It doesn’t look like things will be going Ray Nagin’s way in his battle to win reelection as New Orleans mayor. I had postulated that Nagin could do so by collecting a good turnout of displaced voters (as well as hope the defeated Rob Couhig’s vote, probably almost all conservative Republicans, would split between him and challenger Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu to stay home).
However, early indications are that the displaced votes are running a little behind their totals from the primary – a normal expectation, but not one that would help Nagin. Further, the majority have gotten cast in Orleans Parish, where Landrieu is disproportionately stronger, probably from people who would have gotten on May 20 anyway but did so early for convenience.
Unless a big surge in displaced voters occurs, Nagin is unlikely to win, meaning Landrieu would be leaving his lieutenant governor’s office. That represents an opportunity for Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower, who has been casting about for a political career after he leaves office at the end of the year. Even as Hightower continues to say he’s going back to the car business, he keeps raising money and he even spent tens of thousands on ads touting his presumed accomplishments as mayor.
But one job he did express interest in was that of being appointed lieutenant governor (by Gov. Kathleen Blanco to fill the unexpired term) if Landrieu left early. However, that more likely would go to former U.S. Rep. Chris John, who has a higher statewide profile by virtue of his failed attempt for the U.S. Senate and has worked more closely with Blanco on state Democrat affairs.
If so, I postulated awhile back that Hightower would turn his attention to the state Senate District 37, currently occupied by term-limited Republican Max Malone. And what are Malone’s plans? That he plans to hold a fundraiser that cannot be for his Senate seat may indicate he plans to run for mayor of Shreveport.
But with two serious Republicans already in the contest in former City Attorney Jerry Jones and current city Economic Development Coordinator Arlena Acree, and also Vernon Adams who polled 25 percent of the vote in 2002, in an electorate half-comprised of black voters, might this have him thinking about another office? Might he challenge Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell who gives every indication that he will exhaust his resources on a quixotic bid for governor in 2007?
10.5.06
Ater still doesn't get it, but he got Louisianans good
Secretary of State Al Ater is on his “Iblamefema” kick again, when in fact it was his own bad decisions that will cost Louisiana millions of dollars and do little more than politicize elections in the state.
Ater feels the extraordinary, in terms of effort, expense, and in lack of necessity, steps taken to entice voters to the polls for the New Orleans city elections last month and approaching this month, should be borne by the American taxpayer, not Louisianans. At the risk of being repetitive, the federal law is very clear that the federal government will not pay for any optional get-out-the-vote efforts that were both absurdly expensive (roughly $375 per extra ballot cast, while the usual expenses would have been in the neighborhood of $10 per vote cast) and competed with the existing, perfectly adequate, state processes for absentee/early voting. For those keeping count, the extra expenses of these elections are projected to be $6 million
But it’s obvious none of this gets through to Ater. Either he and his staff are unable to understand simple legal language, or he is being disingenuous, by continuing to repeat the outright false notion that the federal government ought to pay for these things and it is being discriminatory not to. That partisan undertones have been brought into the conflict belies his real agenda – to promote the efforts of the party whose top state job he coveted until being outmaneuvered by political rivals.
Recently, Ater has accepted plaudits for creating this horribly wasteful extra work for the election and making it work. Even though it was totally unnecessary, because it did go off well that has made it politically difficult to oppose measures like HB 1340 which today was reportedly favorably to the House of Representatives. This bill would make the satellite voter center concept permanent in cases of declared emergencies by the governor starting Apr. 30, 2007.
It takes little imagination to see how the process can become abused. Let’s say an election predicted to be close gets so divisive that some violent protests occur. If a governor thinks her party could gain politically from deploying this kind of voting, she could declare a state of emergency (which is very open-ended; practically any reason can be used). Worse, passage of this bill creates a slippery slope regarding election integrity. Doing something like this encourages those who are willing to compromise ballot security for political gain to ask that government do more, like loosen requirements for absentee voting without positive identification. It’s best not to invite wasteful use of resources and threats to election quality by supporting bills like this.
But Ater has shown support for this one, and other bills that more directly degrade elections, and still wants others to pay for the schemes he concocts. Again, this is repetitive, but it will be a good thing for the state to send this meddlesome waster of taxpayer dollars back to his home in Mississippi in five months.
Ater feels the extraordinary, in terms of effort, expense, and in lack of necessity, steps taken to entice voters to the polls for the New Orleans city elections last month and approaching this month, should be borne by the American taxpayer, not Louisianans. At the risk of being repetitive, the federal law is very clear that the federal government will not pay for any optional get-out-the-vote efforts that were both absurdly expensive (roughly $375 per extra ballot cast, while the usual expenses would have been in the neighborhood of $10 per vote cast) and competed with the existing, perfectly adequate, state processes for absentee/early voting. For those keeping count, the extra expenses of these elections are projected to be $6 million
But it’s obvious none of this gets through to Ater. Either he and his staff are unable to understand simple legal language, or he is being disingenuous, by continuing to repeat the outright false notion that the federal government ought to pay for these things and it is being discriminatory not to. That partisan undertones have been brought into the conflict belies his real agenda – to promote the efforts of the party whose top state job he coveted until being outmaneuvered by political rivals.
Recently, Ater has accepted plaudits for creating this horribly wasteful extra work for the election and making it work. Even though it was totally unnecessary, because it did go off well that has made it politically difficult to oppose measures like HB 1340 which today was reportedly favorably to the House of Representatives. This bill would make the satellite voter center concept permanent in cases of declared emergencies by the governor starting Apr. 30, 2007.
It takes little imagination to see how the process can become abused. Let’s say an election predicted to be close gets so divisive that some violent protests occur. If a governor thinks her party could gain politically from deploying this kind of voting, she could declare a state of emergency (which is very open-ended; practically any reason can be used). Worse, passage of this bill creates a slippery slope regarding election integrity. Doing something like this encourages those who are willing to compromise ballot security for political gain to ask that government do more, like loosen requirements for absentee voting without positive identification. It’s best not to invite wasteful use of resources and threats to election quality by supporting bills like this.
But Ater has shown support for this one, and other bills that more directly degrade elections, and still wants others to pay for the schemes he concocts. Again, this is repetitive, but it will be a good thing for the state to send this meddlesome waster of taxpayer dollars back to his home in Mississippi in five months.
9.5.06
Cable competition bill good for Louisiana citizens
What many people don’t understand about the ramifications of HB 699 is that it’s not so much telephone vs. cable companies, but rather it’s local government vs. the people.
This bill by Rep. Billy Montgomery would allow telephone companies to provide channel-selectable cable television service by going through a state franchising agreement, rather than by negotiating one by one local contracts. While the phone company side of the story is that greater competition ensues and the cable company side is that the phone companies get special privileges under this bill, the conflict actually revolves around other considerations:
Currently, negotiating locally for cable service which is almost exclusively granted to cable companies allows local government to extract concessions from operators such as requiring the making available of service to financially unprofitable customers, in exchange for which cable companies are unregulated in terms of their prices they may charge to customers and in the kinds of payments they must make to local governments which then can be passed along to consumers. Further, local governments are not compelled to grant contracts to providers other than cable even if the offer made by the other providers is much superior to the existing contract with the cable company.
The bill would grant a statewide franchise to phone companies that would make local governments unable to specify requirements concerning customer service and “buildout” (mandating service provision in potentially unprofitable areas), as well as not being able to force providers to carry public access channels or other channels favored by local governments on the basic (minimum) tier of coverage and would allow the state to supersede local right-of-way restrictions.
Thus, the question is, should greater competition be encouraged by allowing in phone companies under fewer restrictions than other franchisees have contracted for (some over 20 years) which will lower prices to consumers and reduce revenues to local governments, or is it unfair to do so? Specifically, by ridding the phone companies of having to adhere to local standards (like buildout, customer service requirements, channel provision, and assessing extra fees that can be passed on to consumers), would that reduce the barriers to entry (costs) to the market enough to encourage phone companies not only to get in the business of offering channel-selectable services at no extra cost (note that cable companies due to their near-monopoly status offer only a limited form of this and at premium prices) but to expand those services, given their start-up costs are lower because they do not have to adhere to the local standards and the extra expense that they entail?
This answer depends upon how one conceptualizes the scope and purpose of local government. The organizations representing these governments have taken the position that local government needs to control the marketplace to excise from providers what it thinks is best, and thus opposes the bill. Proponents of the bill see the marketplace as a better, more efficient distributor of resources regarding this area of policy – and they have the better of this argument.
For example, why should there be buildout provisions? It’s not like cable service, unlike water and electricity and/or gas, is essential to anybody’s life. Let the market decide who has access to cable; if enough people demand it, providers will do so. Why must government mandate this? Why is that so important to the polity?
In the end, as is so often true in politics, you need to follow the money to understand who supports what. And again, it’s quite simple here despite the bill’s complexity: the current arrangement allows local governments to divert more money to their own coffers, extracted from the citizenry itself in the form of pass-along charges from operators, than probably would happen under the bill (the bill’s supporters would say not as signing contracts with phone companies for the service would grow the market at the expense of the one provider local governments cannot extract from, satellite, while its detractors argue legal changes could allow phone companies to evade paying such fees to local governments).
This is why the conflict properly is viewed as one of local government rights vs. the peoples’. Do local governments have the right to raise money through a back-door scheme as under the current law and justifying it by referencing supposed benefits such as “buildout,” or does the state have the power to impose greater competition that may cuase local governments to lose revenues but which would aid consumers (and recall that all local governments in Louisiana, even those 32 entities operating under home rule charters, are subordinate to the state government that created them and may regulate their behavior)?
The answer should be obvious: the latter, and even objections to this as being a “double standard” do not stand up under scrutiny. For example, one objection is that contractual arrangements have been made between local governments and cable operators for extended periods, locking in the operators under conditions that are more stringent than those that could be specified under this bill, putting them at a disadvantage. So what? This could be solved by state statute, by voiding all such contracts and allowing for renegotiation.
Another is that customer service standards no longer could be mandated. But that’s necessary only in a near-monopoly situation which typifies landwire service today. If there’s real competition, the marketplace competition will eliminate the need for government to mandate.
In short, even if one phone company likely would take up most of this new market, the fact is it would bring competition to a monopolistic market not so much dominated by cable companies, but by the local governments that use cable companies to create the near-monopoly to benefit both. The simple fact is, even if you assist a dominant supplier into a marketplace, if it squares off against a favored dominant supplier backed by government, more competition has been introduced and consumers ineluctably benefit. Two would-be monopolists competing prevents that market from becoming a marketplace ultimately dictated to by government. (Indeed, under the current law a local government could deliberately favor a provider for political reasons, and pass any additional costs into consumers.)
In the final analysis, even if local government may lose revenues with this bill’s enacting into law, consumers as a whole gain. That’s why it was good that the bill advanced today in the House, and that it should become law.
This bill by Rep. Billy Montgomery would allow telephone companies to provide channel-selectable cable television service by going through a state franchising agreement, rather than by negotiating one by one local contracts. While the phone company side of the story is that greater competition ensues and the cable company side is that the phone companies get special privileges under this bill, the conflict actually revolves around other considerations:
This answer depends upon how one conceptualizes the scope and purpose of local government. The organizations representing these governments have taken the position that local government needs to control the marketplace to excise from providers what it thinks is best, and thus opposes the bill. Proponents of the bill see the marketplace as a better, more efficient distributor of resources regarding this area of policy – and they have the better of this argument.
For example, why should there be buildout provisions? It’s not like cable service, unlike water and electricity and/or gas, is essential to anybody’s life. Let the market decide who has access to cable; if enough people demand it, providers will do so. Why must government mandate this? Why is that so important to the polity?
In the end, as is so often true in politics, you need to follow the money to understand who supports what. And again, it’s quite simple here despite the bill’s complexity: the current arrangement allows local governments to divert more money to their own coffers, extracted from the citizenry itself in the form of pass-along charges from operators, than probably would happen under the bill (the bill’s supporters would say not as signing contracts with phone companies for the service would grow the market at the expense of the one provider local governments cannot extract from, satellite, while its detractors argue legal changes could allow phone companies to evade paying such fees to local governments).
This is why the conflict properly is viewed as one of local government rights vs. the peoples’. Do local governments have the right to raise money through a back-door scheme as under the current law and justifying it by referencing supposed benefits such as “buildout,” or does the state have the power to impose greater competition that may cuase local governments to lose revenues but which would aid consumers (and recall that all local governments in Louisiana, even those 32 entities operating under home rule charters, are subordinate to the state government that created them and may regulate their behavior)?
The answer should be obvious: the latter, and even objections to this as being a “double standard” do not stand up under scrutiny. For example, one objection is that contractual arrangements have been made between local governments and cable operators for extended periods, locking in the operators under conditions that are more stringent than those that could be specified under this bill, putting them at a disadvantage. So what? This could be solved by state statute, by voiding all such contracts and allowing for renegotiation.
Another is that customer service standards no longer could be mandated. But that’s necessary only in a near-monopoly situation which typifies landwire service today. If there’s real competition, the marketplace competition will eliminate the need for government to mandate.
In short, even if one phone company likely would take up most of this new market, the fact is it would bring competition to a monopolistic market not so much dominated by cable companies, but by the local governments that use cable companies to create the near-monopoly to benefit both. The simple fact is, even if you assist a dominant supplier into a marketplace, if it squares off against a favored dominant supplier backed by government, more competition has been introduced and consumers ineluctably benefit. Two would-be monopolists competing prevents that market from becoming a marketplace ultimately dictated to by government. (Indeed, under the current law a local government could deliberately favor a provider for political reasons, and pass any additional costs into consumers.)
In the final analysis, even if local government may lose revenues with this bill’s enacting into law, consumers as a whole gain. That’s why it was good that the bill advanced today in the House, and that it should become law.
8.5.06
Opponent of HB 604 & HB 669 fails in adequate explanation
Stick a pig and it squeals, thus the reply concerning yesterday’s posting on both of the bills discussed, HB 604 which would eliminate the January local-only election date, and HB 669 which would put language on ballot propositions that would estimate the tax consequences to the “typical” voter and list the amount of money that “reasonably” could be collected by the tax in a year, by the general counsel to the Police Jury Association of Louisiana, Dan Garrett.
While the two bills listed do not appear explicitly as “priority bad” in the PJAL’s tracking recommendations, from his comments it’s clear his employer is against them. Let’s see how he tries to defend against the essential truths of the matters, that these bills increase voter education about bond referenda (HB 669), save money, and reduce the disproportionate influence of constituencies that favor passage (HB 604). Starting with the latter:
[A] review of actual election results shows no correleation [sic, misspelling] between turnout or election date and the passage or failure of a tax measure. As a professor I would have expected you to have actually done the research before making an assertion to the contrary.
This “review” is news to me – and everybody in my profession who studies these matters. First, there is no such study extant in the literature that shows whether a tax referendum is likely to pass or fail depending upon whether it is affiliated or unaffiliated with other ballot items. If there is, it doesn't show up in any journal or book I've ever read, or seen indexed. If Garrett reads this, I would like for him to forward to me such a study, or at least the citation for it so I can look it up.
But there is a ton of literature that points to the link between turnout and the presence of other elective offices on a ballot – that’s something you pick up in a basic state and local government or political behavior class. Simply, dates that have elective offices on the ballot drive up turnout in referenda contests compared to elections on dates that do not. (One study based on New Orleans turnout, which specifically looks at racial differences in referenda turnout, which Garrett may check is the state’s own James Vanderleeuw and Richard Engstrom in their 1987 Journal of Politics piece, “Race, Referendums, and Roll-off”).
But note that his response dodges the entire point, which is not whether measures pass or fail, but whether local governments deliberately pick dates on which they can schedule noncompulsory (that is, voluntary voting), nonaffiliated referenda in the hopes of having them pass, on the theory that supporters of such measures are more likely to vote in such a low-stimulus contest than those against. While no study ever has looked at turnout of specific constituencies that would be favored by an affirmative vote (such as certain kinds of public servants receiving salary increases), others have made the link that the lower the turnout, the more disproportionately supporters of tax measures likely comprise the voting electorate on that item.
A number of studies on voting behavior in referenda actions show that there is often stronger support for bond issues among those with higher income and occupational status. Likewise, a number of other studies show these are the characteristics of people most likely to vote in a noncompulsory voting system (like ours), regardless of whether the items are affiliated with other elective office contests on the same ballot. Thus, we may assume that a date chosen because it promises minimal turnout attempts to take advantage of the fact that as turnout declines, supporters of tax measures disproportionately comprise a larger and larger segment of the participating electorate.
Garrett and his employers know this, but they don’t want to admit it. Either that or, as the general counsel to the interest group representing parish governments, I would have expected Garrett to have actually done the research before asserting a lack of causal relationship clearly contradicted by it.
(Of course, another point he fails to address is that money is saved on behalf of local taxpayers by not having separate referenda-only elections. There another salutary effect here as well, the reduction of “voter fatigue” – the propensity of people to reduce their participation in electoral politics as the number of times they are called to the polls increases – which is precisely what local governments count on to weed out people who would vote against their tax measures. To assist him here, he could check Lisa Hill’s 2003 Australian Journal of Social Issues article. I am nothing if not helpful in educating others.)
Turning to HB 669:
[E]ven Rep. Powell could not define what constituted a "typical taxpayer". Taxpayers vary in income range, homeowners or not, business or personal, etc. If the author could not explain his own legislation, then how would local governemnts [sic, letter transposition] around the state be expected to comply?
This too avoids the issue about whether the concept of greater information for voters is beneficial. An amendment simply could have been offered stating something like, “the measure shall have as part of its description, if a tax on unmovable property, the cost per year of a taxpayer with the current homestead exemption in force for a property valued at $100,000, and for one without,” and so on. It’s a straw man argument, and a very weak one at that, to say a problem in execution (one easily remedied as above) means the principle behind it is unattainable or unworthy.
In fact, the literature shows the precise problem identified in HB 604, low turnout, could in part be mitigated by passage of HB 669. David Lassen’s American Journal of Political Science 2005 article observes that propensity to vote increases significantly as does relevant information about the referendum item being voted upon. And maybe this is why Garrett’s employer is against the bill, to reiterate my last posting: the people become more powerful and elected less powerful the more information they have about decisions made in their governance.
In closing, Garrett made me an offer:
In the future, I would more than happy to discuss any issue you wish, giving you the benefit of the other side of the issue.
OK, if you can discuss these issues, please: (1) with already so many (four, even five) other dates throughout the year on which to hold referenda elections, knowing that the January date needlessly costs extra money, and that there is no justifiable new government spending that could not be put off or otherwise taken care of for a couple of months, why does your employer support keeping this date, and (2) why does your employer not support giving voters additional information about referenda when, as demonstrated above, it can be easily and precisely done?
Shall we hold our breath waiting on answers addressing these exact questions?
While the two bills listed do not appear explicitly as “priority bad” in the PJAL’s tracking recommendations, from his comments it’s clear his employer is against them. Let’s see how he tries to defend against the essential truths of the matters, that these bills increase voter education about bond referenda (HB 669), save money, and reduce the disproportionate influence of constituencies that favor passage (HB 604). Starting with the latter:
[A] review of actual election results shows no correleation [sic, misspelling] between turnout or election date and the passage or failure of a tax measure. As a professor I would have expected you to have actually done the research before making an assertion to the contrary.
This “review” is news to me – and everybody in my profession who studies these matters. First, there is no such study extant in the literature that shows whether a tax referendum is likely to pass or fail depending upon whether it is affiliated or unaffiliated with other ballot items. If there is, it doesn't show up in any journal or book I've ever read, or seen indexed. If Garrett reads this, I would like for him to forward to me such a study, or at least the citation for it so I can look it up.
But there is a ton of literature that points to the link between turnout and the presence of other elective offices on a ballot – that’s something you pick up in a basic state and local government or political behavior class. Simply, dates that have elective offices on the ballot drive up turnout in referenda contests compared to elections on dates that do not. (One study based on New Orleans turnout, which specifically looks at racial differences in referenda turnout, which Garrett may check is the state’s own James Vanderleeuw and Richard Engstrom in their 1987 Journal of Politics piece, “Race, Referendums, and Roll-off”).
But note that his response dodges the entire point, which is not whether measures pass or fail, but whether local governments deliberately pick dates on which they can schedule noncompulsory (that is, voluntary voting), nonaffiliated referenda in the hopes of having them pass, on the theory that supporters of such measures are more likely to vote in such a low-stimulus contest than those against. While no study ever has looked at turnout of specific constituencies that would be favored by an affirmative vote (such as certain kinds of public servants receiving salary increases), others have made the link that the lower the turnout, the more disproportionately supporters of tax measures likely comprise the voting electorate on that item.
