The Bald Cypress

There are 12 registered Jedi in Louisiana.

2012-01-03T23:25:00.006-06:00

According to the Louisiana Secretary of State's office, these are the numbers of registrants for all the parties on the Louisiana voter registration rolls as of January 3, 2012:

Democratic 1407917
Republican 773183
None 625226
INDEPENDENT 43014
Libertarian 4813
Reform Party 1383
Green Party 1369
OTHER 1057
INDENPENDENT 451
CONSERVATIVE 423
LIBERAL 280
TEA PARTY 161
CHRISTIAN 133
CONSTITUTION 119
PRUD ACT RSLTS 111
AMERICAN 102
MODERATE 74
OPEN 69
SOCIALIST 63
INDEPENTANT 60
LILBERTARIAN 59
DANSEREAU 57
INEDEPENDENT 55
UNDECIDED 41
CONSTITUTIONAL 39
RADICAL 30
REPUBLIC 30
MAJOR 26
NON PARTISAN 26
INDEPEMDENT 23
COMMUNIST 22
UNAFFILIATED 22
CONFEDERATE 21
LIB 21
BANANA 20
TEA 19
UNDECLARED 19
PROGRESSIVE 17
NEUTRAL 16
WHIG 16
FACIST 15
ANARCHIST 13
CENTRIST 13
LIBERTAIN 13
INDEPENDENCE 12
JEDI 12
NON-PARTISAN 10
ChrstnSocialist 9
LIBRAL 9
3RD PARTY 8
PRESIDENTIAL 8
REFORMIST 8
SOUTHERN 8
U S TAXPAYERS 8
WARD 8
EARTH FIRST 7
FEDERALIST 7
NAT SOC 7
PRIMARY 7
SEGREGATION 7
INDEPENDENT LA 6
INDIVIDUAL 6
TAX PAYERS 6
BULL MOOSE 5
DEM SOCIALIST 5
DEM.REP 5
PATRIOT 5
POLITICAL 5
POPULIST 5
BAPTIST 4
BI PARTISAN 4
CONSERVATIST 4
DEMOC SOCIAL 4
NATURAL LAW 4
PEACE&FREEDOM 4
PRIVATE 4
REALIST 4
STATES RIGHTS 4
AEROSMITH 3
AMERICAN FIRST 3
AMERICAN INDEP 3
CATHOLIC REG 3
DEPENDENT 3
DEPENDS 3
LA TAXPAYERS 3
LIBERALIST 3
MODERN WHIG 3
NON PARTISIAN 3
PRO LIFE 3
SOCIALIST USA 3
WHITE 3
ANARCHY 2
BEST 2
BI-PARTISAN 2
BIPARTISAN 2
BLACK 2
CAJUN 2
CHRISTIAN PROGR 2
CIVIL LIBERTAR 2
COMMITTEE 2
COMMON SENSE 2
COMMUNITARIAN 2
CONFIDENTIAL 2
CONS 2
ENVIORMENTAL 2
FREE 2
GREEN PEACE 2
HAZAL 2
KINGDOM 2
LABOR 2
LIBERAL REP 2
NATIONAL 2
NATIONAL SOCIA 2
NATIONALIST 2
NATURAL 2
NEW PARTY 2
NON-DENOMIN 2
NUNYA 2
PAR 2
PERSONAL 2
PIRATE 2
PROHIBITION 2
RASTAFARIAN 2
Republitarian 2
RIGHT TO LIFE 2
SPLIT 2
TAXPAYERS 2
THEOCRATIC 2
THIRD PARTY 2
WORKERS 2
AID 1
AM INDEPENDENT 1
AMER CONST 1
AMER MOHICAN 1
AMERICA 1
ANARCH 1
ANTI-PARTY 1
BLACK PANTHER 1
BLACKPANTHER 1
CHOICE 1
CHRIST CO 1
CHRONIC HIWAII 1
CITIZEN 1
CONSERVANCE 1
CONSERVATED 1
CU TAI WOU 1
DISCORDIAN 1
DIXIECRAT 1
DRUID 1
FREE RADICAL 1
FREE THINKER 1
FREEDOM MOVEMT 1
FREEDOMIST 1
FREEMANS 1
GDI 1
GOD 1
GODS 1
GOVERNMENT 1
GRASS ROOTS 1
GREENPEACE 1
GREENTREE 1
GYPSY 1
HONEST 1
HUMAN 1
HUMANITARIAN 1
IMPERIALIST 1
IN BETWEEN 1
INDEPENDANCE 1
INDIVIDUALIST 1
JasonJohnLeMair 1
JEFFERSONIAN 1
JESUS 1
KINGDOM OF GOD 1
LEAGUE OF SOUT 1
LIB.REPUBLICAN 1
LIBERAL DEM 1
LIBERAL REPUB 1
LOYALIST 1
MARXIST 1
MEADOW 1
MILLENNIUM 1
MINE 1
MINIMALIST 1
MONARCHIST 1
MOOR 1
MOTHER 1
MUG WUMP 1
MUSLIM 1
NDEPENDENT 1
NONPARTISAN 1
NUTRAL 1
PACIFIC ISLAN 1
PARTY OF ONE 1
PEOPLES CHOICE 1
PROG DEM 1
PRS 1
RAINBOW 1
REALISTS 1
REP-AMERICAN 1
RIGHT 1
RIGHTWING WHIG 1
SOC-DEM 1
SOCIAL 1
SOUTHERN PARTY 1
SOUTHERN REF 1
SUB GENIUS 1
SURVIVALIST 1
THEOCRAT 1
UNION 1
UNITED NEUTRAL 1
UNITED REPUBLI 1
UNITED WE ST 1
UNITY 1
USA 1
WORKING CLASS 1
Y 1

