publicly disparaged the idea and help ram through only the most miniscule tax relief despite an enormous budget surplus. Give Adley some credit for a skill most people can’t perform (although politicians often can), talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The real reason why Adley switched likely is he realizes his power and privilege in the Senate is endangered under a Jindal Administration. Currently vice chairman of the Senate’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, his past contrary stance to Jindal’s agenda leaves him less likely to retain that position under the anticipated election of Sen. Joel Chaisson to the Senate’s Presidency, especially as Chaisson, supported by Jindal, wishes to increase Republican representation on key committees and to give leadership positions to more Republicans. For example, this committee ended the session with Democrats holding an 8-3 advantage in a chamber where there were fewer than two to one Democrats over Republicans, and both leaders of it Democrats.
The proof will be in the pudding, if Adley does vote a much more conservative line starting next year. Still, this switch, like Montgomery’s, seems more of convenience than from actual belief, if Adley’s past actions compared to current rhetoric apply.
10.12.07
Jindal agenda appears to grasp real cause of poverty
If there’s any consternation at all about incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal not having an explicit policy on poverty reduction in Louisiana when it seems he’s got a policy suggestion for everything else, it comes from misunderstanding that in most cases in no direct away can government do anything lasting about poverty.
For about four decades now, there has been a persistent failure on behalf of many elites, borne of the invalidity of political liberalism to explain the human condition, in comprehending the causes of poverty. There are two of these, each requiring a different public policy approach in order to minimize poverty and simultaneously improve the life prospects of those caught up in it.
One cause of poverty is bad fortune, both temporary and permanent, but with the same basic solution. Say a short-term illness drives a family into poverty; in this instance, government may provide relief designed solely temporary in nature until the crisis has passed and breadwinners are able to return to the workforce. This would include people whose bad choices brought the problems onto themselves, where government policy must be not to facilitate that behavior. If it’s a long-term illness, disability, or the like, government should provide a minimal, decent standard of living at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer.
For about four decades now, there has been a persistent failure on behalf of many elites, borne of the invalidity of political liberalism to explain the human condition, in comprehending the causes of poverty. There are two of these, each requiring a different public policy approach in order to minimize poverty and simultaneously improve the life prospects of those caught up in it.
One cause of poverty is bad fortune, both temporary and permanent, but with the same basic solution. Say a short-term illness drives a family into poverty; in this instance, government may provide relief designed solely temporary in nature until the crisis has passed and breadwinners are able to return to the workforce. This would include people whose bad choices brought the problems onto themselves, where government policy must be not to facilitate that behavior. If it’s a long-term illness, disability, or the like, government should provide a minimal, decent standard of living at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer.