siege mentality

morrison out

2007-12-14T19:28:00.000-08:00

So it's official, Paul Morrison is out. It's been an amazing turnaround. About a week ago, Morrison was a highly-respected Attorney General, and a natural candidate for Governor or Lt. Governor at the end of Sebelius' term. Now, he's facing unemployment, an independent investigation launched by his arch-nemesis Phill Kline, and possible suspension or disbarment. While it was unavoidable, and probably the right decision, it's a big disappointment.

I still hope that he will be proved innocent of any professional wrongdoing. Even assuming that everything Linda Carter said is true, there is skimpy evidence that Morrison did much worse than violating staff regulations on office relationships. Now that the political damage is done, I hope that his political enemies don't try to destroy him.

Next, Sebelius will name his replacement, who will serve until 2010. There will not be a special election, as some Republican trolls have been suggesting on other blogs. The Kansas Constitution, Article I, Section 11, is clear on this issue:

When the office of secretary of state or attorney general is vacant, the governor shall fill the vacancy by appointment for the remainder of the term.

Stay Red Kansas has suggested that Sebelius might appoint Securities Commissioner Chris Biggs as Morrison's replacement. Biggs was the Geary County Attorney and a Democrat candidate for AG. Although he has lots of criminal law experience, there are some doubts about his political skills. Biggs was the man who lost to Phill Kline in the 2002 Attorney General race. However, in fairness to Biggs, 2002 was a year of major Republican gains everywhere. If Sebelius can't find any ready-for-prime-time replacements, Biggs might soon be the new face of Kansas law enforcement.

At the very least, Morrison's early exit will minimize the political fallout. All other state-level Democrats have emerged unscathed. It's also doubtful that many people will remember this once the presidential election season kicks in, much less in 2010. It might be cold comfort, but at least it's something.

why morrison made a smart move

2007-12-11T21:10:00.000-08:00

Embattled Attorney General Paul Morrison has called for an independent investigation of the allegations against him by the Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. Morrison pledged to cooperate fully with the investigation. The move was smart politically, as it makes him look like someone with nothing to hide. But it was also smart legally. To understand why takes a bit of explanation, and a short detour into the thrilling world of disciplinary procedure.

In Kansas, when an ethics complaint is filed against a lawyer, it is referred to a Review Committee. The Review Committee reviews the charges and the evidence, and decides whether there is probable cause to continue--i.e., a reasonable belief that the lawyer committed some kind of misconduct.

If the complaint makes it out of the Review Committee, it is then scheduled for a hearing. The hearing is in front of a three person panel, and proceeds a lot like a normal civil case. Witnesses are called and evidence is introduced. After both sides have presented their case, the panel makes a decision, just like a jury in a normal case.

But here's the important part: the panel must find misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. "Clear and convincing" is considered less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," (the standard in a criminal case) but more than "the preponderance of the evidence." (the standard in a normal civil case).

In a normal civil case, like, say, a sexual harassment claim against a supervisor, the standard of proof is "the preponderance of the evidence," which basically means "more likely than not." This is the lowest standard of proof in the law. It means that you could theoretically win a case by showing that there is a 51% chance that what you're saying is true.

"Clear and convincing," on the other hand, is the highest standard of proof you can get in a civil case. Like many legal terms its exact meaning is hard to pin down, but most definitions involve some variation of "highly likely" or "highly probable." In numeric terms, think a 75% chance that something is true.

Now here's the rub: the original sexual harassment investigation against Morrison is subject to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

Right now, the claim is being handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that investigates discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC will investigate the charges, and determine if they are supported by the preponderance of the evidence. If the EEOC finds that they are, they have two options: (1) prosecute the case against Morrison themselves in civil court, or (2) decline to prosecute, in which case Linda Carter can file a private civil case against Morrison. Whether the EEOC or Carter prosecutes the case, they will have to prove that Morrison sexually harassed Carter by the preponderance of the evidence.

The bottom line is that it will be much harder to prove that Paul Morrison harassed Linda Carter in a hearing before the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. Much of the case is going to come down to Linda Carter's testimony, pitting her word against Morrison's. But it is highly unlikely that her testimony alone can establish sexual harassment, or other misconduct, by "clear and convincing" evidence. Unless she was recording telephone conversations or has some other smoking gun, Morrison stands a very good shot at being vindicated.

Another added benefit of the disciplinary hearing is that it will force Carter's legal team to tip their hands early. They will have to come forward with all of the evidence of sexual harassment that they will be using later to sue Morrison. This will give Morrison a definite advantage in preparing for any future trials, and in finding evidence to dispute her allegations.

The Disciplinary Administrator investigation will likely be completed long before the EEOC's. If Morrison is found innocent, he will have lots of political cover, and he will be in a good position even if the EEOC finds evidence of sexual harassment. Morrison is going to stand and fight, and he may yet live to see another day.

if morrison goes, who's next?

2007-12-11T10:29:00.000-08:00

Although Paul Morrison's future remains uncertain, conventional wisdom says that he won't run for re-election in 2010, even if he does manage to avoid resignation or removal. Dianne Silver points out that there is already some grumbling among Democrats that Morrison should resign, so that Sebelius can appoint a Democrat successor. There aren't many Democrats who are well-known or popular at the state-wide level, the reasoning goes, so it is imperative that the party put this scandal to rest so that it can hold onto the Attorney General seat.

This all begs the question: who could succeed Morrison if he doesn't fill out his term?

The most natural pool of candidates to fill the seat are Democrat district attorneys, particularly from large districts. Here are a few who are likely to be on the Governor's short list.

(1) Topping the list is Nola Tedesco Foulston, the Sedgwick County District Attorney. Foulston has an extremely impressive resume, with years of law enforcement experience and a laundry list of awards and honors. She has served as Sedgwick county DA for nearly 20 years, and ran unopposed in 1996, 2000, and 2004. She also has a compelling personal story, as she has continued as DA despite being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. Predictably, the Operation Rescue crowd despises her for her refusal to file frivolous charges against abortion provider George Tiller. But it's hard to imagine any Democrat that wouldn't generate opposition among pro-lifers.

In raw political terms, Foulston would be the perfect antidote to Morrison's scandal. Appointing a woman who is, by all accounts, above reproach, would draw a stark contrast to Morrison's piggish behavior. Also, the fact that she is a woman and suffers from a debilitating disease would make her much harder to attack. State Republicans would probably avoid getting too nasty and personal, for fear that the attacks could backfire.

The big question is whether Foulston is interested in running for higher office. Topeka is a long way from Wichita, and she may decide that her health, her family and her career as a prosecutor are more important than climbing the political ladder.

(2) Jerome Gorman of Wyandotte County or Charles Branson of Douglas County. Both of these Democrat DAs are serving their first terms, and both have rather low profiles. Gorman appears to have some prosecutorial experience, but doesn't have too many accomplishments or honors.
He also ran unopposed in Wyandotte, which surely raises questions about his ability to win a competitive race.

Branson, on the other hand, was a criminal defense attorney for years before he was elected as DA. Republicans would definitely try to skewer him for helping to keep criminals on the street. However, Branson did decisively win a competitive election as a Democrat in 2004, when the party was getting shellaced across the state.

But the bottom line is that both Gorman and Branson won as Democrats in the only Democratic strongholds in the state. Douglas and Wyandotte were the only counties that went for Kerry in 2004, when both Gorman and Branson were elected. This raises some doubt about their ability to appeal to Republicans, which would be a necessity for any candidate for state-wide office.

(3) Convince another Republican to switch parties. While this may seem unlikely on its face, it should be remembered that nobody would have thought Paul Morrison or Mark Parkinson would have "D"s in front of their names a few years ago. In my opinion, the best "get" would be Shawnee County District Attorney Robert Hecht. The man is extremely well-respected, and has decades of experience and a mightily impressive resume.

Although he is a Republican, there are some indications that Hecht isn't an unflaggingly loyal company man. For one, he is a member of a few Democratic-leaning organizations, including the Kansas Trial Lawyers and the NAACP. He also essentially threw Phill Kline under the bus in the KCTV-5 piece about Kline's less-than-impressive work ethic. Although that may not have been his intention, the very fact that he spoke to KCTV-5, on camera, in its investigation of Kline shows less than perfect party loyalty--a hardcore Republican would have stonewalled.