In 2005 the Libertarian Party achieved recognized party status in Louisiana and became a pre-printed option on the voter registration form. Since that time Libertarian voter registration numbers have risen pretty steadily. However, the Libertarian total declined by 178 last month. Presumably, this is due to Libertarian supporters of Ron Paul switching their registration to Republican before the December 15, 2011, deadline so that they will be able to vote for Paul in the Republican caucuses this year.

There are 22 registered Communists in Louisiana

2011-12-01T23:01:00.006-06:00

According to the Louisiana Secretary of State's office, here are the numbers of registrants for all the parties on the Louisiana voter registration rolls as of December 1, 2011:

Democratic 1408034
Republican 768909
None 622839
INDEPENDENT 42877
Libertarian 4991
Reform Party 1380
Green Party 1344
OTHER 1040
INDENPENDENT 455
CONSERVATIVE 410
LIBERAL 278
TEA PARTY 157
CHRISTIAN 134
CONSTITUTION 133
PRUD ACT RSLTS 111
AMERICAN 103
MODERATE 73
OPEN 69
INDEPENTANT 62
LILBERTARIAN 62
SOCIALIST 62
DANSEREAU 58
INEDEPENDENT 55
CONSTITUTIONAL 40
UNDECIDED 40
RADICAL 30
REPUBLIC 30
MAJOR 26
NON PARTISAN 26
INDEPEMDENT 23
COMMUNIST 22
LIB 22
UNAFFILIATED 22
CONFEDERATE 21
TEA 20
UNDECLARED 19
BANANA 18
PROGRESSIVE 17
NEUTRAL 16
WHIG 16
ANARCHIST 14
FACIST 14
CENTRIST 13
INDEPENDENCE 12
JEDI 12
LIBERTAIN 11
NON-PARTISAN 11
LIBRAL 10
3RD PARTY 9
ChrstnSocialist 9
PRESIDENTIAL 8
REFORMIST 8
U S TAXPAYERS 8
WARD 8
EARTH FIRST 7
FEDERALIST 7
NAT SOC 7
PRIMARY 7
SEGREGATION 7
SOUTHERN 7
INDEPENDENT LA 6
INDIVIDUAL 6
TAX PAYERS 6
BULL MOOSE 5
DEM.REP 5
PATRIOT 5
POLITICAL 5
POPULIST 5
BI PARTISAN 4
CONSERVATIST 4
DEM SOCIALIST 4
DEMOC SOCIAL 4
LIBERALIST 4
NATURAL LAW 4
PEACE&FREEDOM 4
PRIVATE 4
REALIST 4
STATES RIGHTS 4
AEROSMITH 3
AMERICAN FIRST 3
AMERICAN INDEP 3
BAPTIST 3
CATHOLIC REG 3
DEPENDENT 3
DEPENDS 3
LA TAXPAYERS 3
MODERN WHIG 3
NON PARTISIAN 3
PRO LIFE 3
SOCIALIST USA 3
