"Right To Work" - A Comparison Of Two States

For years now, the Republicans have been trying to claim that "right to work" laws are good for American workers. To put it mildly, that is a ridiculous lie. Those laws are good only for corporations (and other businesses that want to hurt labor unions, and actually hurt workers.

Ross Eisenbrey and Teresa Kroeger at the Economic Policy Institute have written an excellent article comparing two states -- Indiana (which has a "right to work" law) and New Hampshire (which does not). Here is what they had to say:

In 2011 and 2012 two states, New Hampshire and Indiana, debated the same bill: so-called “right-to-work” legislation, pushed by corporate lobbyists and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), designed to weaken unions financially and pave the way for greater corporate dominance of state politics. New Hampshire’s governor vetoed the bill in 2011. Indiana, by contrast, enacted it in 2012. It is instructive to compare the two states. By almost any measure, the economy of New Hampshire is stronger and its citizens are better off, on average, than the citizens of Indiana. Right-to-work did not improve the Indiana economy relative to New Hampshire’s, and no one should be fooled into thinking that passing right-to-work now will improve the New Hampshire economy.

So-called “right-to-work” laws prohibits unions and employers from agreeing to collective bargaining agreements that require employees covered by the agreement to pay their fair share of the costs of negotiating and enforcing it. The only right that “right-to-work” creates is the right for free riders to get the benefit of higher union wages and protections against unfair discipline without contributing any dues or fees for that privilege.

EPI published two reports critical of the New Hampshire legislation, one in 2011 and another in 2012, pointing out that the only real purpose and effects of these laws are lowering wages and weakening unions. As the figure above suggests, such laws do nothing to create jobs, and they don’t give anyone a right to work, but they are associated with lower wages—lower on average by more than 3 percent, or $1,500 per worker.

Now, New Hampshire’s legislature is once again debating a right-to-work bill. The bill’s sponsors make claims it will improve New Hampshire’s business climate and bring new jobs to the state, but there is no truth to this. Job growth in Indiana since it passed right-to-work has been no better than in New Hampshire.

At 2.7 percent, New Hampshire has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate. Indiana’s unemployment rate is 4.2 percent.

Wages are far higher in New Hampshire than Indiana. The median hourly wage was $16.50 in Indiana and $19.17 in New Hampshire over the first 11 months of 2016. The mean hourly wage was $21.27 in Indiana but $25.21 in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate in the country: 8.2 percent. Indiana’s poverty rate is 14.5 percent, and ranked 26th. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2015, Indiana had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $41,940. This PCPI ranked 36th in the United States and was 87 percent of the national average, $48,112.  New Hampshire’s per capita income was 33 percent higher than Indiana’s: $55,905, ranked 9th in the nation, and 116 percent of the national average.

It is important to consider whether right-to-work is somehow an advantage to a state with regard to the economy of the future, which most economists agree will be a knowledge-driven economy. The Kauffman Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation have been ranking states in a New Economy Index for many years based on factors such as economic dynamism, employment in high-value-added manufacturing, educational attainment of the workforce, and technological innovation capacity. Measured before and after Indiana passed its right to work law, Indiana’s rank fell from 35th in the nation in 2010 to 38th in 2014. New Hampshire ranked number 11 in both 2010 and 2014. Only two of the top 15 states are right-to-work. . . .

Simply put, there’s no rationale for passing this legislation, except to weaken unions politically and decrease the ability of workers to bargain for higher wages and stronger workplace protections.

Trump And Pence Buy 800 Jobs With Taxpayer Money

The Republicans and trumpistas are celebrating what they claim is a big victory for the incoming Trump administration. They are claiming that Trump and Pence have saved over 1,000 jobs from be ing shipped to Mexico by Carrier (a division of United Technologies).

Trump had used Carrier's decision to ship a couple of thousand jobs to Mexico as a campaign theme. He promised that wouldn't happen if he was elected. Did he keep his promise? Not really.

First, only 800 jobs were actually kept in this country thanks to the Trump/Pence "deal" with Carrier. The other 300 jobs they are claiming to have saved were research and headquarters position -- which the company was never going to export.

Second, Carrier didn't keep those 800 jobs in Indiana out of the goodness of its corporate heart, or because Trump asked them to do it. They are receiving a very nice payoff -- they get $7 million dollars in tax cuts over the next 10 years -- about $8,750 in tax breaks for every job. That's not a "deal" -- it's a bribe (which I guess we should have expected, since Trump is used to paying bribes to get what he wants around the world).