A number of studies on voting behavior in referenda actions show that there is often stronger support for bond issues among those with higher income and occupational status. Likewise, a number of other studies show these are the characteristics of people most likely to vote in a noncompulsory voting system (like ours), regardless of whether the items are affiliated with other elective office contests on the same ballot. Thus, we may assume that a date chosen because it promises minimal turnout attempts to take advantage of the fact that as turnout declines, supporters of tax measures disproportionately comprise a larger and larger segment of the participating electorate.
Garrett and his employers know this, but they don’t want to admit it. Either that or, as the general counsel to the interest group representing parish governments, I would have expected Garrett to have actually done the research before asserting a lack of causal relationship clearly contradicted by it.
(Of course, another point he fails to address is that money is saved on behalf of local taxpayers by not having separate referenda-only elections. There another salutary effect here as well, the reduction of “voter fatigue” – the propensity of people to reduce their participation in electoral politics as the number of times they are called to the polls increases – which is precisely what local governments count on to weed out people who would vote against their tax measures. To assist him here, he could check Lisa Hill’s 2003 Australian Journal of Social Issues article. I am nothing if not helpful in educating others.)
Turning to HB 669:
[E]ven Rep. Powell could not define what constituted a "typical taxpayer". Taxpayers vary in income range, homeowners or not, business or personal, etc. If the author could not explain his own legislation, then how would local governemnts [sic, letter transposition] around the state be expected to comply?
This too avoids the issue about whether the concept of greater information for voters is beneficial. An amendment simply could have been offered stating something like, “the measure shall have as part of its description, if a tax on unmovable property, the cost per year of a taxpayer with the current homestead exemption in force for a property valued at $100,000, and for one without,” and so on. It’s a straw man argument, and a very weak one at that, to say a problem in execution (one easily remedied as above) means the principle behind it is unattainable or unworthy.
In fact, the literature shows the precise problem identified in HB 604, low turnout, could in part be mitigated by passage of HB 669. David Lassen’s American Journal of Political Science 2005 article observes that propensity to vote increases significantly as does relevant information about the referendum item being voted upon. And maybe this is why Garrett’s employer is against the bill, to reiterate my last posting: the people become more powerful and elected less powerful the more information they have about decisions made in their governance.
In closing, Garrett made me an offer:
In the future, I would more than happy to discuss any issue you wish, giving you the benefit of the other side of the issue.
OK, if you can discuss these issues, please: (1) with already so many (four, even five) other dates throughout the year on which to hold referenda elections, knowing that the January date needlessly costs extra money, and that there is no justifiable new government spending that could not be put off or otherwise taken care of for a couple of months, why does your employer support keeping this date, and (2) why does your employer not support giving voters additional information about referenda when, as demonstrated above, it can be easily and precisely done?
Shall we hold our breath waiting on answers addressing these exact questions?
7.5.06
Who does Legislature serve, people or government?
State Rep. Mike Powell keeps tweaking the get-along, go-along good old boy (and girl) crowd in Louisiana to put the taxpayers first. So far, these politicians have gotten the better of him, but he keeps trying, to our benefit.
Last year, Powell’s HB 415 would have produced savings for taxpayers in more ways than one. This bill would have removed the January option for local (bond and tax) and state (to fill legislative vacancies) elections, leaving now only March/April, July, October, and November (and February if you live in Orleans Parish) to get a vote in. It would have saved the state at least $500,000 a year (and millions across local governments in the aggregate) and eliminated a low-turnout election whose figures double, triple, and multiply even higher when in conjunction with regular elections with candidates on the ballot.
But Gov. Kathleen Blanco vetoed it (after the state Senate almost did it in), even as it passed the House 87-8 and (finally, barely) the Senate 21-10, nonsensically arguing it reduced democracy. The main motivator, among several, for her action appeared to be the desires of the courthouse crowd in local government who like to utilize this date because, other than a special election, no regular elections for offices are held on this date which makes it easier to float tax propositions aimed at benefiting certain constituencies. With shockingly low turnouts likely therefore, interests’ voting power becomes magnified making more likely passage of the measure that disproportionately benefits them and the desire to spend that enraptures too many local elected officials across the state.
Powell didn’t give up and produced this session’s HB 604, practically the same bill. This one got a stamp of approval of 101-0 in the House, but the Senate awaits. Will Blanco have the temerity to veto this one as well if the Senate provides a strong majority for it? Or will the Senate abandon its embrace of common sense that marked a majority of its members in its second 2005 vote?
But the House itself already has threatened to derail another Powell measure designed to assist the taxpayer. HB 669 would require an election proposition which authorizes the levy or increase of a tax to state the estimated tax implications on the typical taxpayer and the estimated amount reasonably expected to be collected from the proposal for an entire year.
That’s pretty simple and basic. For property tax propositions, newspapers will do something like this all of the time in stories about them. When the misbegotten Stelly Plan went under debate, the media also reported figures in terms of typical spending on items subject to the sales and use tax, with estimates for people in certain income brackets would pay given its changes. And budgets always estimate the amount of money a tax would raise. None of this is complicated, no does the bill ask for that.
Yet opponents were able to get the “typical taxpayer” language stripped and others such as Rep. William Daniel IV said it would “prejudice” voters against tax propositions. So is Daniel admitting he wants ballot language to sway voters in favor of taxes? And since when is more information harmful to voters making decisions? Does Daniel support keeping the electorate in the dark as much as possible?
Rep. Gil Pinac also raised a non-issue, that the ballot language could become too long for voters to read in their three-minute stay in the voting booth. However, Pinac may have forgotten that the language appears in numerous fora prior to the election – in fact, copies of the ballots are posted around the polling places for voters to read at their leisure prior to encountering the real thing.
Powell is correct when he notes the real reason for so much opposition (a 51-all tie two votes short of passage) came in part because some legislators are concerned about providing voters too much information which may reduce the chances of state and local government squeezing out more money from the citizenry. It’s the typical attitude held by too many in Baton Rouge – the people don’t know how best to govern themselves, elected officials do, so keep the great unwashed in the dark. Let’s hope Powell and others can resurrect this bill because knowledge is power – and there are many in office who don’t want some of that power to be transferred from themselves to those they supposedly work for.
Last year, Powell’s HB 415 would have produced savings for taxpayers in more ways than one. This bill would have removed the January option for local (bond and tax) and state (to fill legislative vacancies) elections, leaving now only March/April, July, October, and November (and February if you live in Orleans Parish) to get a vote in. It would have saved the state at least $500,000 a year (and millions across local governments in the aggregate) and eliminated a low-turnout election whose figures double, triple, and multiply even higher when in conjunction with regular elections with candidates on the ballot.
But Gov. Kathleen Blanco vetoed it (after the state Senate almost did it in), even as it passed the House 87-8 and (finally, barely) the Senate 21-10, nonsensically arguing it reduced democracy. The main motivator, among several, for her action appeared to be the desires of the courthouse crowd in local government who like to utilize this date because, other than a special election, no regular elections for offices are held on this date which makes it easier to float tax propositions aimed at benefiting certain constituencies. With shockingly low turnouts likely therefore, interests’ voting power becomes magnified making more likely passage of the measure that disproportionately benefits them and the desire to spend that enraptures too many local elected officials across the state.