Hecht, or any Republican, may be attracted to the replacement position because it would allow them to bypass what is sure to be a contested Republican primary. An experienced former Republican would be a heavy favorite to hold on to the Attorney General seat in 2010. Instead of having to go through the painstaking work of raising money and building a campaign organization, somebody like Hecht could ascend to higher office with minimal effort.

Although the Kansas Democratic party doesn't have a very deep bench for upcoming elections, all is not lost. If Sebelius and Morrison play this right, state Dems could wind up with an even better candidate for 2010, or, at the very least, one who has a fighting chance.

say it ain't so paul

2007-12-10T10:04:00.001-08:00

The Kansas City Star reported that Paul Morrison could be in for some serious scandal:

TOPEKA | News of a sexual harassment complaint against Attorney General Paul Morrison touched off a firestorm in Kansas political circles Sunday, ranging from cautious support to calls for impeachment.
Morrison acknowledged having an affair with a former employee in the Johnson County district attorney’s office, but he denied harassing her.
Morrison also denied her allegations that he tried to use the relationship to obtain sensitive information about an abortion investigation by his successor, Phill Kline. Morrison said he never tried to influence ongoing cases.

It's very disappointing, on a personal level, to see an elected official cheat on his wife. But infidelity alone shouldn't disqualify Morrison from office, at least to the extent that it doesn't interfere with his public duties.

However, there are two serious allegations of professional misconduct being leveled against Morrison, that, if true, should disqualify him from running the state's law enforcement agency.

The most potentially explosive is sexual harassment. The Star article stated that a complaint was filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or "EEOC"). The EEOC website lists the following as examples of sexual harassment:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

Morrison's defense seems to rest on the last bullet point. He admits that there was a sexual relationship, but he is arguing that it was entirely consensual, and therefore any sexual advances or conduct were "welcome." Whether or not the affair was consensual is a question of fact that the EEOC will try to determine. Although at this point, without seeing the complaint against Morrison, it appears that the allegations boil down to "he said/she said," which is likely not enough, by itself, to win a sexual harassment claim. In addition, the Topeka Capital Journal article about the allegations reveals no allegations of sexual harassment while Morrison was Linda Carter's boss.

Morrison is no shrinking violet, and it's unlikely that he's going to resign without a fight. At this point, without any "smoking guns," impeachment looks like a remote possibility. Still, even if he is innocent of sexual harassment and professional wrongdoing, his political future does not look good. Marital infidelity does not play well in a conservative-leaning state like Kansas, and it is a certainty that any future Republican opponents will raise the issue. It is unfortunate that Kansas Democrats have likely lost one of their best hopes for holding onto the governor's mansion after Sebelius leaves office.

how phill kline broke the law... again

2007-11-28T22:49:00.000-08:00

Due to some excellent investigative work by KCTV 5, it has come to light that unelected Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline does not actually reside in Johnson County. Although Kline isn't running for re-election (probably because he would get trounced and hand the seat to Democrat), this could mean that Johnson County is Kline-free well before the 2008 election.

The KCTV 5 piece briefly mentioned that Kansas state law requires a district attorney to live in the county that he serves. The specific law is KSA 22a-103(d), which states:

(d) In the event that any district attorney changes residence outside of the judicial district from which elected, such district attorney shall promptly resign from such office as district attorney. If such district attorney fails to resign, such district attorney shall be subject to removal from office as provided by law.

Johnson County is located in the 10th judicial district. Shawnee County, which includes Topeka, is within the state's 3rd judicial district. Although the statute uses the term "elected," this clearly encompasses Kline's "election" by Republican precinct captains.

Because Kline is a lawyer and elected official, it is also likely that, by claiming to reside in a place that he doesn't, he has broken several ethics codes. For starters, there is the Johnson County Code of Ethics (in .pdf format). The Code outlines the standards for all Johnson County employees and elected officials, including:

STANDARD 201: UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF KANSAS, AND JOHNSON COUNTY AND NEVER BE A PARTY TO THEIR EVASION

STANDARD 901: AT ALL TIMES DISPLAY THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INTEGRITY IN PERFORMING HIS OR HER DUTIES AND NEVER KNOWINGLY NOR NEGLIGENTLY MISLEAD OR ALLOW OTHERS TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, NOR FAIL TO DISCLOSE OR REPORT TO APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS ANY CORRUPTION WHEREVER DISCOVERED.

It is also likely that there are several violations of the Kansas Code of Professional Responsibility, the code governing all Kansas lawyers. Although it is hard to say which codes were violated without seeing the paperwork Kline had to file to become District Attorney, it is highly likely that he signed many documents claiming his bogus Johnson County address. From the KCTV story, it is apparent that Kline claimed to reside in Johnson County on both his motor vehicle and voter registration. The Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator tends to take a rather dim view of lawyers who make knowingly false statements in official documents.

The bottom line is that Kline misled an awful lot of people. The idea that Kline, someone who went from corporate lawyer to politician, would live in a crappy apartment out in the sticks, is dubious to say the least. Even if he did need to live in a $400/month apartment when he makes nearly $150,000 a year, there are countless cheap apartments located within a few miles of the Johnson County courthouse. The fact that his alleged residence is not only far away from his job, but in a highly isolated area, makes it even more likely that his Johnson County residence is a sham.

Although this is not a criminal offense, it is still a blatant violation of the law by Johnson County's top law enforcement officer. Johnson County residents should not have to take one more minute of Kline's sleazy behavior. Here is how we can show him the door early:

1) If you live in Johnson County, contact your county commissioner, and let him know that Kline has to go. A little political pressure could go a long way.

2) File a complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. You don't have to be a lawyer to file, and the form is available right here. If Kline gets called before a disciplinary committee, he'll be in a very tough position--either continue to dissemble about his true residence (lying to the ethics committee is a serious ethical offense in and of itself), or come clean and admit that he's not legally qualified to be Johnson County's district attorney.

There is also a procedure in Johnson County where an ethics complaint can be filed against an elected official, although it is not clear whether citizens can file the complaints. I will post more as soon as I can get ahold of someone in the office.

UPDATE:
A conscientious reader has obtained information about how to file an ethics complaint. In Johnson County, the complaint is to be filed with the supervisor--which, in this case, is either Kline himself or the Attorney General (although it is not clear whether the Attorney General has any responsibility to enforce county ethics codes). The Johnson County Code does say that Kline would have to recuse himself from any ethics investigation.
You can send an ethics complaint to the District Attorney's office via email at this email address.
Contact info for the Attorney General's office is here.

Kline is not likely to go easily. From the minute he started as Johnson County DA, he has conducted himself as someone with nothing to lose--an inevitable result of the fact that he knows he will never face voter accountability for his actions. But if enough people make enough racket, we can send him packing.

turnout key in ks-02

2006-11-08T21:54:00.000-08:00

Congresswoman-elect Nancy Boyda did better than everybody expected on Tuesday. So how did she do it? To help find out, I have complied a county-by-county list of vote totals for 2004 and 2006 (available in Excel format here)

So what does all this mean?

First, Boyda's turnout was unusually strong. Midterm elections always have lower turnout than Presidential years, and far fewer total votes were cast this year in the Second district than in '04. But Boyda's 2006 numbers are almost all (with the exception of Riley county) within a few hundred votes of her 2004 totals. In Jackson, Jefferson, Nemaha, Osage and Pottawatomie counties she even slightly exceeds her 2004 totals. In contrast, Ryun didn't beat his 2004 totals in a single county.

Second, Ryun had much lower turnout than in 2004, and it was devestating. In almost every county he recieved at least 1,000 fewer votes than '04. The problem was the worst in the most populous areas. In Shawnee county (which includes Topeka) alone he recieved over 13,000 less votes than 2004. Douglas, Riley and Leavenworth counties delivered around 15,000 less Ryun votes. This meant that even in counties Ryun carried, his margin over Boyda was much thinner. In Leavenworth this turnaround was particularly dramatic--he recieved about 5,000 more votes than Boyda in '04, but only around 125 more votes than Boyda in '06. His core support simply evaporated.