In addition, Carrier's parent company (United Technologies) gets assurance that Trump won't interfere with their $5 billion in federal contracts.

This is not just a bad deal -- it's a terrible deal. And it sends a signal to every other American corporation. If you still owe any taxes after all the loopholes and subsidies you normally receive, then just threaten to move jobs to a low-wage country. The Trump administration will be happy to give you more millions in tax breaks. It makes millions more jobs a hostage to corporate greed.

And who gets to pay for those corporate tax breaks? State and federal taxpayers do. This may be a good deal to Trump, but it's a horrible deal for American taxpayers.

Third, Carrier (United Technologies) still gets to ship 600 jobs to Mexico from Indianapolis, and another 700 from Huntington, Indiana. So, after Trump's "great deal", 1300 jobs will still be lost to Mexico.

Is that your idea of a great deal?

(NOTE -- The image above is from YouTube.)

Polls For Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana

Virginia -- Quinnipiac University Poll (August 9-16) 808 likely voters, 3.5 point moe

Iowa -- Quinnipiac University Poll (August 9-16) 846 likely voters, 3.4 point moe

Colorado -- Quinnipiac University Poll (August 9-16) 830 likely voters, 3.4 point moe

Nevada -- Suffolk University Poll (August 15-17) 500 likely voters

Indiana -- Monmouth University Poll (August 13-16) 403 likely voters, 4.9 point moe

Sanders Wins Indiana - Clinton Moves Closer To Nomination

The biggest news that came out of Indiana last night was the smashing victory of Donald Trump in the state's Republican Primary -- a victory so profound that it caused his main opponent (Ted Cruz) to suspend his campaign. This means "the Donald" is the presumptive nominee for president of the Republican Party.

Not much changed on the Democratic side of the presidential equation. Bernie Sanders pulled off a mildly surprising victory, and he and his supporters can be proud of that. But it is little more than a moral victory, and changes nothing regarding his chances to win the nomination.

Sanders needed to win about 80% of the Indiana delegates to change the dynamics of the Democratic presidential race, and he didn't come close to that. The reality is that he splits the Indiana delegation with Clinton -- and that means she just moved closer to the nomination of the Democratic Party.

Here are Indiana's voting percentages:

Clinton...............48%
Sanders...............53%

And here are the delegate totals (from Bloomberg Politics):

Primary/Caucus delegates

Clinton...............1682
Sanders...............1361
difference...............321

Total delegates

Clinton...............2202
Sanders...............1400
difference...............802

That means Hillary Clinton is only 181 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie Sanders needs 983 more delegates. There are now 1165 delegates still unallocated. Clinton needs 15% of those delegates to become the nominee, while Sanders needs 85%.

It's going to be Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump in the November election.

Last Poll Before Indiana Democrats Vote In Their Primary

One final poll has been released on the presidential race among Democrats in Indiana. Those Democrats are voting today to see how the candidates will divide the 83 delegates they have up for grabs.

The NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Marist Poll was done between April 26th and 28th of a random sample of 449 Indiana Democratic voters, and has a margin of error of 4.6 points.

Right now, it looks like Clinton will edge out a win in Indiana. The best Sanders can reasonably hope for is to split the delegates in Indiana with Clinton -- and that's not nearly good enough to get him back on track. It'll just get Clinton a bit closer to the delegate total she needs to clinch the nomination.

Indiana Democrats Seem To Prefer Clinton Over Sanders

The next state to vote in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination is Indiana. It has 83 delegates that will be allocated next Tuesday (May 3rd). Bernie Sanders is hoping to get back on the winning track in Indiana, but all the polls seem to show Hillary Clinton with a small lead in Indiana.

I think the best that Sanders could do is to split the Indiana delegates with Clinton -- and that wouldn't help him at all. He needs about 80% of those delegates to revive his campaign, and splitting the delegates would do nothing but get Clinton closer to the magic number of 2,383.

The chart above was made from polls listed in RealClearPolitics. They are:

WTHR / Howey Politics Poll (April 18-21) 479 likely voters (4.5 point moe)

Fox News Poll (April 18-21) 603 likely voters (4.0 point moe)

CBS News / YouGov Poll (April 20-22) 439 likely voters (8.2 point moe)

IPFW / Downs Center Poll (April 18-23) 400 likely voters (4.9 point moe)

American Research Group Poll (April 27-28) 400 likely voters (5.0 point moe)

American Public Doesn't Want Discrimination Against Gays

Right-wing Republicans have recently tried to appease the evangelicals in their base by passing some state laws to allow businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community. Indiana passed such a law, and there was such a huge backlash that the legislature and governor quickly amended the law to prevent that discrimination. In Arkansas, the governor refused to sign such a law until it was amended to prevent discrimination by businesses.