WHITE 3
ANARCHY 2
BEST 2
BI-PARTISAN 2
BIPARTISAN 2
BLACK 2
CHRISTIAN PROGR 2
CIVIL LIBERTAR 2
COMMITTEE 2
COMMUNITARIAN 2
CONFIDENTIAL 2
CONS 2
ENVIORMENTAL 2
FREE 2
GREEN PEACE 2
HAZAL 2
HUMAN 2
KINGDOM 2
LABOR 2
LIBERAL REP 2
NATIONAL 2
NATIONAL SOCIA 2
NATIONALIST 2
NATURAL 2
NEW PARTY 2
NON-DENOMIN 2
NUNYA 2
PAR 2
PERSONAL 2
PIRATE 2
PROHIBITION 2
RASTAFARIAN 2
RIGHT TO LIFE 2
SPLIT 2
TAXPAYERS 2
THEOCRATIC 2
THIRD PARTY 2
WORKERS 2
AID 1
AM INDEPENDENT 1
AMER CONST 1
AMER MOHICAN 1
AMERICA 1
ANARCH 1
ANTI-PARTY 1
BLACK PANTHER 1
BLACKPANTHER 1
CAJUN 1
CHOICE 1
CHRIST CO 1
CHRONIC HIWAII 1
CITIZEN 1
COMMON SENSE 1
CONSERVANCE 1
CU TAI WOU 1
DISCORDIAN 1
DIXIECRAT 1
DRUID 1
FREE RADICAL 1
FREE THINKER 1
FREEDOM MOVEMT 1
FREEDOMIST 1
FREEMANS 1
GDI 1
GOD 1
GOVERNMENT 1
GRASS ROOTS 1
GREENPEACE 1
GREENTREE 1
GYPSY 1
HONEST 1
HUMANITARIAN 1
IMPERIALIST 1
IN BETWEEN 1
INDEPENDANCE 1
INDIVIDUALIST 1
JasonJohnLeMair 1
JEFFERSONIAN 1
JESUS 1
KINGDOM OF GOD 1
LEAGUE OF SOUT 1
LIB.REPUBLICAN 1
LIBERAL DEM 1
LIBERAL REPUB 1
LOYALIST 1
MARXIST 1
MEADOW 1
MILLENNIUM 1
MINE 1
MINIMALIST 1
MONARCHIST 1
MOOR 1
MOTHER 1
MUG WUMP 1
MUSLIM 1
NDEPENDENT 1
NONPARTISAN 1
NUTRAL 1
PACIFIC ISLAN 1
PARTY OF ONE 1
PEOPLES CHOICE 1
PROG DEM 1
PRS 1
RAINBOW 1
REALISTS 1
REP-AMERICAN 1
Republitarian 1
RIGHT 1
RIGHTWING WHIG 1
SOC-DEM 1
SOCIAL 1
SOUTHERN PARTY 1
SOUTHERN REF 1
SUB GENIUS 1
SURVIVALIST 1
THEOCRAT 1
UNION 1
UNITED NEUTRAL 1
UNITED REPUBLI 1
UNITED WE ST 1
UNITY 1
USA 1
WORKING CLASS 1
Y 1

Louisiana Voters By Party Affiliation

2011-11-05T18:29:00.004-05:00

The Louisiana Secretary of State's website publishes monthly statistics on the party affiliations of Louisiana's registered voters. However, those statistics only break it down by Democrats, Republicans, and "Other Parties," even though Louisiana has three other political parties with recognized status. The "Other Parties" category also includes voters who have no party affiliation.