Powell didn’t give up and produced this session’s HB 604, practically the same bill. This one got a stamp of approval of 101-0 in the House, but the Senate awaits. Will Blanco have the temerity to veto this one as well if the Senate provides a strong majority for it? Or will the Senate abandon its embrace of common sense that marked a majority of its members in its second 2005 vote?
But the House itself already has threatened to derail another Powell measure designed to assist the taxpayer. HB 669 would require an election proposition which authorizes the levy or increase of a tax to state the estimated tax implications on the typical taxpayer and the estimated amount reasonably expected to be collected from the proposal for an entire year.
That’s pretty simple and basic. For property tax propositions, newspapers will do something like this all of the time in stories about them. When the misbegotten Stelly Plan went under debate, the media also reported figures in terms of typical spending on items subject to the sales and use tax, with estimates for people in certain income brackets would pay given its changes. And budgets always estimate the amount of money a tax would raise. None of this is complicated, no does the bill ask for that.
Yet opponents were able to get the “typical taxpayer” language stripped and others such as Rep. William Daniel IV said it would “prejudice” voters against tax propositions. So is Daniel admitting he wants ballot language to sway voters in favor of taxes? And since when is more information harmful to voters making decisions? Does Daniel support keeping the electorate in the dark as much as possible?
Rep. Gil Pinac also raised a non-issue, that the ballot language could become too long for voters to read in their three-minute stay in the voting booth. However, Pinac may have forgotten that the language appears in numerous fora prior to the election – in fact, copies of the ballots are posted around the polling places for voters to read at their leisure prior to encountering the real thing.
Powell is correct when he notes the real reason for so much opposition (a 51-all tie two votes short of passage) came in part because some legislators are concerned about providing voters too much information which may reduce the chances of state and local government squeezing out more money from the citizenry. It’s the typical attitude held by too many in Baton Rouge – the people don’t know how best to govern themselves, elected officials do, so keep the great unwashed in the dark. Let’s hope Powell and others can resurrect this bill because knowledge is power – and there are many in office who don’t want some of that power to be transferred from themselves to those they supposedly work for.
4.5.06
Bradley: serious or hypocritical Shreveport mayor candidate?
It appears that five months prior to Shreveport mayoral elections, the race card is being played in a decidedly ugly fashion by supporters of the only announced black Democrat in the contest.
Here’s an example of a flier going around town, and at least one supporter of television executive Ed Bradley admits to passing them around. Baruti Ajanaku (you can see where he’s coming from in his comments to the Shreveport City Council in 2002 over redistricting) claims he found a stack of them at the Pete Harris Café and liked them, so he started passing them out. Ajanaku has benefited monetarily from the Bradley campaign, for what he says was buying copies of his musical CD.
The flier essentially berates by name black politicians and activists who dare to show anything other than opposition to announced white Republican candidates for mayor, because to do so it implies means you cannot genuinely be “black” or be for black interests. A paid advertisement in the Shreveport Sun that ran recently also largely mimics the flier’s attitude and naming of names. Without these individuals specifically committing themselves and thus recommending to their supporters they may influence to the cause of a black candidate, these media essentially try to pressure them into acting like mind-numbed robots not permitted to use their intellects and judgments to make their best choice for a mayoral endorsement, or even not to allow them to associate with members of the political spectrum with whom they may or may not agree and/or support.
Naturally, this argument is idiocy at the highest level. Conservative policies promoted by the GOP have done and promise to do more for blacks, other ethnic minorities – and to be most precise, just people in general – in all areas of policy such as economic advancement, education, and freedom to worship, among others. Democrats, often black politicians themselves, generally have left a trail of broken promises to the black community and care about the community only insofar as it gets them votes to stay in power, which they manipulate to do this by using on it scare tactics totally divorced from logic and the real world. (And, of course, it was white Democrats who kept blacks in political servitude in the South for many decades.)
But, more disturbing is the attitude the Bradley campaign has taken concerning the flier. To date, Bradley’s campaign has done everything possible to downplay anything having to do with race. From a review of his campaign website you could not tell whether he is a Democrat, and without any pictures whether he is black (although there are pictures of him with prominent white supporters, as well as testimonials from them). Yet Bradley himself has refused to condemn the fliers or the ads.
This represents the crudest kind of politics. No doubt Bradley knows Shreveport’s history where blacks largely vote for black candidates and (to a lesser degree) whites for white ones. Trends still show that on election day the plurality of the electorate in Shreveport will be black. Media castigating blacks who dare to not oppose whites in order to create a kind of racial solidarity that can translate into a winning majority may be tactically beneficial, but also puts the campaign into serious jeopardy of hypocrisy.
Bradley can’t have it both ways – presenting a nonracial image to his campaign in the hopes of attracting white voters, yet tacitly permitting racist media to encourage racial solidarity among black voters that also could mine votes for him. In no uncertain terms he must condemn these media, lest he become known as a race hustler for political convenience rather than as a serious, thoughtful supplicant to the mayor’s job.
3.5.06
Couhig nod gives Nagin a strategy to win runoff
With defeated New Orleans candidate Rob Couhig endorsing the incumbent Ray Nagin, who finished the primary at 38 percent, 9 percent ahead of runner-up Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, a stroll through some post election statistics shows how Nagin can win the general election runoff.
Let’s assume that, partially as a result of the endorsement, a quarter of Couhig voters go for Nagin, a quarter pull the lever for Landrieu, and the other half are so disgusted that a status quo candidate will win that they roll off and don’t participate at all. A wash like this is to Nagin’s advantage, for two reasons: first, because he led the primary, every vote eliminated or that he can offset gets him closer to victory, all other things equal.
But, second and more intriguingly, as expected Couhig performed best in the precincts that turned out the most voters both in raw numbers and turnout percentage. If you divide precincts by the number of votes cast into quintiles, in the highest two Couhig averaged over 13 percent of the vote – precincts where Nagin’s advantage over Landrieu was only about 4 percent. It’s the bottom three quintiles, where Couhig averaged less than 6 percent, where Nagin really hammered Landrieu – on average about 26 percent.
This means if Nagin can fight with Landrieu to a draw for Couhig voters, he will have eliminated a major cache of votes for Landrieu to pick up that comprise much of the lowest-growth area for runoff voters. But merely negating this is not enough to provide a victory, because Nagin did best in the lowest vote population precincts (lowest quintile containing 45,175 registrants; the highest, 82,396). Nagin also must manufacture new votes for himself.
The highest-growth areas for potential votes, the lowest three quintiles, heavily favored Nagin in the primary. Not surprisingly, they also had the lowest participation rates, with Nagin’s margin growing as participation declined. Thus, any increased voting here (where the highest proportion of the electorate is black; 49.4 percent of the highest quintile is, but 83.6 percent of the lowest quintile is) will mean almost all of these new votes would accrue to Nagin.