I think the legislators in both states were surprised by the outrage over these laws (even among the business community that normally supports Republicans) -- but they shouldn't have been. If they had been paying attention, instead of just trying to pander to their party's base, they would have known that this country has changed a lot in the last few years. Americans are no longer willing to accept discrimination against lesbians and gays.

The top chart shows that 60.3% say businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, either in hiring or in who they will serve, because of religious reasons. This is from a new Reuters/Ipsos Poll -- done between April 6th and 8th of a random national sample of 892 adults, with a 3.7 point margin of error.

And that's not the only poll showing a significant majority of Americans disapprove of discrimination by businesses over religious reasons. The bottom chart shows an even slightly larger number in a new poll by NBC News. This one was done between April 6th and 8th of a random national sample of 2,052 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

Americans believe in religious freedom, but they don't consider discrimination by a business to be religious freedom. They know what it is -- religious bigotry, and they don't like it.

Bigotry With A Bible Is Still Bigotry (Even In Indiana)

(From the Facebook page of America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers.)

The Republican officials in Indiana have decided that their fundamentalist base was being oppressed because they could not legally discriminate against those they didn't like -- so they passed a law to allow that discrimination. Now any nut-job in that state can freely discriminate against anyone he/she wants. All they have to say is that not discriminating against that person (or group) would violate their "sincerely held" religious views.

This is a shameful law in a country like our -- a country that claims to believe in freedom, equal opportunity, and equal rights under the law. And there has been a huge backlash from decent citizens in this country against this reprehensible law.

Governor Pence and other GOP officials are now trying to play down the terrible thing they did in passing that law. They are now trying to claim that their law is no different from a federal law and laws passed in several other states. The problem with that is it's just not true. Their law goes further than the federal law or the law in most other states. Garrett Epps points out the differences in an excellent article for The Atlantic. Here is part of that article:

I don’t question the religious sincerity of anyone involved in drafting and passing this law. But sincere and faithful people, when they feel the imprimatur of both the law and the Lord, can do very ugly things.

There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack: “Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this mapcreated by the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes.  If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. 

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage. 

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision.  Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down. 

So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’s definition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals. . .

The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”

  

Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.

Indiana's New Law Legalizes Discrimination

(This cartoon is by freelance cartoonist Carlos Latuff.)

The Republican-dominated legislature of Indiana has joined forces with their GOP governor to pass a shocking new law. The law would give businesses the right to refuse service to any person, as long as that business claimed serving that customer would violate their "sincerely help religious belief".

The faux christian legislators in Indiana are trying to claim they are just upholding the freedom of religion in that state, and the governor made the ridiculous claim that "religious liberty is under attack by government action". But this is no move to protect religious freedom (which is already protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution). It is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to legalize discrimination against the LGBT community.

And the bill is so poorly written that it could even justify, not only bigotry against gaus and lesbians, but also against many other groups and individuals. Michael Stone at Progressive Secular Humanist puts it this way:

Yet the legislation is so poorly written and so sweeping in its language that it opens a Pandora’s box for people to ignore any law that conflicts with their “sincerely held religious belief.”

Theoretically, the law would allow restaurants to refuse to serve gay or interracial couples, hotels could refuse to provide lodging for Jews, landlords could refuse to rent to African Americans, pharmacies could refuse to dispense birth control to women, and employers could fire anyone, so long as such behavior was justified by “sincerely held religious belief.”

The truth is that this horrific bill violates both christian and constitutional principles. The "savior" (Jesus) that these christian legislators claim to follow only gave one commandment in the entire new testament -- to love (both god and neighbor). Writing a law that legalizes bigotry and discrimination of any group is a pretty obvious violation of that commandment to love.

The law also violates the secular values of this country -- the idea that ALL citizens should have equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law. In fact, equal treatment under the law is guaranteed by the United States Constitution -- and any law legalizing discrimination shows a profound disrespect for and trashing of the Constitution.

Bigotry disguised as religion is still bigotry -- and in a secular nation that values democracy and equality, it is reprehensible.

A Third Appeals Court Upholds Equal Marriage Rights

There had already been two appeals courts to uphold a district judge's decision that banning marriages of same-sex couples was unconstitutional -- the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (on cases from Utah and Oklahoma), and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (on a case from Virginia). Now a third appeals court has done the same.