I sent a request to the SOS and got the numbers for ALL the parties on the Louisiana voter registration rolls as of November 2, 2011. There were 213. The list is fascinating.

The number of registrants appears just below the party name:

Democratic
1409225

Republican
766236

None
620378

INDEPENDENT
42648

Libertarian
4896

Reform Party
1376

Green Party
1336

OTHER
1026

INDENPENDENT
457

CONSERVATIVE
396

LIBERAL
278

TEA PARTY
149

CONSTITUTION
137

CHRISTIAN
132

PRUD ACT RSLTS
113

AMERICAN
103

MODERATE
72

OPEN
67

INDEPENTANT
62

SOCIALIST
62

DANSEREAU
60

LILBERTARIAN
58

INEDEPENDENT
56

CONSTITUTIONAL
42

UNDECIDED
41

RADICAL
30

REPUBLIC
30

MAJOR
26

NON PARTISAN
26

INDEPEMDENT
24

LIB
23

UNAFFILIATED
22

COMMUNIST
21

CONFEDERATE
21

TEA
20

UNDECLARED
19

BANANA
18

NEUTRAL
17

PROGRESSIVE
17

WHIG
16

ANARCHIST
14

FACIST
14

CENTRIST
12

INDEPENDENCE
12

LIBERTAIN
11

NON-PARTISAN
11

JEDI
10

LIBRAL
10

3RD PARTY
9

ChrstnSocialist
9

PRESIDENTIAL
8

REFORMIST
8

U S TAXPAYERS
8

WARD
8

EARTH FIRST
7

FEDERALIST
7

INDIVIDUAL
7

NAT SOC
7

PRIMARY
7

SEGREGATION
7

SOUTHERN
7

INDEPENDENT LA
6

TAX PAYERS
6

BULL MOOSE
5

DEM.REP
5

PATRIOT
5

POLITICAL
5

POPULIST
5

BI PARTISAN
4

DEM SOCIALIST
4

LIBERALIST
4

NATURAL LAW
4

PEACE&FREEDOM
4

PRIVATE
4

REALIST
4

STATES RIGHTS
4

AEROSMITH
3

AMERICAN FIRST
3

AMERICAN INDEP
3

CATHOLIC REG
3

CONSERVATIST
3

DEMOC SOCIAL
3

DEPENDENT
3

DEPENDS
3

LA TAXPAYERS
3

MODERN WHIG
3

NON PARTISIAN
3

PRO LIFE
3

SOCIALIST USA
3

WHITE
3

ANARCHY
2

BAPTIST
2

BEST
2

BI-PARTISAN
2

BIPARTISAN
2

BLACK
2

CHRISTIAN PROGR
2

CIVIL LIBERTAR
2

COMMITTEE
2

COMMUNITARIAN
2

CONFIDENTIAL
2

CONS
2

ENVIORMENTAL
2

GREEN PEACE
2

HUMAN
2

KINGDOM
2

LABOR
2

LIBERAL REP
2

NATIONAL
2

NATIONAL SOCIA
2

NATIONALIST
2

NATURAL
2

NEW PARTY
2

NON-DENOMIN
2

NUNYA
2

PAR
2

PERSONAL
2

PIRATE
2

PROHIBITION
2

RASTAFARIAN
2

RIGHT TO LIFE
2

SPLIT
2

TAXPAYERS
2

THEOCRATIC
2

THIRD PARTY
2

WORKERS
2

AID
1

AM INDEPENDENT
1

AMER CONST
1

AMER MOHICAN
1

AMERICA
1

ANARCH
1

ANTI-PARTY
1

BLACK PANTHER
1

BLACKPANTHER
1

CAJUN
1

CHOICE
1

CHRIST CO
1

CHRONIC HIWAII
1

CITIZEN
1

COMMON SENSE
1

CONSERVANCE
1

CU TAI WOU
1

DISCORDIAN
1

DIXIECRAT
1

DRUID
1

FREE
1

FREE RADICAL
1

FREE THINKER
1

FREEDOM MOVEMT
1

FREEDOMIST
1

FREEMANS
1

GDI
1

GOD
1

GOVERNMENT
1

GRASS ROOTS
1

GREENPEACE
1

GREENTREE
1

GYPSY
1

HAZAL
1

HONEST
1

HUMANITARIAN
1

IMPERIALIST
1

IN BETWEEN
1

INDEPENDANCE
1

INDIVIDUALIST
1

JasonJohnLeMair
1

JEFFERSONIAN
1

JESUS
1

KINGDOM OF GOD
1

LEAGUE OF SOUT
1

LIB.REPUBLICAN
1

LIBERAL DEM
1

LIBERAL REPUB
1

LOYALIST
1

MARXIST
1

MEADOW
1

MILLENNIUM
1

MINE
1

MINIMALIST
1

MONARCHIST
1

MOOR
1

MOTHER