So where did Boyda's votes come from? Were Boyda's totals the result of 2004 Ryun voters switching sides, or did Boyda '04 voters show up while Ryun '04 voters stayed home?
The most likely explanation is that Boyda's 2004 supporters were energized and Ryun's weren't. While we won't know for sure until all the election results are certified, it looks like Democratic turnout was strong nationwide. Pre-election polling data indicated a large enthusiasm gap favoring Democrats. From my own experiences, I think Charlie Cook nailed this year's mood among Democrats when said they were "spitting nails and can't wait to vote." The lack of a viable Republican challenge to Sebelius probably also helped to depress Republican turnout. It's hard to motivate voters to get to the polls for someone who has no chance of winning.

From these numbers, it's clear that talk of a realignment in Kansas politics is premature. If enough Republican voters had turned out on Tuesday--if Ryun had been able to get within a few hundred votes of his 2004 totals--Boyda would have lost big. 2006 was an extraordinary election year, and it's unlikely that she will face the same combination of energized Democrats and dispirited Republicans in the near future. If Boyda wants to be more than a one-term representative, it's imperative that she starts to pick off Republican moderates. The powers of incumbency can do wonders for a Democrat in a Republican-leaning district (just look at Dennis Moore's ever-increasing vote percentages in Johnson County) and she better start using them quickly. The Republicans will be back in 2008, and they might be the ones spitting nails.

boyda's win: the narrative

2006-11-08T01:44:00.000-08:00

Without a doubt, Nancy Boyda's victory over long time incumbent Jim Ryun was one of the major upsets of this election cycle. Within a few months the seat went from "Safe Republican" to a Democrat pickup. With much national media attention already focused on Kansas's Democratic resurgence, the question remains: what will become the story of Boyda's victory? Several explanations are possible:

1) Anti-Bush fervor struck everywhere. This is the explanation throughly covered by Diane Silver in her excellent recent post. The basic theory is that Bush was an albatross around the neck of every Republican incumbent in the country, and his toxic unpopularity handed the seat to Boyda. There is no doubt that anti-Republican and anti-Bush sentiment were a part of Boyda's victory. But it's difficult to determine how much Bush factored in. Like most House races, there wasn't an exit poll to guage the effect of Presidential disapproval on voters. The last 50 state SurveyUSA poll on Bush's popularity was taken back in October. It showed Bush's approval at 41% approval statewide. His strongest disapproval number, 63% came from an ill-defined "Eastern" portion of the state, which undoubtedly included most of the Second district. Bottom line: there is definitely evidence to suggest Bush had a hand in sinking Ryun.

2) Gerrymandering bit the Republicans in the ass. Silver touches on this explanation as well. The story goes something like this: by cutting Lawrence in half during the 2002 redistricting, the Republicans dumped a bunch of Democratic votes into the Second district. Lawrence, the state's liberal stronghold, is split between the Second and Third congressional districts. The split runs right down Iowa street, placing the K.U. campus and most of the student ghetto in the Third district, and the western half of the city in the Second (the western half has a lower student population).

The best way to test this theory is to look at the numbers. Based on the Lawrence Journal-World's very cool interactive map, Boyda won huge in Lawrence. Generally, the closer one gets to Iowa street, the bigger the margin. She also seems to have carried every single precinct in Douglas county (where Lawrence resides). According to the 2004 results in Douglas county (link is in Microsoft excel format), Boyda recieved 10,063 votes to Ryun's 10,333. This year, according the Secretary of State's unofficial results, she recieved 9,379 votes to Ryun's 5,850. At least in Douglas county, the results are pretty unmistakable: Democrats were energized and Republicans stayed home. The problem for Ryun wasn't his district, it was Republican turnout. Boyda's lopsided victory in populous Shawnee county (which Ryun carried handily in 2004) appears to have also been decisive.

3) Ryun ran a horrible campaign / Boyda ran a great campaign. Almost all of the evidence for either theory has been anecdotal. There was some grumbling among Kansas Republicans that Ryun had done a poor job with constituent service, and that he failed to take Boyda seriously until it was too late. The latter assertion does have some merit: according to the odious (and hilariously ineffective) blog Fire Kansas Democrats, Ryun's first campaign ad didn't air until late September. Had team Ryun been more on the ball, they could have aggressively defined Boyda and buried her early on.
As for the Boyda campaign: After Ryun's decisive victory in 2004, there was some doubt over her appeal as a candidate and (as someone who has never held elected office) her political instincts. But there's no doubt Nancy Boyda and her husband/campaign manager Steve Boyda made some great moves this time around. Using their extremely limited resources to commission internal polls, and then releasing those polls to the public was clearly beneficial. It generated media attention, helped drive Democratic turnout and, at the crucial late stages of the campaign, convinced the DCCC to dump money into the race. Boyda's unsuccessful 2004 run also helped pave the way for victory--she started with much higher name I.D. than a virtual unknown. Finally, team Boyda utilized the "change" message which seems to have worked wonders for Democrats across the country.

4) Boyda had help at the top of the ticket. The lopsided victories of Governor Kathleen Sebelius and new Attorney General Paul Morrison may have had coattails. Conventional wisdom says a voter who checks the box for a Democrat once is probably more likely to do it twice. Undoubtedly, popular state-level Democrats make it harder to caricature the party. Ryun's claims that all Democrats want to raise your taxes were contradicted by actual experience with Democrats who didn't. On this point, the numbers are a wash. Sebelius and Morrison both ran well ahead of Boyda everywhere, suggesting that some Sebelius supporters still voted for Ryun. But a popular incumbent Governor certainly didn't hurt.

These narratives not mutually exclusive, and it's likely all contributed to Boyda's upset. It's likely the national media will pick up on the first explanation, because it's the easiest, it ties into national issues, and allows the pundits to save face for writing off the race far too early. Judging by the media attention generated by the state's moderate Republican defections, there's little doubt that a flood of "What's (not) The Matter With Kansas" articles are on the horizon.

kansas turns purple

2006-11-07T20:46:00.000-08:00

After a heated campaign season, Kansas has split both its statewide offices and U.S. Congressional seats right down the middle. Nancy Boyda unseated Jim Ryun in the 2nd district, and Dennis Moore crushed the wormy Chuck Ahner. Sebelius, as widely expected, held onto the governor's office, and Paul Morrison annihilated Phill Kline.

With the dust still settling, a few things are apparent:

1) Negative campaigning failed. Kline's entire campaign was dedicated to slinging mud and distorting the record of Paul Morrison. The more he did it, the more he slipped in the polls. Similarly, Jim Ryun's attempts to paint Boyda as a scary tax-raisin' librul didn't hold water. Voters aren't quite as stupid as people think.

2) The religious right has been slapped down. In such a heavily Republican state, there was a time the Operation Rescue crowd was a force to be reckoned with. That no longer appears to be the case, as moderate Republicans have shown they'll support moderate Democrats over right-wing Republicans. Kline's constant pandering to extreme pro-lifers alienated enough middle-of-the-road voters to cost him his seat. Morrison's huge margin once again shows that the religious right is a (very vocal) minority.

3) Kansas has once again shown that it isn't crazy. After years of being the butt of every political joke, Kansans have shown that we aren't idiots who support Republicans no matter what. We aren't religious fanatics who place abortion and gay marriage above all other pressing issues. We aren't luddites who want to pretend evolution didn't happen. We're sensible, moderate folks who want effective government instead of divise partisanship.

Congratulations to Congresswoman Boyda and Attorney General Morrison. May they do us proud.

kline goes down in flames

2006-11-07T20:11:00.000-08:00

According the Lawrence Journal World, with over half of precincts reporting, Morrison is up 59% to 41%. It's hard to see Kline coming back from this one.

UPDATE: It's over! The Kansas City Star calls the race for Paul Morrison, 58% to Kline's measely 41%. Let us bask in the blinding dome of our new Attorney General

UPDATE II: The Lawrence Journal-World calls the race for Morrison.

boyda leading in early results!

2006-11-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

According the latest results, with 57% reporting, the race currently stands at:

Boyda (D): 54%, 72,573 votes
Ryun (R): 45%, 62,425 votes

It ain't over yet, but if I was Ryun I'd be sweating bullets...