Cases from Indiana and Wisconsin had been appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court has now ruled that banning same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution. The court stayed its decision to give those states time to appeal to the Supreme Court -- but unless some other appeals court decides differently, the Supreme Court might just decide to let the appeals court decisions to stand (and dodge the heat that would come with deciding the matter).

There was a federal judge in Louisiana that broke a string of 20 federal judge decisions on marriage equal rights by ruling the state of Louisiana had the right to ban same-sex marriages -- but that decision is rather moot. There is already a case on the matter pending before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (a case from Texas), and if that appeals court rules same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, then that would apply to Louisiana also -- and if they decide the other way, it would just insure the Supreme Court will have to make the final decision.

I expect the Supreme Court will wait for a few more appeals courts to make their decision, before deciding whether they should take up the matter themselves. It would really be kind of pointless to take a case before knowing if all the appeals courts agree, or if one or more disagrees with the decisions already made.

This issue is finally coming to a head, and should be decided within the next two years -- either by all appeals courts agreeing, or by the Supreme Court finally making a decision.

Indiana Same-Sex Marriage Ban Tossed By Federal Judge

Indiana has joined a growing list of states that have had their same-sex marriage bans declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Richard Young announced on Wednesday that he was striking down Indiana's ban. Judge Young did not stay his decision, so same-sex marriages can start in that state -- unless Indiana's Attorney General, who has said the decision will be appealed, is able to get a stay from the appeals court or the Supreme Court.

Now there is only one state (North Dakota) left with an unchallenged ban on same-sex marriages. All other states have either legalized same-sex marriages, had their bans struck down and are waiting on an appeal, or are having their ban challenged in a federal court. Hopefully, the appeals court decisions will start coming in soon, so we can move on to the next level. The Supreme Court is no longer going to be able to avoid making a decision on this issue (whether states banning same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution) -- as it has been doing for quite a while now.

UPDATE -- The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld the federal court decision that tossed out Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. The decision was temporarily stayed to give Utah time to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. This is what we've been waiting for. The Supreme Court must accept this case and finally decide this issue, or let the appeals court decision stand (which would legalize same-sex marriage in Utah, and probably across the nation). The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that:

". . . the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws."

"A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union." 

----------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center (the foremost organization fighting hate in this country) has decided to strike a blow for gay/lesbian rights in a different way. They want to outlaw the repulsive and damaging "reparative therapy" (which holds that gays/lesbians can be cured through therapy). They have filed suit in New Jersey against one of the clinics offering the reparative therapy, accusing it of fraudulent practices. If they win the New Jersey case, it will provide a blueprint for attacking these horrible clinics across the nation. Here is how they describe their effort on their website.

Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) fraudulently claimed to provide services that “convert” people from gay to straight. These services, known as conversion therapy, have been discredited or highly criticized by all major American medical, psychiatric, psychological and professional counseling organizations.

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the New Jersey conversion therapy organization for fraudulent practices. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, charged that JONAH, its founder Arthur Goldberg, and counselor Alan Downing violated New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by claiming that their counseling services could cure clients of being gay.

The lawsuit describes how the plaintiffs – four young men and two of their parents – were lured into JONAH’s services through deceptive practices.

Customers of JONAH’s services typically paid a minimum of $100 for weekly individual counseling sessions and another $60 for group therapy sessions. The lawsuit describes sessions that involved clients undressing in front of a mirror and even a group session where young men were instructed to remove their clothing and stand naked in a circle with the counselor, Downing, who was also undressed. Another session involved a subject attempting to wrestle away two oranges – used to represent testicles – from another individual.

Downing and other JONAH counselors also used techniques that left clients alienated from their families. These techniques encouraged clients to blame their parents for being gay, going so far as to have clients participate in violent role play exercises where they beat effigies of their mothers.

JONAH, formerly known as Jews Offering New Alternatives for Homosexuality, was founded by Goldberg, a former Wall Street executive and attorney who was previously convicted of three counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud the federal government. He was ultimately disbarred from being an attorney.

Aside from being junk science, conversion therapy also promotes the idea that gay men and lesbians choose their sexual orientation, a position that encourages a climate of anti-gay bigotry.

The American Psychological Association has expressed concern that conversion therapy practices, such as those espoused by the National Association for Research Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), “create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.” JONAH’s practices include discredited methods invented by NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi with no sound medical basis.