1

MUG WUMP
1

MUSLIM
1

NDEPENDENT

NONPARTISAN
1

NUTRAL
1

PACIFIC ISLAN
1

PARTY OF ONE
1

PEOPLES CHOICE
1

PROG DEM
1

PRS
1

RAINBOW
1

REP-AMERICAN
1

Republitarian
1

RIGHT
1

RIGHTWING WHIG
1

SOC-DEM
1

SOUTHERN PARTY
1

SOUTHERN REF
1

SUB GENIUS
1

SURVIVALIST
1

THEOCRAT
1

UNION
1

UNITED NEUTRAL
1

UNITED REPUBLI
1

UNITED WE ST
1

UNITY
1

USA
1

WORKING CLASS
1

Y
1

Skeptic's Annotated Sale Paper

2010-09-29T23:17:00.002-05:00

When I got this week's Mac's Fresh Market sale paper, I was amused to read this: "Funny how we believe what the newspapers say but question what the Bible says!"

Since the circular reached me through my local newspaper, I appreciated the irony. I'm always skeptical of everything I read in the newspaper, especially the ads.

Then, I noticed that Boston butt pork roasts are on sale. Obviously, someone at Mac's questions Leviticus 11:7-8 and Deuteronomy 14:8.

It's Time for a Change

2010-09-27T00:00:00.002-05:00

Be NORML.

2010-09-07T01:19:00.006-05:00

If you join the recently launched Louisiana chapter of NORML by September 30, 2010, your first year's dues are only $10.

When you join NORML Louisiana you also get a free one-year membership in the national NORML group. A year's membership in national NORML normally costs $25, so this is a very good deal. NORML Louisiana focuses on protecting the rights of Louisiana's medical marijuana patients, so you will also be supporting a very good cause.

Christian Party

2010-08-28T19:52:00.003-05:00

Here's an interesting video in which U.S. Representative candidate Anthony Marquize of the 2nd District explains why the Christian Party of Louisiana was founded. I enjoy the color-coded bat analogy.

Bad Choice of Words

2010-08-04T17:48:00.004-05:00

Apparently, a 14-year-old has been arrested for the aggravated rape of an 8-year-old at a Christian day camp in Shreveport. I don't know (and I really don't want to know) the details, but it sounds horribly sad and I hope everybody involved is as okay as they can be given the circumstances.

However, the letter that the camp sent out to parents is weird:

I don't think I would have followed up a paragraph about the alleged "incident" with the phrase "thank you for letting us love on your children." I would have at least put in an intervening paragraph about a water slide or something.

Is Watching the Watchmen a Crime?

2010-07-09T06:01:00.002-05:00

The ACLU of Louisiana has issued a very interesting report on First Amendment violations by the New Orleans police of people who merely observe and record the policemen's actions.

The Photography is Not a Crime blog reports on this sort of abuse, throughout the country, all the time. There are several Louisiana-related posts.