(And a reason why these areas, which supported Nagin most heavily, had the lowest turnout was they disproportionately comprised the ravaged areas. Which means that these people least wanted a change in government even thought they were hit the worst by the storms, and Nagin is favored among them even more since as time marches on these voters increasingly comprise returnees coming into town through May 20.)
Nagin’s problem is that a large chunk of another defeated rival’s voter, Ron Forman’s, are likely to head Landrieu’s way, and they disproportionately comprised the top quintiles. Even if Nagin could draw 20 percent of that vote, Landrieu still would squeak by even given the scenario outlined above concerning Couhig’s voters. Thus, his strategy also must create new votes in the high-growth areas – not an easy job given they are the most likely ones to be displaced. But more evidence that there’s room for growth for him out there is among the absentee totals (largely that of displaced voters) he polled about the same as for all voters, while Landrieu actually polled 6 points higher.
Nagin’s best chance to win, therefore, is a two-pronged strategy of playing up on anti-Landrieu sentiments, hoping to drive Couhig voters away from Landrieu and either into Nagin’s arms or to the sidelines (and this should pick up some Forman voters, too), which blocks Landrieu vote growth in his areas of greatest potential gain, and concentrating on the low-turnout precincts, which hold the greatest growth potential to create new voters for him. Again, this isn’t going to be easy, but it is possible and represents Nagin’s best shot to win.
Let’s assume that, partially as a result of the endorsement, a quarter of Couhig voters go for Nagin, a quarter pull the lever for Landrieu, and the other half are so disgusted that a status quo candidate will win that they roll off and don’t participate at all. A wash like this is to Nagin’s advantage, for two reasons: first, because he led the primary, every vote eliminated or that he can offset gets him closer to victory, all other things equal.
But, second and more intriguingly, as expected Couhig performed best in the precincts that turned out the most voters both in raw numbers and turnout percentage. If you divide precincts by the number of votes cast into quintiles, in the highest two Couhig averaged over 13 percent of the vote – precincts where Nagin’s advantage over Landrieu was only about 4 percent. It’s the bottom three quintiles, where Couhig averaged less than 6 percent, where Nagin really hammered Landrieu – on average about 26 percent.
This means if Nagin can fight with Landrieu to a draw for Couhig voters, he will have eliminated a major cache of votes for Landrieu to pick up that comprise much of the lowest-growth area for runoff voters. But merely negating this is not enough to provide a victory, because Nagin did best in the lowest vote population precincts (lowest quintile containing 45,175 registrants; the highest, 82,396). Nagin also must manufacture new votes for himself.
The highest-growth areas for potential votes, the lowest three quintiles, heavily favored Nagin in the primary. Not surprisingly, they also had the lowest participation rates, with Nagin’s margin growing as participation declined. Thus, any increased voting here (where the highest proportion of the electorate is black; 49.4 percent of the highest quintile is, but 83.6 percent of the lowest quintile is) will mean almost all of these new votes would accrue to Nagin.
(And a reason why these areas, which supported Nagin most heavily, had the lowest turnout was they disproportionately comprised the ravaged areas. Which means that these people least wanted a change in government even thought they were hit the worst by the storms, and Nagin is favored among them even more since as time marches on these voters increasingly comprise returnees coming into town through May 20.)
Nagin’s problem is that a large chunk of another defeated rival’s voter, Ron Forman’s, are likely to head Landrieu’s way, and they disproportionately comprised the top quintiles. Even if Nagin could draw 20 percent of that vote, Landrieu still would squeak by even given the scenario outlined above concerning Couhig’s voters. Thus, his strategy also must create new votes in the high-growth areas – not an easy job given they are the most likely ones to be displaced. But more evidence that there’s room for growth for him out there is among the absentee totals (largely that of displaced voters) he polled about the same as for all voters, while Landrieu actually polled 6 points higher.
Nagin’s best chance to win, therefore, is a two-pronged strategy of playing up on anti-Landrieu sentiments, hoping to drive Couhig voters away from Landrieu and either into Nagin’s arms or to the sidelines (and this should pick up some Forman voters, too), which blocks Landrieu vote growth in his areas of greatest potential gain, and concentrating on the low-turnout precincts, which hold the greatest growth potential to create new voters for him. Again, this isn’t going to be easy, but it is possible and represents Nagin’s best shot to win.
2.5.06
LA House puts politics ahead of improving education
Not much good has come out of the 2005 hurricane disasters in Louisiana, but an increased realization of the benefits of school vouchers, if not their implementation, can come from it – if enough politicians have the courage to embrace such a program.
HB 301 by state Rep. Tim Burns would create a state-subsidized voucher program benefiting students in Orleans Parish who did or would have attended schools deemed failing academically through state accountability standards or one of the school swept up into the Recovery District now running the vast majority of schools theoretically existing in Orleans Parish (even as many have failed to reopen). It would permit students essentially a free education at any school, including private ones, that meet certain stringent criteria.
Passage of this bill certainly would facilitate the repopulation of New Orleans; private schools have opened much more quickly than public ones in wake of the hurricanes, and undeniably have outperformed them for years. If displaced families with children that would qualify knew of this, they would have much greater incentive to return home.
And the advantages of improving standards thus results for students who both leave a school by voucher and those who stay, brought about by increased competition from increased access to nonpublic schools do not have to be confined to Orleans Parish. The bill explicitly terms its program “pilot” in nature, with it to last four years. Success logically would allow for its spread to the entire state.
This has been realized even by those whose allies have opposed voucher programs in the past. When a local official of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, whose national organization has gone on the record opposing voucher programs that expand choice for public school students, argues for them, the compelling nature of the argument certainly has taken hold.
Of course, the educational establishment, with voucher programs clearly illuminating its lack of competence, obfuscates the essential truth of them with specious arguments. When a school superintendent says something like “no one has done more for children of dysfunctional homes than public schools,” you now either this person is ignorant of the latest research in education or wants to cover up the fact that voucher programs (and other school choice programs) work for students of all demographic characteristics in order to insulate the greater effort a competing voucher program would present to his organization.
Unfortunately, while the bill initially received 52 votes (almost all in opposition being Democrats) in the House two-thirds affirmative or 70 were required. A motion again yesterday failed to get the requisite support, and the bill now languishes. It’s just another sign about how too many politicians in Louisiana would rather protect favored constituencies and fiefdoms that seriously entertain improving the quality of life in the state.
HB 301 by state Rep. Tim Burns would create a state-subsidized voucher program benefiting students in Orleans Parish who did or would have attended schools deemed failing academically through state accountability standards or one of the school swept up into the Recovery District now running the vast majority of schools theoretically existing in Orleans Parish (even as many have failed to reopen). It would permit students essentially a free education at any school, including private ones, that meet certain stringent criteria.
Passage of this bill certainly would facilitate the repopulation of New Orleans; private schools have opened much more quickly than public ones in wake of the hurricanes, and undeniably have outperformed them for years. If displaced families with children that would qualify knew of this, they would have much greater incentive to return home.