UPDATE (10:35pm): Boyda's lead is holding with 72% of precincts in according to LJ-World. Ryun needs to make up almost 12,000 votes in order to win.

shocking news: brownback against gay marriage

2006-10-25T22:03:00.000-07:00

According to Hotline, the first national politician to speak out against today's ruling in New Jersey mandating civil unions was our own Sam Brownback:

"The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court only deepens the constitutional crisis with respect to the protection of traditional marriage, and warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts.”

Yes, Sam, "huge social changes." Kind of like the one that started in Kansas in 1954? You know, Brown v. Board of Education?
Brownback's logic (the logic of many right wing opponents of gay marriage) would apply with equal force to Brown: it mandated a huge social change in a most undemocratic fashion. At the time it was decided, the country was most certainly not ready for desegregated schools (or the more sweeping desegregation that followed). The people had spoken through their elected representatives, in Kansas and elsewhere, and shown their support (or at least toleration) of segregation.
But the New Jersey decision, like Brown, demonstrates exactly what the courts are supposed to do in these situations: protect the rights of minorities who can't protect themselves through the political process (what with the majoritarian politics and all). In the 50s and 60s, those damn activist judges dragged the country kicking and screaming toward greater equality. Despite dire warnings from Brownback's ideological predecessors, we emerged with our democracy intact, and with greater respect for human rights to boot. Today, the courts, precisely because of their insulation from democratic politics, are the only people in power willing to state the obvious: there is no reason to deny civil unions other than irrational prejudice towards gay and lesbian people.
In the long run, the Brownbacks of the world never win--each generation gets a little more tolerant than the last (try asking a room full of today's high school students how much they worry about preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage). Despite the gay marriage amendments and the shrieking indignation of the religious right, acceptance of gay people and culture has never been higher.
History will judge Sam Brownback harshly, just as it judged men like George Wallace and Bull Conner: demagogues who stood in the way of much-needed progress.

the pundits take notice of ks-02

2006-10-16T16:37:00.000-07:00

Over the past few months, Nancy Boyda's campaign to unseat Representative Jim Ryun has gone from impossible to longshot to nail-biter. At first, most observors scoffed when the Boyda campaign released an internal poll showing her in a statistical dead-heat with the former track star. But the deafening silence from Ryun's handlers spoke volumes. A visit from Vice President Cheney raised more eyebrows. Why would the vaunted veep take time out of his busy schedule to help an incumbent in a safe seat, particularly when there are so many recognized endangered Republican incumbents who could use his help? Then Boyda released yet another poll showing the race within her grasp.
Today, well respected political prognisticator Charlie Cook confirmed that a Boyda victory is not the stuff of fantasy. His rankings of the 50 Most Competitive House Races have been expanded to 60, and the Boyda/Ryun matchup slips in at number 59:

With apologies to our editors, we're expanding the list to 60 races. At this point at least that many are in play and, frankly, we could have gone to 75. Part of this field expansion is due to Democrats getting more fired up and therefore coming home earlier in polling. So, for instance, in a place like Kansas-02, the Democrat already has 41 percent compared to the incumbent Republican's 45 percent. The undecideds are probably too Republican for the Democrat to win, but still, the numbers aren't lying right now.

Unfortunately, the poll itself is behind the site's subscription-only firewall. But a few things are evident:

1) This isn't a Boyda internal poll. The two internals released by her campaign have showed the matchup at 41.2/42.5 and 42.6/40 (Ryun/Boyda), respectively. As far as I know, Cook only uses independent polls in his rankings. This means there is for the first time independent confirmation that the race is a tossup--the numbers can't be dismissed as a Boyda campaign trick.

2) The conventional wisdom has officially changed--Ryun's seat is not safe. This is a double-edged sword--it could mean more campaign donations or fundraising help from either national party. A major cash infusion to either Boyda or Ryun could make all the difference.

3) I disagree with Cook on one point: the high number of undecideds does not work in Ryun's favor. Virtually all of the media coverage of Ryun for the past month has been unfavorable. The mainstream papers have picked up on Ryun's connections to the Foley scandal, and the Cheney visit associates him with the toxic Bush administration. Whether or not Boyda has aggressively made the case, everything about Ryun screams "more of the same," and voters can easily pick up on that.

Ryun supporters will scoff that barely slipping in to an expanded 60-seat ranking is hardly something to crow about. But they would do well to remember: nobody thought this seat was competitive six months ago. KS-02 could be shaping up to be one of 2006's biggest upsets.

the house that sleaze built

2006-10-08T02:27:00.000-07:00

If you haven't seen it already, check out Bill Moyers's excellent piece on the Abramoff scandal (it's available in its entirety on the Moyers on America site). In a firey hour of television, Moyers unravels the complex network of shell organizations Abramoff used to fund GOP candidates. One of his key organizations was the U.S. Family Network. It was an organization ostensibly committed to promoting family values, but actually used to funnel Indian casino money to powerful members of congress. Moyers repeatedly mentions the network and shows it's "house with the red door." What he doesn't mention is that after Abramoff's influence peddling was uncovered and the U.S. Family Network shut its red door, the house was suspiciously sold to Jim Ryun at a considerable loss. This picture of Ryun's home, from a Topeka Capital Journal story on the subject, is likely the same one used in the documentary:

jim ryun and the foley scandal

2006-10-02T22:04:00.000-07:00

It seems the Republican party has found itself in the middle of a good old fashioned underage sex scandal, with just weeks until election day. The sordid Mark Foley affair has dominated the news for nearly a week, as new revelations surface and fingers are pointed in every direction. As the Republican leadership faces charges of a cover-up, rank and file House Republicans are running for their political lives.

As someone completely in bed with the leaders of the House, Kansas's own Jim Ryun should be one of them.

First, according to Ryun's FEC filings, he has accepted money directly from House Speaker Dennis Hastert. With each passing hour, Hastert is becoming more and more radioactive, as it becomes increasingly apparent that he knew of Foley's penchant for pages and did nothing (for example, just today it was reported that Hastert knew about Foley's problems for at least two years) Prominent conservative voices from Reagan economic adviser Lawrence Kudlow to the Washington Times editorial page are calling for his resignation. If Hastert takes the fall, will Ryun return the money, or simply hope the stink doesn't rub off on him?

Second, Ryun has contributed money directly to the Republican head of the House Page Board John Shimkus. Today, Shimkus defended his handling of the Foley debacle:

Amid mounting criticism from his own party, U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, said he acted properly when confronted last year with a questionable email sent by disgraced former congressman Mark Foley to a former congressional page.

"I don't know of a single thing I would have done differently," Shimkus told The State Journal-Register editorial board during an hour-long Wednesday meeting.

Of course, as many others have been quick to point out, there are quite a few things he could have done differently.

Shimkus has faced criticism from both parties for not telling the other two page board members last year when the parents of a former page complained that Foley had asked their son to send him a picture of himself.

Members of both parties have also said that Shimkus and others who knew about the email should have conducted a more thorough investigation. Controversy exploded late last week when sexually explicit instant messages Foley that sent to a different former page surfaced publicly, forcing the Florida congressman to resign Friday.

After reading excerpts of 2005 emails, Shimkus said he confronted Foley, told him to stop contacting the former page and to not have contact with other pages. He took no further action.

If Shimkus survives, will Jim Ryun continue to fill his campaign coffers?

Third, Mark Foley and Jim Ryun are literally next door neighbors in Washington. Earlier this year the Topeka Capital Journal reported

Ryun agreed to open his much-talked-about townhouse this month to guests willing to drop $1,000 into his re-election coffer.
It was part of the second-annual "D Street Block Party," which brings five Republicans together for booze and schmooze. Connecticut Rep. Nancy Johnson offered martinis, while Florida Rep. Clay Shaw Jr. set people up with Scotch. Indiana Rep. Chris Chocola mixed margaritas and Florida Rep. Mark Foley popped the cork on wine.
The last stop was at the Ryuns, who ran the sobriety checkpoint and offered guests coffee and dessert.