South Asian Southerners

2010-06-19T07:30:00.005-05:00

This story, describing the unusually large number of Indian-American candidates in this year's elections, contrasts Republicans Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley with most of their political co-ethnics. I'm linking to it, though, because it briefly mentions Ravi Sangisetty, who is running for Congress in Louisiana's Third Congressional District.

(Disclosure/Name-drop: Ravi was one of my section-mates in law school.)

Bobby Jindal's Worst Nightmare

2010-06-15T06:51:00.004-05:00

She's got everything Bobby's got, but she's also a pretty woman with an Anglo surname.

Alvin Greene's Victory Has Louisiana Roots

2010-06-14T14:00:00.002-05:00

Here's the story. I am not surprised. If there was a problem with the machines in the S.C. election, then what does that say about all the elections that Louisiana used them for?

Louisiana As I Have Seen It, Part V

2010-02-16T05:37:00.003-06:00

Here's Earl Long on Mardi Gras. I didn't give him the beads.

Louisiana Skeptic

2009-10-28T16:43:00.002-05:00

I got my new license plate in the mail today:

Louisiana As I Have Seen It, Part IV

2009-08-20T05:56:00.000-05:00

I took this picture on Chimes Street in Baton Rouge in 2003.

The spectre of the "Mickey Mouse Party" is haunting Louisiana.

2009-05-25T13:42:00.000-05:00

The "Mickey Mouse Party" scenario

At last week's meeting of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne claimed that there may be as many as 20 registered members of the Mickey Mouse Party in the state of Louisiana.

He warned of the threat that the Mouseists could pose if their numbers ever reach 1000, thereby making it possible for them to achieve "recognized" party status and be on par with the Republicans and the Democrats.

Current state law provides for Congressional party primaries for each "recognized" party, if that party fields at least two candidates in the same Congressional race.

Thoughtful readers of this blog can surely imagine the horrifying possibility that the two preceding sentences combine to create. (And, if the thought of a Mickey Mouse Party primary in America doesn't send chills down your spine, then I suggest you buy yourself a one-way ticket to Euro Disney.)

Dardenne and his First Assistant Tom Schedler made it sound like Mickey's legions could be marching on Baton Rouge, if not on Washington, D.C., any day now.

Fortunately for us all, this Disney Scare is overstated.

Contrary to an implication made by Mr. Schedler, the Mickey Mouse Party would not achieve "recognized" status immediately upon gaining their 1000th registrant. Representatives of the party would still have to submit documents (including party bylaws) and a check for $1000 to the Louisiana Secretary of State's office.

Even then, there would only be a Mickey Mouse primary if the Mickey Mouse Party was able to field at least two candidates in the same U.S. House or U.S. Senate race. Even if two willing, 25-year-old or older candidates could be found, those candidates would still have to pay a combined total of $1200 (or each submit petitions containing signatures of at least a thousand voters eligible to vote on the office being sought) to get on the ballot.

When you consider that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats fielded more than one candidate in last year's U.S. Senate race and that the Republicans failed to field any candidate in the 3rd Congressional district and that the Democrats failed to field any candidate in the 5th Congressional district, then I think you can see why any fears and/or hopes you may have of a Mickey Mouse primary are probably unfounded.

If the leaders of the Mickey Mouse Party (whom I would sincerely love to meet) did somehow quinquagetuple their party's current membership, draft bylaws, interact with the necessary bureaucrats, raise $2200, and find multiple party members to run in the same Congressional race, then, I have to say, I think that they would be just as deserving of their own primary as the Democrats and the Republicans are.

(Okay. I've made it this far without pointing out that nearly all of Louisiana's elections have a rather "Mickey Mouse" quality, but I can't let that obvious joke go unwritten any longer. There you go. I'll try to keep the rest of this post mostly serious.)

The Voting Machines

Mr. Dardenne and Mr. Schedler's main argument in favor of abolishing Congressional primaries for Louisiana's three smaller recognized parties seems to be that we should change election law to meet the limitations of the state's (allegedly) now-obsolete voting machines, rather than changing voting machines to accommodate the full range of choices that the legislature previously chose to give to the voters.