And the advantages of improving standards thus results for students who both leave a school by voucher and those who stay, brought about by increased competition from increased access to nonpublic schools do not have to be confined to Orleans Parish. The bill explicitly terms its program “pilot” in nature, with it to last four years. Success logically would allow for its spread to the entire state.
This has been realized even by those whose allies have opposed voucher programs in the past. When a local official of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, whose national organization has gone on the record opposing voucher programs that expand choice for public school students, argues for them, the compelling nature of the argument certainly has taken hold.
Of course, the educational establishment, with voucher programs clearly illuminating its lack of competence, obfuscates the essential truth of them with specious arguments. When a school superintendent says something like “no one has done more for children of dysfunctional homes than public schools,” you now either this person is ignorant of the latest research in education or wants to cover up the fact that voucher programs (and other school choice programs) work for students of all demographic characteristics in order to insulate the greater effort a competing voucher program would present to his organization.
Unfortunately, while the bill initially received 52 votes (almost all in opposition being Democrats) in the House two-thirds affirmative or 70 were required. A motion again yesterday failed to get the requisite support, and the bill now languishes. It’s just another sign about how too many politicians in Louisiana would rather protect favored constituencies and fiefdoms that seriously entertain improving the quality of life in the state.
1.5.06
LA Senate's increased insurance regulation to drive up costs
The legacy of populism in Louisiana includes the belief that Louisiana should get people from other places to pay for the preferences enjoyed by Louisianans. We got another airing of that philosophy last week in the Senate Insurance Committee as it debated bills relating to insurance coverage and premiums.
One, SB 693 by state Sen. Robert Adley, would abolish the ability of insurance companies to file for rate increases up to ten percent without having to go in front of the gubernatorially-appointed Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission. All that does is improve the chances for politics to be injected into the process: all increases regardless of degree now must first face vetting by actuaries in the Department of Insurance and be authorized by it.
Informed that having the “flex-band” option attracted policy writers to the state (the increased competition from which lower rates), Adley dazzled those present with his ignorance of economics by stating, “Companies came, made money and are leaving again. They don't need us.” I wonder if that’s the attitude Adley has in his business and, if so, it’s a wonder he’s been in it so long.
Adley doesn’t understand that business can only make money when it has customers, so the more the better, but, more importantly, they want a customer base on which they can generate a profit because, guess what, if they can’t, firms go out of business. These companies will stay if they can get their rates adjusted to a level that accurately reflects the risk inherent in the properties they insure. The last thing the state needs are political appointees reviewing every rate increase and deciding not to grant them because people think insurance rates are going too high. What happens then is insurers simply stop coming to the state.
That’s already been happening, and that consequence was the subject of another bill, SB 651, by Sen. Reggie Dupre. This bill would remove the requirement that the state-owned insurer of last resort, the Louisiana Citizens’ Property Insurance Corporations charge premiums at least 10 percent above a price of a basket of premiums from private firms. This is to allow a greater bonding capacity and to prevent driving out of the state private firms.
But rather than having this greater stability and private insurance presence in the state, Dupre seemed to be more concerned about rapidly, but justifiably, escalating premiums and private insurers bailing out of the state than these issues. What he, nor Adley, seems to understand is that if Louisiana builds on its reputation of being business-unfriendly with the actions contemplated in their bills, that these insurers are going to leave the state, forcing the state-owned insurer to take on more and more properties at higher and higher rates.
And that’s bad news, because as the voice of reason on the committee Sen. Julie Quinn pointed out, the state-backed approach is nothing more than socialized insurance because deficits in it are made up by assessing additional premium costs on holders of private insurance. If the state won’t grant these increases to pass on to consumers, then these private insurers will leave the state, too.
The solution is simply to let the market prevail, which means getting over the idea that you can live anywhere you please without possibly paying exorbitant rates because of living in a risky area. It is not some Louisianans’ given rights to live wherever they want and expect ratepayers in the rest of the state or the remainder of the country to subsidize them (the same thing goes with levees and flood protection); nobody’s putting a gun to their heads and making them live in the places, either. If rates skyrocket, so be it; that’s the price some pay for living where they want, and it’s unfair to pass along so much of the responsibility for making that choice to others.
Fortunately, that bill did not make it out of committee but unfortunately Adley’s did, and not only that but then today squeaked through the entire Senate with some curious supporters – probable candidate for Insurance Commissioner James David Cain, announced candidate for Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, and stalwart fee-market supporter Max Malone. The House needs to stop this bill and instead consider reforms that reduces the state’s exposure to the insurance business and creates a friendlier environment that will cause private insurers to want to write policies in Louisiana.
One, SB 693 by state Sen. Robert Adley, would abolish the ability of insurance companies to file for rate increases up to ten percent without having to go in front of the gubernatorially-appointed Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission. All that does is improve the chances for politics to be injected into the process: all increases regardless of degree now must first face vetting by actuaries in the Department of Insurance and be authorized by it.
Informed that having the “flex-band” option attracted policy writers to the state (the increased competition from which lower rates), Adley dazzled those present with his ignorance of economics by stating, “Companies came, made money and are leaving again. They don't need us.” I wonder if that’s the attitude Adley has in his business and, if so, it’s a wonder he’s been in it so long.
Adley doesn’t understand that business can only make money when it has customers, so the more the better, but, more importantly, they want a customer base on which they can generate a profit because, guess what, if they can’t, firms go out of business. These companies will stay if they can get their rates adjusted to a level that accurately reflects the risk inherent in the properties they insure. The last thing the state needs are political appointees reviewing every rate increase and deciding not to grant them because people think insurance rates are going too high. What happens then is insurers simply stop coming to the state.
That’s already been happening, and that consequence was the subject of another bill, SB 651, by Sen. Reggie Dupre. This bill would remove the requirement that the state-owned insurer of last resort, the Louisiana Citizens’ Property Insurance Corporations charge premiums at least 10 percent above a price of a basket of premiums from private firms. This is to allow a greater bonding capacity and to prevent driving out of the state private firms.
But rather than having this greater stability and private insurance presence in the state, Dupre seemed to be more concerned about rapidly, but justifiably, escalating premiums and private insurers bailing out of the state than these issues. What he, nor Adley, seems to understand is that if Louisiana builds on its reputation of being business-unfriendly with the actions contemplated in their bills, that these insurers are going to leave the state, forcing the state-owned insurer to take on more and more properties at higher and higher rates.
And that’s bad news, because as the voice of reason on the committee Sen. Julie Quinn pointed out, the state-backed approach is nothing more than socialized insurance because deficits in it are made up by assessing additional premium costs on holders of private insurance. If the state won’t grant these increases to pass on to consumers, then these private insurers will leave the state, too.