The article is silent as to whether dinner guests were carded.
Of course it's worth remembering how Ryun and Foley came to be neighborly. The same article reports:

The Ryuns' search that summer in an upscale area east of the Capitol was initially discouraging. Little progress was made until Ryun recalled that U.S. Family Network, a conservative advocacy group funded mostly with contributions linked to Abramoff, owned a townhouse in the zone coveted by the Ryuns.
The congressman contacted Ed Buckham, former chief of staff to DeLay and founder of U.S. Family Network, to find out whether the organization would sell. Buckham, DeLay and others knew the building as the "Safe House." Buckham put Ryun in touch with Thomas Smith, U.S. Family Network's attorney.
By November, the Ryuns had a contract to buy the two-story brick building for $410,000. It needed cosmetic upgrading and a bit of structural work, but they were pleased.
"You have to look and be at the right place at the right time," the Kansas Republican said.
At the closing in December, nobody took notice that this 1890s home had never been placed in the hands of a Realtor to seek fair market value for the seller. No one raised red flags about a private sale to the Ryuns, which helped U.S. Family Network avoid $25,000 in commissions. Also slipping under radar, until recently, was the fact U.S. Family Network sold out at a $19,000 loss despite escalation of housing prices in the two years the organization owned the property. U.S. Family Network had purchased the property for $429,000.
The home is assessed at $764,000 for tax year 2007, according to the Office of Tax and Revenue.

Fourth, Ryun and Mark Foley are both financed by the same group of people. An analysis of Foley and Ryun's FEC filings reveals donations to both by the following people (almost all donors have given money to both Foley and Ryun repeatedly):

AFLAC
Alltel
America's Community Bankers Community Campaign
BANKPAC
American Crystal Sugar Co.
American Dental PAC
American Hospital Association
American Hotel Lodging Association
American Medical Association PAC
PT-PAC
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association PAC
American Sugar Cane League
American Sugarbeet Growers
Associated Builders Contractors PAC
Associated General Contractors America
AT&T PAC
Auction Markets PAC
Automotive Free International
Bank of America
Bellsouth Employee's PAC
BluePAC
Boeing
BuildPAC
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
Eric Cantor for Congress
Capital One PAC
Chicago Board of Options Exchange
Citigroup
CME/PAC
Coca-Cola
Credit Union Legislative Action Council
Dairy Farmers PAC
Dealers Election Action Committee
Deloitte & Touche
E*Trade Financial Corp.
Enron
Every Republican is Crucial PAC
ExxonMobil
Farm Credit Council
Farmland Industries
Federal Express PAC
Florida Sugar Cane League
General Electric
H&R Block
Honeywell International
HSBC North America
Independent Community Bankers of America
Independent Insurance Agents of America
Investment Company Institute PAC
JP Morgan
Koch Industries
KPMG Partners/Principals & Employees PAC
Lockheed Martin
Manufactured Housing Institute PAC
Metlife Employee's PAC
Microsoft
Minn-Dak Farmers
Morgan Stanley
NACS PAC
National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers
National Association of Realtors
National Restaurant Association PAC
NRA Political Victory Fund
Occidental Petroleum
Pepsico Concerned Citizens Fund
Pfizer
Price Waterhouse Cooper PAC
Property Casualty Insurers Association
Quaker Oats PAC
Qwest Communications
Teco Energy Employee's PAC
Title Industry PAC
Trea Senior Citizen's League
Trucking PAC
Union Pacific Corp. Fund for Effective Government
United Parcel Service
United Services Automobile Association
United Technoloies Corp.
Verizon
Wal-Mart
Williams Companies, Inc.

And last but not least, lets not forget that both Foley and Ryun accepted loads of money from ultra-corrupt former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Of course, most House Republicans have ties to people involved in the Foley scandal. But thats exactly the point--this group is so corrupt that it's time for fresh blood. There were already indications that Ryun's re-election bid was in trouble. Widespread revulsion at Republican attempts to hide a sexual predator in their midst threatens to sink Ryun completely.

spineless

2006-10-01T23:25:00.000-07:00

As someone who grew up in Kansas's Third Congressional District, I know first hand the chip on the shoulder of many social moderates. We think of ourselves as urbane city dwellers, immune from the conservative histrionics that make Kansas the butt of national jokes. We take pride in the fact that we handed Phill Kline his first loss in the state (his disastrous attempt to unseat Dennis Moore) and that Paul Morrison, another Third District resident, may hand him his second. The more progressive-minded Third District dwellers like to envision ourselves as a blue oasis in a sea of red, sending the only Kansas Democrat to Washington for the last four election cycles.
Much of this is condescending wishful thinking, but it does contain a kernel of truth: the Third district seems to prefer moderate politicians more than the rest of the state. It's those moderate tendencies that make Dennis Moore's behavior all the more baffling and despicable.
On September 27, Dennis Moore voted with the Republican majority to authorize the torture and indefinite detention of any non-citizen the executive branch deems an "enemy combatant." It was a vote that will likely go down in history with the Alien and Sedition Acts and the placement of Japanese Americans in concentration camps as a low point in America's respect for basic human rights. As our elected representative, Dennis Moore proudly declared that the Third District supports torture and the gutting of habeas corpus.
Why would Dennis Moore do such a thing? The same reason that Congressional Democrats could not mount a unified opposition to torture: self-interest coupled with a complete lack of backbone. Dennis Moore is so afraid of losing to Chuck Ahner, the latest longshot Republican challenger that he's willing to sell out the constitution and our nation's principles.
Nobody except the most mindless GOP cheerleader really believes that Moore is an endangered incumbent. Moore enjoys all of the traditional advantages of incumbency, including a huge fundraising advantage. On September 15, Larry Sabato changed the seat's rating from "Leans Democrat" to "Solid Democrat." Even without the strong national tides against Republicans, there's nothing to suggest that Ahner can succeed for so many other empty suits have failed.
Nonetheless, Moore cowers at Ahner's attempts to frame the race around national security. He's so frightened of a 30 second spot painting him as a terrorist appeaser that he's willing to advocate arbitrary detention and torture.
Republican Jerry Moran of Kansas's First District voted against a bill. For the uninitiated, this is a man rated at 0% by NARAL and 92% by the Family Research Council. Even though he represents a far more conservative district than the Third, even though it meant bucking his party in a major election-year priority, he did the right thing. Dennis Moore, who would risk far less than Moran by saying "No" to torture, should take note.

back in action!

2006-09-26T17:20:00.000-07:00

After a long hiatus, Siege Mentality is back up and running, just in time for the rough and tumble election season. Stay tuned for more of the updates, commentary and analysis that several people know and love.

ryun starts to panic

2006-09-26T16:12:00.000-07:00

There hasn't been much to write about Kansas politics lately. The Governor's race is a foregone conclusion, and the Kline/Morrison contest remains a dead heat with few polls for political junkies to mainline. But some recent events indicate that Kansas may have a competitive election on its hands that could help determine control of the U.S. House this November.
Kansas's second district has been represented for a decade by former track and field star and current far right-winger Jim Ryun. The district covers lots of rural territory, but includes Topeka, the college towns of Manhattan and Pittsburgh, and the prison/military towns of Lansing and Leavenworth. In 2004 Ryun faced Nancy Boyda, a former EPA worker and pharmaceutical company manager who has never held any elected office. He easily trounced her 56 to 41 percent. Boyda returned this year for a rematch, and the conventional wisdom was that she had no realistic shot. That all seems to be changing in the last few weeks.
Boyda's campaign released an internal poll showing her running one point ahead of Ryun. Most political junkies dismissed the poll as either obviously biased and an attempt to raise money or interest from the national Democratic party. But the the reaction of the Ryun campaign and several other factors indicate the race may be within Boyda's grasp.