GOP Continues To Attack Unions

This is just sad. Two more states are joining the ranks of "right to work" states. Indiana has already passed its law (for the second time -- they did it years ago and it was repealed a few years later), and Michigan is in the process of passing their. The Michigan governor, who said he had no plans to do this during the campaign, said he has now "changed his mind" and is asking the legislature to to pass a "right to work" law -- and that law has already cleared the Michigan House on a 58 to 52 vote.

The Republicans are claiming this is an issue of "freedom of choice", giving a worker who hires into a union job the choice of whether to join the union or not. The truth is that it has nothing at all to do with choice. It is just an effort to weaken (and eventually destroy) the union movement. It lets workers reap the benefits won by unions without paying union dues or joining union members in strikes or other actions.

The only real power a union has is in its solidarity -- its ability to include all of the workers in a company. If a significant portion of workers do not join the union, then the union loses much of its power -- and it is unable to protect the workers as far as wages, benefits, safety, fairness, and other issues are concerned. And when the union loses power, all workers have less (or no) protection from employers.

Too many people these days seem to think that employers are good-hearted and will always provide the best pay and benefits possible, and make sure that employees are treated fairly and have a safe working environment. That is simply not true. Employers are in the business of making money (not protecting employees), and if they can make another nickel by abusing employees they will do it. All you have to do is look at history to know this. No employer ever provided anything for their employees that they weren't forced to do by unions (or the fear of being unionized).

The truth is that "right to work" is just Republican code for the right to bust unions and give more power to employers. And the chart above shows what happens in states that adopt such laws. Workers in those states have lower wages, less benefits, and less job safety. In addition, those states have a higher rate of poverty, since companies are not made (by unions) to pay a fair and livable wage.

It is time for workers to wake up and realize that the only thing they have to sell is their labor, and the only protection they have to get a fair value for that labor is a union. That is just a fact. The Republicans are just showing once again that they don't care about workers. They only care about the rich and the corporations, and if abusing workers will put a few more dollars in corporate bank accounts, then Republicans will happily help the corporations do it.

Significant Anti-Romney Vote Still Evident

Three more states held their primaries yesterday -- North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana. Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie), the only candidate left in the Republican race other than wannabe candidate Ron Paul, went into those primaries with 865 delegates out of the 1144 delegates needed for the nomination. As expected, he won all three of those state primaries. But even if he had taken all of the 132 delegates at stake yesterday (which he didn't do), it will still take a couple more primaries to put him over the top.

There is no doubt that Romney will be the eventual nominee, and will have the required number of delegates by the end of this month. But that is not the most important story right now. To me, the most important thing is that there is still a significant portion of the Republican Party that still refuses to climb on the Romney bandwagon. That was very evident last night at 34% of North Carolina voters, 35% of Indiana voters, and 30% of West Virginia voters still voted against Wall Street Willie last night.

One would have thought that with Romney assured of the nomination the Republican voters would now be falling in line and giving him their votes -- if for no other reason than to show their solidarity with the party's general election nominee. But that's not happening. There's still about 30% of Republicans, mostly teabaggers and evangelicals, who have not accepted Romney as their nominee.

The current idea being spread is that now that Romney can't be denied the nomination, he needs to moderate his views to appeal to a wider range of voters in the general election. I'm not so sure that would be wise. If he starts moderating his views now, he stands a good chance of losing that 30% of Republicans who haven't yet accepted him (and would be angered by yet another flip-flop). They could easily vote for a third party (Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc.), or just stay home on election day (which would be disastrous for down-ballot Republicans). He'd better win these voters over before he tries to moderate (if he can moderate at all).

Here are last night's results:

NORTH CAROLINA (99% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............629,496  (65.69%)
Ron Paul...............106,181  (11.08%)
Rick Santorum...............99,732  (10.41%)
Newt Gingrich...............73,368  (7.66%)
Others...............49,574  (5.17%)
TOTAL VOTES...............958,351

INDIANA (99% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............406,678  (64.61%)
Ron Paul...............97,451  (15.48%)
Rick Santorum...............84,612  (13.44%)
Newt Gingrich...............40,666  (6.46%)
Others...............0  (0.00%)
TOTAL VOTES...............629,407

WEST VIRGINIA (96% reporting)
Mitt Romney...............73,044  (69.48%)
Rick Santorum...............12,721  (12.10%)
Ron Paul...............11,683  (11.11%)
Newt Gingrich...............6,605  (6.28%)
Others...............1,074  (1.02%)
TOTAL VOTES...............105,127

NOTE -- Democrats got a big boost last night with the defeat of Senator Lugar in Indiana. They stand a much better (actually a very good) chance of beating the teabagger that Republicans will be running for the seat instead of Lugar. It looks like the teabaggers didn't learn from their experiences in Nevada and Delaware in the last election (where they threw away good chances to win by nominating far-right nut-jobs).