The solution is simply to let the market prevail, which means getting over the idea that you can live anywhere you please without possibly paying exorbitant rates because of living in a risky area. It is not some Louisianans’ given rights to live wherever they want and expect ratepayers in the rest of the state or the remainder of the country to subsidize them (the same thing goes with levees and flood protection); nobody’s putting a gun to their heads and making them live in the places, either. If rates skyrocket, so be it; that’s the price some pay for living where they want, and it’s unfair to pass along so much of the responsibility for making that choice to others.
Fortunately, that bill did not make it out of committee but unfortunately Adley’s did, and not only that but then today squeaked through the entire Senate with some curious supporters – probable candidate for Insurance Commissioner James David Cain, announced candidate for Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, and stalwart fee-market supporter Max Malone. The House needs to stop this bill and instead consider reforms that reduces the state’s exposure to the insurance business and creates a friendlier environment that will cause private insurers to want to write policies in Louisiana.
30.4.06
Orleans turnout great news, even better for GOP
From the looks of comments given by a number of politicians and pundits, many fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between the results of the New Orleans mayor’s election primary and state elections in almost a year and a half.
First of all, answering the question about how many votes statewide Democrats will lose for 2007 I projected it two months ago in my paper presented at the Louisiana Political Science Association annual meeting: about 50,000. Roughly, about 25,000 Republican voters are projected to be out of Orleans and the state for the 2007 primary that otherwise would have been there without the hurricane disasters, but about 75,000 Democrat voters also are predicted to be absent. Whether that is significant is another matter.
In 2003, that margin still could have gotten Gov. Kathleen Blanco a narrow win over now-Rep. Bobby Jindal. However, for 2007 Blanco looks highly endangered while Jindal appears an early favorite to steamroll over all competitors for that office, so that margin wouldn’t matter then, either. Still, in close races Republicans have become advantaged, if the projections play out.
That these people don’t know about the 50,000-vote prediction is a minor shortcoming compared to their failure to properly analyze the meaning of the 36 percent turnout in the mayor’s race. Rather than interpreting this, in light of turnout nearly 10 percent higher for the 2002 contest, as a discouragement (and they are not the only ones to have made this mistake), in fact it is an exceptionally encouraging sign for upcoming Orleans elections.
Note that New Orleans’ population on Apr. 22 was unlikely to be more than half of its pre-Katrina level. Further, of that population only a portion is registered to vote – just about 60 percent if you take pre-election figures as accurate. But they aren’t – because so many registered voters really aren’t residents of New Orleans now who still appear on the rolls. Noting that there probably are disproportionately fewer children among the returnees and people marginally connected to the city who would have been unlikely to be registrants also disproportionately have not returned, perhaps 75 percent of those who have are registered voters. Estimating city population then at 218,000, this means 163,500 registrants were there on Apr. 22 – meaning turnout really was over 66 percent, a very healthy figure.
Admittedly, about 21,000 of those votes came from absentee or early voting. However, about half of that came from people opting for satellite, early voting in Orleans Parish, so even if we shave 10,000 off the final turnout figure (of 108,153), that’s still a very good 60 percent turnout of registered voters.
(It also points out the magnificent waste of money foisted upon the state by Democrats, principally at the insistence of Secretary of State Al Ater, to spend over $3 million extra beyond what the state and federal constitution required in voter contacts that got, using historical records, about 8,000 votes above normal – that’s about $375 per extra vote, or about what it would cost for an entire day for the state to provide skilled around the clock health care to a disabled person at home, at a time when almost 15,000 of them are stuck on a waiting list for state services. That is, the money Ater blew on the election could have served 25 such people for an entire year.)
Finally, just as many have misinterpreted the results as an indicator of lower future turnout, it also would be premature to say it is anti-incumbent. The May 20 general election can tell us more, but the fact that Mayor Ray Nagin pulled 38 percent of the vote I’m sure would have surprised many who now muse about any presumed anti-incumbent trend on the high side. Elections these days are rather candidate-specific, so it’s really the qualities of the incumbent and challengers that are the primary factors. It appears the majority of Orleans incumbents will survive, and, with Jindal out there, even without any hurricanes many analysts about now probably would have been writing concerning a tough reelection campaign ahead for Blanco.
First of all, answering the question about how many votes statewide Democrats will lose for 2007 I projected it two months ago in my paper presented at the Louisiana Political Science Association annual meeting: about 50,000. Roughly, about 25,000 Republican voters are projected to be out of Orleans and the state for the 2007 primary that otherwise would have been there without the hurricane disasters, but about 75,000 Democrat voters also are predicted to be absent. Whether that is significant is another matter.
In 2003, that margin still could have gotten Gov. Kathleen Blanco a narrow win over now-Rep. Bobby Jindal. However, for 2007 Blanco looks highly endangered while Jindal appears an early favorite to steamroll over all competitors for that office, so that margin wouldn’t matter then, either. Still, in close races Republicans have become advantaged, if the projections play out.
That these people don’t know about the 50,000-vote prediction is a minor shortcoming compared to their failure to properly analyze the meaning of the 36 percent turnout in the mayor’s race. Rather than interpreting this, in light of turnout nearly 10 percent higher for the 2002 contest, as a discouragement (and they are not the only ones to have made this mistake), in fact it is an exceptionally encouraging sign for upcoming Orleans elections.
Note that New Orleans’ population on Apr. 22 was unlikely to be more than half of its pre-Katrina level. Further, of that population only a portion is registered to vote – just about 60 percent if you take pre-election figures as accurate. But they aren’t – because so many registered voters really aren’t residents of New Orleans now who still appear on the rolls. Noting that there probably are disproportionately fewer children among the returnees and people marginally connected to the city who would have been unlikely to be registrants also disproportionately have not returned, perhaps 75 percent of those who have are registered voters. Estimating city population then at 218,000, this means 163,500 registrants were there on Apr. 22 – meaning turnout really was over 66 percent, a very healthy figure.
Admittedly, about 21,000 of those votes came from absentee or early voting. However, about half of that came from people opting for satellite, early voting in Orleans Parish, so even if we shave 10,000 off the final turnout figure (of 108,153), that’s still a very good 60 percent turnout of registered voters.
(It also points out the magnificent waste of money foisted upon the state by Democrats, principally at the insistence of Secretary of State Al Ater, to spend over $3 million extra beyond what the state and federal constitution required in voter contacts that got, using historical records, about 8,000 votes above normal – that’s about $375 per extra vote, or about what it would cost for an entire day for the state to provide skilled around the clock health care to a disabled person at home, at a time when almost 15,000 of them are stuck on a waiting list for state services. That is, the money Ater blew on the election could have served 25 such people for an entire year.)
Finally, just as many have misinterpreted the results as an indicator of lower future turnout, it also would be premature to say it is anti-incumbent. The May 20 general election can tell us more, but the fact that Mayor Ray Nagin pulled 38 percent of the vote I’m sure would have surprised many who now muse about any presumed anti-incumbent trend on the high side. Elections these days are rather candidate-specific, so it’s really the qualities of the incumbent and challengers that are the primary factors. It appears the majority of Orleans incumbents will survive, and, with Jindal out there, even without any hurricanes many analysts about now probably would have been writing concerning a tough reelection campaign ahead for Blanco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)