Team Ryun hasn't released any of its own internal polling to counter Boyda's. If they actually had any, one would expect them to make it available. Countering the preception that Boyda has a chance would help to dry up her fundraising sources (who wants to contribute to a losing candidate?) and mitigate the possibility of any outside help for her campaign. This either means that (1) their internal polling shows the same thing, (2) they haven't done any internal polling or (3) whoever is running Ryun's campaign is inept.
Second, if it's option (2) or (3), then Boyda has a real chance to catch Ryun off guard. Ryun has never been in a real dogfight since he took his seat, which most political analysts rate as safely Republican. A quick look at Ryun's amateurish website shows that it has barely been updated in a month. No upcoming events are listed for the height of campaign season. A clunky candidate and campaign team will be hard pressed to counter any of Boyda's momentum.
Team Ryun is obviously concerned with Boyda. Enough to start running negative ads agai nst her. Negative ads, especially in a place like Kansas, especially in a district like Ryun's, run the risk of backlash. Kansans are a civil breed, and even the biggest statewide races haven't generated much negative advertising. A candidate is likely to risk the backlash only if they believe they're in trouble. If Team Ryun truly thought that 2006 would be a repeat of 2004, they would save their money. The fact that they're going negative suggests that their internal polls might be mirroring Boyda's.
The district might not be as safe as many believe. It includes parts of Lawrence (easily the most liberal place in the state,) Kansas State University, and Pittsburgh State University, all prime sources for pro-Democrat votes. Throw in the fact that the traditional Republican advantage among rural voters seems to have collapsed this election cycle, and Ryun's advantages seem far less formiddable.
Boyda has some help at the top of the ticket. The laughable gubernatorial candidacy of Republican Jim Barnett (or "who?" as most Kansans know him) is ensuring that Sebelius will walk away with the race with a comfortable margin. It's entirely possible that Boyda could ride to victory on Sebelius's coattails--voters who pull the lever once for a Democrat are less likely to have a problem doing it twice.

Despite all of these factors, Boyda's seat is still far from a top-tier pickup opportunity. It's not incredibly likely that the national party will send in the calvary to help Boyda, but it's next to impossible that the Republicans, worried about defending seats across the country, will do so for Ryun. Still, Jim Ryun is exactly the type of candidate who was swept out of office in the 1994 Republican revolution: complacent, rusty and asleep at the switch. If 2006 shapes up to be another 1994, Boyda may just pull off the unexpected.

the nsa spies, pat roberts lies

2006-05-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

As usual, Kansas's own Pat Roberts rushes to defend the indefensible. From his appearance on Lou Dobbs tonight:

We are not eavesdropping on any American unless you have a court order and there is certainly due cause for that. And we're certainly not doing anything in terms of data mining or anything like that. All we have is a program that really starts to give our intelligence community exactly what the 9/11 said, act with speed, act with haste, act with agility, act with hot pursuit and that's what we're doing.

Actually, data mining is exactly what they're doing. Anyone who read the news today heard about new revelations that the NSA has been collecting the phone records of tens of millions of American citizens.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

This certainly fits any reasonable definition of "data mining." For instance, Wikipedia's:

Data Mining can be defined as "The nontrivial extraction of implicit, previously unknown, and potentially useful information from data" [1] and "The science of extracting useful information from large data sets or databases" [2]. Although it is usually used in relation to analysis of data, data mining, like artificial intelligence, is an umbrella term and is used with varied meaning in a wide range of contexts. It is usually associated with a business or other organization's need to identify trends. Data mining involves the process of analysing data to show patterns or relationships Sorting through large amounts of data and picking out pieces of relative information or patterns that occur E.g. picking out statistical information from some data.

The fact that Pat Roberts will say anything to cover the Bush administration's ass is hardly surprising. Time and time again, Roberts has placed raw partisan politics above his oversight responsibilities. His stonewalling on Iraq intelligence failures and repeated shilling on wiretapping are only the latest examples.
If Matthew Cooper is right, the revelation that Big Brother is collecting your phone records could tip public opinon against warrantless wiretapping. But even if that happens, Pat Roberts is unlikely to face any accountability--he doesn't face re-election until 2008. Unless Democrats re-take the Senate this November, Senator Roberts will continue to head the Intelligence Committee. In that case, it's a certainty that the top-secret Committee will continue to assist the executive branch in dismantling our civil liberties.

an unfavorable comparison

2006-04-25T14:19:00.000-07:00

The Kansas Supreme Court is currently facing a bit of scandal. The Lawrence Journal-World reports:

Last week, it was disclosed that [State Supreme Court Justice Lawton] Nuss had lunch March 1 with Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, and Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina.

At the lunch, Nuss discussed the school finance lawsuit, the most high profile pending case before the court.

When the matter was about to be made public, Nuss announced he would recuse himself from future dealings in the lawsuit.

But that has not satisfied some lawmakers who have said Nuss violated a basic tenet of law by talking with parties in a pending lawsuit outside the courtroom.

Regardless of one's opinion on the Kansas Supreme Court's string of school finance decisions, Justice Nuss's actions are clearly inappropriate. It's doubtful that consultation with a few members of the Senate would change the Justice's vote. But it's vitally important that justices avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The legitimacy of the courts depends on the idea that a judge--any judge--will decide the case before him on its merits, not personal loyalty to one of the parties.
But perhaps Justice Nuss was simply following the example of the United States Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia, the right-wing darling, christian crusader, strict constructionist and expert on Italian hand guestures, set the standard back in 2003. As it was widely reported,

Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana, just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force, the Los Angeles Times says in its Saturday editions.

While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially, the newspaper pointed out.

Apparently, if Justice Nuss had only hunted and killed the lunch he ate with the Senators, he would be fit for service on the highest court in the land.

did phill kline commit another ethics violation?

2006-03-30T22:05:00.000-08:00

The crack legal minds at team Kline appear to have screwed up once again. Take a gander at the third line down on Kline's campaign finance report for 2005 (click the images to enlarge):

Who is this mysterious redx4r4, nestled between the garden variety PACs? Well a quick google of the address reveals it to be none other than...

Yes, the fine freedom-loving folks of the NRA. So this begs the question--why did Phill Kline not report this rather sizable $1000 contribution from an interest group? It does seem a little fishy that this would be the one contribution improperly recorded on an otherwise flawless campaign finance report. Could it be that Kline didn't want to be publicly announce money funneled into his campaign by the gun lobby?
Regardless of his motivations, it appears to be a technical violation of Kansas campaign finance law. K.S.A. 25-4148 requires that:

(b) Each report required by this section shall state:

(1) Cash on hand on the first day of the reporting period;

(2) the name and address of each person who has made one or more contributions in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $50 during the election period together with the amount and date of such contributions, including the name and address of every lender, guarantor and endorser when a contribution is in the form of an advance or loan;

Kansans have a right to know where the money behind candidates comes from. Who contributes to a candidate is a good indication of their beliefs, and (unfortunately,) how they'll behave once in office. Full disclosure is necessary for the electorate to make an informed decision--it's very conceivable that the support of the NRA could be a factor in how some voters cast their ballots in November.

The legal implications of this aren't very big--it's likely the Kline campaign will just have to file an amended report. But this once again demonstrates that Kansas has an Attorney General who has difficulty complying with the law. At worst, he's deliberately attempting to conceal contributions from an unpopular organization. At best, he can't be trusted to correctly fill out a form, even when there is a clear legal mandate to do so.

punishment for profit

2006-03-27T09:51:00.000-08:00

Sleazy opportunism in local politics? Suspend your disbelief and behold:

Topeka — Kansas lawmakers wanting to increase punishments for sex offenders will have to vote for a bill that also authorizes the state to allow private prisons.

“It makes the sex offender bill a complete package,” Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, said.

“If legislators want to incarcerate more sex offenders, this gives them a place to incarcerate them,” said Schmidt, who for years has pushed for construction of a private prison in his district.

The two measures — increasing prison time for sex offenders, and authorizing private prisons — have been put together in one bill that is now in a House-Senate conference committee.

Could there be any better way to sneak a completely self-serving provision into law? No politician in their right mind would cast a vote that could brand them "soft on sex offenders," particularly in an election year. One could even admire Senator Schmidt's masterful effort to secure pork for his district. That is, if it wasn't awful policy.