It Looks Like Voter Fraud Is Real

As you probably know, the Republicans around the country have been trying to pass Voter ID laws -- laws that would require a voter to show  a picture ID in addition to a voter registration card before they would be allowed to vote. Most people with a functioning brain know this is simply an effort to suppress the Democratic vote, but the Republicans still loudly proclaim it is an effort to stop widespread voter fraud. The problem with that is that Republicans have been unable to uncover any widespread voter fraud -- or small-scale fraud for that matter.

But it now looks like the Republicans may have been right -- at least on a small-scale basis. Courts have recently convicted a couple of people of voter fraud. Of course the most embarrassing thing for Republicans is that both of the recent convictions were of Republicans, and they weren't just rank-and-file voters either. The first conviction for voter fraud was in Maryland. Paul Schurick, chief of staff for former Maryland Republican Governor Robert L. Erlich, was convicted for arranging robo-calls to suppress the Democratic vote in that state.

The honor(?) of being the most recent person convicted of voter fraud goes to Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White (pictured above). White voted in a precinct he had already moved out of, and then lied about it while running for Secretary of State. He was convicted of both voter fraud and perjury. These are felony convictions, meaning he can no longer serve in that office.

But it gets even worse.  White went on Fox News a couple of days ago to try and defend his actions (which he knew he couldn't do on a real news station). He called his conviction a "miscarriage of justice" and claimed he hadn't done anything that Indiana's governor, Republican Mitch Daniels, hadn't been doing for "the last ten straight elections". He didn't elaborate, but we can only surmise that he's accusing Governor Daniels of committing voter fraud at least 10 times. Someone needs to check that out.

Now we know why the Republicans are so convinced that voter fraud is taking place -- because they are the ones doing it. Instead of imposing onerous voting restrictions on ordinary Americans, maybe they should just clean up their own party -- by instituting an ethical code of conduct for party officials.

Republican Convicted Of Election Fraud

The Republicans have been talking a lot about election fraud for the last couple of years. They want people to believe that there is massive election fraud -- that there is a problem with people voting who should not be voting. To fix this "problem", they have passed Voter ID laws in several states (like Wisconsin and Texas). These laws mandate that a voter must have photo ID in addition to a voter registration card before they are allowed to vote.

What the Republicans have done is to pass a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It was revealed the other day that the incidence of this kind of voter fraud in Wisconsin is about 0.0002% (that's two ten-thousandths of one percent -- a less than negligible figure). The same is true of Texas, where this type of voter fraud is almost non-existent. Before passing the new laws in Texas, the Republicans tried to find and prosecute some people for fraud but were unable to do so. I imagine the same thing that is true of Wisconsin and Texas is true of the other states who have passed this kind of ridiculous law.

It was never about voter fraud. It was about voter suppression. The Republicans knew that the people most affected by the new law would be the elderly, the minorities, and the young. And they also knew those are the most likely groups to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans.

The real voter fraud, the most dangerous kind of voter fraud to our electoral system, is not illegal voters -- it is voter suppression, and the Republicans are masters of that kind of voter fraud. I guess they figure if you can't convince a majority to vote for you, then you can win by keeping your opponents supporters from voting.

This was proven in a court of law recently in Maryland. A jury found Paul Schurick, the campaign manager of former Republican governor Robert L. Erlich Jr., guilty of voter fraud. Schurick had arranged for a robocall that targeted likely Democratic voters, telling them that the election was won and inferring there was no need for them to bother with going to vote. The problem with the call is that the polls were still open and no votes had been counted.

Schurick could get a sentence of 12 years , but most pundits don't think he'll actually go to prison. It is more likely that he'll get probation. And that's a shame, because what he did is extremely serious and strikes at the heart of our democratic system. A democratic system must be able to trust those who work in it, and when they are caught violating the rules the punishment should be severe. It should include at least some jail time.

This is not the first time either, that Republicans have been found to have committed voter fraud. In Las Vegas they hired a company to register new voters. That company then tore up the registrations of Democratic voters, and only turned in the registrations of Republicans. And earlier this year the Indiana Secretary of State, a Republican, was indicted on seven counts of voter fraud.

It's easy to see why Republicans are so worried about voter fraud. They have done it so much they find it hard to believe everyone else isn't doing it also.