First, private prisons don't result in substantial savings. A 2001 study by the Bureau of Justice Assistance found that, on average, private prisons cost about 1% less than public institutions. Other studies have found that private prisons were more expensive than public institutions. Any savings realized by the privatized prisons were the result of paying employees substantially less than the state.
Because prisons are hidden from public view, they provide enormous opportunities for fraud at the taxpayer's expense. A review of fraud in private prisons notes:

The profit motive not only provides an incentive to hold down costs, it also provides an incentive to increase revenues. One way to increase revenues is to increase an inmate’s sentence. For example, a state appointed monitor at the Pahokee Youth Development Center in Florida discovered an internal Correctional Services Corporation memo “directing staff to hold juveniles beyond their scheduled release dates to increase the company’s income by $3,400.”44 The company also billed the government for schooling it didn’t provide. In another example, a story about for-profit prisons pointed out that some CCA guards in Tennessee say privately that they are encouraged to write up prisoners for minor infractions and place them in segregation. Inmates in segregation not only lose their good time, but also have 30 days added to their sentence — a bonus of nearly $1,000 for the company at some prisons.45 These and other examples illustrate that for-profit firms can increase their profits by providing less programming than they are obligated to provide and by holding inmates longer than they should.

Also, states cannot escape liability for prison abuses by contracting out to private prisons. However, the Supreme Court recently declared that private prison corporations are immune from suit. This means taxpayers will foot the bill if a private prison screws up. And there is evidence to suggest that private prisons suffer from higher levels of employee turnover than state-run facilities. Lower wages and less job security attract a less profesional workforce, which is more likely to violate inmate constitutional rights.

But more importantly, private prisons add to the already considerable institutional pressure for harsher criminal sentencing. The more people that depend upon prisons for their livelihood and the bigger the business of punishment becomes, the greater the pressure. The reason for this is simple: prisoners are the raw material of the prison industry. Wardens of state-run facilities don't have profits to spend on political contributions, but private facilities have plenty. It's a certainty that a business completely dependent upon government contracts for its existence will seek and obtain influence. Unlike other businesses who merely lobby for favorable regulations and lower taxes, prison corporations lobby to put more people in prison for longer periods of time. It's ludicrously easy to pass laws that increase the prison population--it's difficult to think of a time a politician has effer suffered for being "tough on crime." Felons are disenfranchised to one degree or another in just about every state in the country. However, they are counted in the census as residents of the (mostly rural) towns where they are incarcerated. This means more representation that favors prison expansion in the state and federal houses of representatives.
America already incarcerates more people, in absolute numbers and percentages, than any other country in the world. We can't sustain, in either economic and human terms, the kind of astronomical growth in prison populations seen over the last twenty years for long. But the people who run private prisons (and the politicians who enable them) want to make sure we try.

good ol' fashioned class warfare

2006-03-14T07:50:00.000-08:00

As a matter of necessity, Kansas progressives often find themselves allied with socially moderate Republicans. This breed comes almost exclusively from the business wing of the Republican party (lower taxes, not illegal abortion). State congressional Republicans demonstrated this week, however, that the business wing can be just as harmful to progressive causes as the social conservative wing:

Topeka — Some workers who are injured on the job would receive lower benefits under a bill legislators sent Wednesday to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The measure is designed to prevent employers from paying workers’ compensation benefits for medical problems the employees had before being hired. The issue arises when an accident aggravates an existing condition such as a bad back or weak knee.

Could it be that the state Republicans are concerned about runaway Workers Compensation benefits? As it turns out, not so much:

Labor also is upset because they see the bill as a raw power play by business interests since workers’ compensation benefits to injured workers in Kansas rank 45th in the nation, while premiums paid by employers are the sixth lowest nationally.

Apparently, state Republicans won't be happy until we're at the bottom of that list.

But all knee-jerk support of labor aside, there are several good reasons to oppose changing the law. First, contrary to the claims of the bill's supporters, the current Workers Compensation law does not allow unlimited workers compensation for pre-existing injuries. It provides that:

The employee shall not be entitled to recover for the aggravation of a preexisting condition, except to the extent that the work-related injury causes increased disability. Any award of compensation shall be reduced by the amount of functional impairment determined to be preexisting.

Sounds fair, no? Workers with pre-existing conditions can be compensated when injuries on the job make that condition worse. This is in keeping with the entire point of Workers Compensation--security for injured workers, not security for injured workers who have never previously suffered any serious injury.
Second, there's already lots of easy outs for employers built into the existing law. For instance, if the employee has only 15 micrograms of THC (the active chemical in marijuana) in their blood at the time of the accident, they are denied recovery. This is an extremely low level of THC, far lower than the 50 micrograms required by federal workplace drug testing guidelines. The reason most drug tests use the 50 microgram cut-off is to filter out people who may have just been exposed to second-hand smoke. Not to mention that marijuana stays in the bloodstream for weeks, making it impossible to determine if a worker's injury was caused by intoxication (as opposed to, say, smoking a joint on the weekend).
Third, employers commonly (mis)classify employees as "independent contractors," who are excluded from coverage under Kansas Workers Compensation Act. Local courts have not agreed on a set definition of "employee" and "independent contractor," and instead look to all of the circumstances of a worker's employement. These fuzzy definitions already generate tons of litigation, and oftentimes function to prevent a worker from recieving Workers Compensation.

Sebelius will probably veto the measure, as she well should. Workers Compensation has a long history in this country--Kansas has provided compensation since 1927. It represents the eminently fair, common-sense idea that if you are injured while working for the benefit of a business, that business should help out with your expeses while you're out of commission. Considering that the number of jobs that require hard physical labor has been decreasing for quite some time, it's ludicrous for business to suggest that compensating injured workers with pre-existing conditions hurts their ability to compete.

State Republicans are likely trying to force Sebelius into an "anti-business" vote in an election year to rob her of moderate Republican support. However, the move could backfire--I'm willing to bet that there are far more people in the state who stand to benefit from Workers Compensaiton than stand to lose from paying out claims. If state Democrats are smart, they can use this bill to their advantage. It once again illustrates that many state Republicans stand up for unchecked greed at the expense of working people.

paying the fox who guards the henhouse

2006-03-08T13:05:00.000-08:00

While ethics reform has stalled in congress at the national level, one Kansas democrat is leading by example. The Lawrence Journal-World wrote yesterday:

Topeka — A veteran Democratic legislator from Wyandotte County is running for insurance commissioner, and she’s pledging not to take campaign contributions from the industry she wants to regulate.

Rep. Bonnie Sharp, of Kansas City, announced her plans Monday and is the second lawmaker to seek the office. Rep. Eric Carter, of Overland Park, is challenging incumbent Sandy Praeger in the Aug. 1 Republican primary.

This is such a common-sense idea that it's a wonder that it's not required by state campaign finance laws. Insurance commissioner is the rare regulatory position that requires election on a state-wide basis, not appointment by the executive. Debate continues to swirl about the propriety of lawmakers taking contributions from corporations in general, and there are good arguments on both sides. At the very least, one can imagine cases in which different industries will have different interests, so lobbying and campaign contributions from all industries would keep any one industry from weildng too much influence. This case is much more clear-cut: the insurance commissioner's sole purpose is to regulate the insurance industry. This is not a case of different industries duking it out for influence, but the interests of one industry versus its consumers.

Incumbent Republican Sandy Praeger, at the very least, is honest about taking money from the insurance industry. According to her campaign finance filings for 2005, she took $22,050 from the people she is supposed to regulate. The following list includes insurance agents, insurance company executives, insurance business PACs, and insurance companies themselves. They are listed in the order they appear in Praeger's filings, and any names that appear more than once appear more than once in the filings:

Mack V Colt--250
Pacificare Life & Health Ins.--500
Trustmark life ins--1000
Newport Star LLC--2000
Londed Ins Group--1000
United Teachers Assn--1000
Michael Camilleri--1000
Peter Nauert--1000
J Patrick Gallager--500
Rex B Hoy Ins. Agency--1000
Dennis A Call--100
Steve J Wanamaker--100
Dan Deener--100
Gary Sollars--100
William Cohen--250
Janet Stallmeyer--250
William Lessen--100
Joseph C Lukens--500
Kurt Watson--500
Allen Fee--50
Doug Buckles--500
Gary Sollars--500
Raymond Ryan--500
Kansas State Farm Agents PAC--100
Coventry Health Care--500
Charles Porter--50
Assurant, Inc--1000
Parker-Haskins Agency--250
Carra Jo Simmons--250
Humana--500
Lockton Companies--250
R.A. Gouvion--100
United Services Automobile Assn--1000
Preferred Health Systems Inc.--2000
Alan G Hack--100
Fireman's Fund--1000
Andrew C Corbin--100
Harland E Priddle--100
Insurance Store/Edwards Agency--50
Kris A Robbins--1000
Steve J Wannamaker--100
Kansas Farmers Service Assn--250
Janet M Stallmeyer--250
Robert K Jones--50
Vernon D Perkins--100
Thomas V Murry--100

This list includes only the people specifically listed as being involved the insurance business. Some more digging into the various PACs and individuals who conributed will likely reveal even more donations linked to the insurance industry. Not to mention that much more cash will be pumped into the race as the campaign season kicks into full swing.

There was obviously some concern among the legislature when they created the position that the commissioner would be independent from the insurance industry. For instance, K.S.A. 40-109 prohibits the commissioner from holding a financial interest or having any official connection with an insurance company. There's a good reason for this, as the insurance commissioner has considerable discretionary power over the insurance industry. According to state law, the insurance commissioner has the power to revoke a shady insurance agent's license to sell insurance, to fine companies and individuals for failure to comply with insurance regulations, to license out of state companies to sell insurance in Kansas, to audit companies to make sure they can fulfill their obligations to policyholders, to place companies, at her discretion, under supervision when she has reason to suspect they aren't meeting their obligations, and impact the rates charged by insurance companies. Everyone has heard at least one horror story of a person or a small business owner getting screwed when their insurer refuses to pay out a claim. These events are particularly heinous when they harm people when they're at their most vulnerable (after suffering an accident, a fire, a death, etc.) Vigorous enforcement of insurance regulations is an important safeguard against such abuses. We don't allow citizens to bribe the police, and we shouldn't allow businesses to bribe their regulators.

Bonnie Sharp clearly faces serious obstacles. The race for insurance commissioner is the very definition of low public interest. It's unlikely to generate much media attention or passion. Most voters will probably not even be aware of the fact that Praeger is paid for by people who have a vested interest in ensuring she doesn't do her job too effectively. Not to mention that by refusing money from insurance companies, Sharp will exacerbate Praeger's considerable cash-on-hand advantage. Still, by showing some integrity and putting her money where her mouth is, Sharp has at the very least earned my vote.

state senate gets something right

2006-03-02T11:38:00.000-08:00

As much as the state legislature screws up, the law of averages implies they'll get it right every once in awhile:

[T]he Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on Wednesday endorsed a resolution saying the Legislature “condemns in the strongest manner possible the hateful activities of Mr. Phelps and his followers.”

The resolution, which goes to the Senate and has no force of law, also says legislators want the nation to know “that Mr. Phelps and his followers do not reflect the true spirit of the people of Kansas.”

Sponsoring Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, called the resolution “a countering statement to Phelps’ actions.”

Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt predicted easy passage of the resolution.

“This all gives Kansas a black eye, and we just want to make it clear that the state really is embarrassed by it and objects to it, even if we can’t stop it,” said Schmidt, R-Independence.

This resolution is not to be confused with the recent bill that cleared committee in the state Senate that would make funeral picketing illegal. Both the bill and resolution were a response to Kansas's own native virulently homophobic crazy-ass, the Reverand Fred Phelps. As everyone around here knows, Phelps first made a name for himself by protesting the funerals of AIDS victims. Apparently that shtick was starting to get tired, so Phelps decided to up the ante by protesting the funerals of Iraq war casualties (the war apparently has something to do with godless sodomites).

The state legislature first came up with a bill that would criminalize funeral protesting.
Unfortunately, as laudable as the goal of protecting grieving families from despicable hate mongers is, the bill was probably an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. It's commonly been said that the First Amendment doesn't mean much if it doesn't include the right to offend. All speech, even horrendous, mean-spirited speech that is almsot universally reviled, gets the same protection. People like Phelps (or white supremacists, holocaust deniers, NAMBLA, etc.) challenge the commitment of free speech advocates by showing it's dark side. But the true test of whether someone really stands for a principle is when it works to the benefit of their enemies. Even though I can't think of any legitimate need to protest funerals, even though Phelps stands for everything I oppose, I can't endorse restricting the constitution's most important freedom.

Make no mistake: it's important that our elected leaders show the rest of the country that Phelps, in no way shape or form, represents his home state. The disgust and embarassment with his actions cuts across all ideological and party lines. This guy is too extreme even for the homophobes on the fringes of the religious right. Passing a resolution, as opposed to a law, is a sensible compromise: it shows that Kansans aren't bile-spewing nutjobs, but avoids the inevitalbe legal challenge that would just shine more light on an unspeakable bastard.

pro-life, pro-teen pregnancy.

2006-02-27T12:42:00.000-08:00

While evolution has become the lightning-rod issue for the Kansas Board of Education, recent events have demonstrated how much havoc social conservatives can wreck in any level of government. The state Senate recently acted to clean up another mess created by the Christian crusaders in charge of our schools The Lawrence Journal-World wrote:

Topeka — The Senate passed a bill Friday to ensure that school districts continue requiring sex education classes. That action came in spite of complaints that the bill made the state a substitute parent.

The 27-13 vote sent the bill to the House, but not before several legislators voiced opposition, including Sen. Kay O’Connor.

“The children belong to their parents; they don’t belong to the government,” said O’Connor, R-Olathe. “Parents should be in charge of this decision, not the state.”

The bill, dubbed the “Abstinence Plus Education Act,” requires school districts to provide sex education classes emphasizing the benefits of abstinence and teaching about sexually transmitted diseases.

Traditionally, the Senate wouldn't even be involved in formulating curriculum. They stepped in after an outcry over the Board of Education's failure to renew sex education standards:

The issue fell to the Senate Education Committee because the Kansas State Board of Education allowed to expire a mandate in place since 1987 that local school districts offer human sexuality classes. Most districts have continued teaching sex education, but there is nothing to prevent all 300 from dropping the curriculum.

For people capable of ignoring the mountain of scientific evidence in support of evolution, it's not surprising they would ignore the mountain of evidence that sex education succeeds in lowering teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
For starters, this study (in .pdf format) by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy shows that teen pregnancy rates in Kansas declined by 23% between 1992 and 2000. Certainly sex education is not the only factor in declining teen pregnancy rates (education, economics and demographics all have a role), but it certainly helped the situation.
The American Psychological Association's committee on Psychology and AIDS reported in 2005 that

Based on over 15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use, and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delay the onset of sexual intercourse.

Another review of research by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in 2001 found:

Programs That Focus on Sexual Antecedents: Several sex and
HIV education programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the
frequency of sex, reduce the number of sexual partners
among teens, or increase the use of condoms and other forms
of contraception. The most successful programs share ten
specific characteristics (see p. 10). In addition, several particular
protocols and interventions in clinic programs also increase
the use of condoms or other forms of contraception.

Additional research showing that comprehensive sex education can effectively reduce teen pregnancy can be found here and here.
The United States has shamefully high teen pregnancy rates in comparison to the rest of the industrialized world. The Guardian wrote in 2004:

The two western countries at the top of the disaster league, the United States and the United Kingdom, are those in which conservative campaigns are among the strongest and sex education and access to contraception are among the weakest. The US, the UN Population Fund's figures show, is the only rich nation stuck in the middle of the third world block, with 53 births per 1,000 teenagers - a record worse than those of India, the Philippines and Rwanda. The UK comes next with 20. The nations the conservatives would place at the top of the list are clumped at the bottom. Germany and Norway produce 11 babies per 1,000 teenagers, Finland eight, Sweden and Denmark seven and the Netherlands five

The tragic irony of the religious right's opposition to comprehensive sex education is that it works to cause more abortions. A majority of women that have abortions are young, and 19% are teenagers. Research isn't necessary to support the common sense idea that less unwanted teen pregnancy means less abortion. Opposition to policies that have been proven to reduce unwanted teen pregnancy is counterproductive at best.
The future of the Senate's sex education bill is uncertain, and it stands a good chance of getting killed in the far more conservative House. If it does, the losers will be the kids in small conservative towns that don't recieve vitally important information about sex and health.