My thought on that point is that we should spend the money it takes to give the voters that full range of choices. I understand that, in these days, technological challenges sometimes necessitate frequent upgrading of equipment. I would rather pay the money than limit everyone's choices.

What's the likelihood of this voting-machine problem happening anytime soon?

Although I see some wisdom in being prepared for the unlikely, I also think we should consider just how unlikely the five-party-primaries-with-"lockouts" doomsday scenario that Dardenne and Schedler warn about really is.

The example of last year's Congressional elections in Louisiana, which I briefly mentioned above, is worth considering.

In last fall's races, there were zero party primaries in the U.S. Senate race, one party primary in each of the First, Second, and Fifth Congressional Districts; two party primaries in the Fourth Congressional District; and zero party primaries in the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Congressional Districts. The party primaries which were held were all Democratic or Republican primaries. The parties which HB 776 would penalize did not field more than one candidate in any one Congressional race, thus they did not necessiate any of the primaries held last year in Louisiana.

How would HB 776 affect unaffiliated voters?

When asked about the effect that HB 776 would have on the choices available to unaffiliated voters, Dardenne said that such voters would be unaffected. He pointed out that unaffiliated voters can vote in the Democratic primary (assuming a Democratic primary is held) under current law and that they could still vote in the Democratic primary (assuming a Democratic primary is held) under HB 776. However, he neglected to say that, under current law, unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in the Democratic primary or the Libertarian primary or the Green primary or the Reform primary (assuming that each of those primaries is held), but that under HB 776 the unaffiliated voter's choice is limited to the Democratic primary (assuming that one is held).

Schedler further contributed to this muddling of the law by strongly implying, if not actually claiming, that a Green, Libertarian, or Reform primary would only be open to voters affiliated with that party. He gave the membership numbers for each of these parties and then said that if we assume a 40% turnout, then we could have a statewide election in which very few people voted.

Schedler surely knows, though, that the Republicans are the only ones who have closed their primaries to unaffiliated voters. The Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Democratic parties have all chosen to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their primaries.

There are over 600,000 unaffiliated voters in Louisiana. Each of them could, potentially, cast ballots in a Green, Libertarian, or Reform primary. There are almost as many potential Green (or Libertarian or Reform) primary voters as there are potential Republican primary voters.

The Disenfranchising Double Standard

This brings me to the double standard that HB 776 would create for voters affiliated with parties other than the Republicans and the Democrats.

Under current law, each voter in Louisiana can potentially have at least one party primary in which he can vote.

Registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary, Republicans in the Republican primary, Greens in the Green primary, Libertarians in the Libertarian primary, and Reformers in the Reform primary.

Unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in any of those primaries, other than the Republican primary.

Voters affiliated with some party other than the five recognized parties (e.g., the 20 voters currently affiliated with the "Mickey Mouse Party") have the same primary options as the unaffiliated voters.

Each voter might not actually have an opportunity to vote in a primary, but that would be due to a lack of candidates or to a party's decision to close its primary to non-members. There is no state law which creates a class of voters who could not possibly vote in any potential Congressional primary.

HB 776 would change that.

The proposed change in the law would, for example, abolish the Libertarian Party primary, but would not then allow registered Libertarians to vote in some other primary. It makes sense for state law to exclude Libertarian voters from the Democratic primary, so long as there is a procedure in place by which there could be a Libertarian primary, but it makes no sense to exclude Libertarian voters after the state has also taken away the Libertarians' right to hold their own party primary.

Under HB 776, the 20 voters affiliated with the "Mickey Mouse Party" would actually be better off than the 3,000 affiliated with the Libertarian Party. The "Mickey Mouse Party" members could vote in the Democratic primary, but the Libertarians could not. They would be penalized for belonging to a party that is successful enough to get "recognized" status, but not successful enough to get "major" status.

(If those same voters were left without any primary election options due to a lack of candidates or to a party's decision to close its primary to non-members, I think that would be okay. However, I do not want a state law to create a situation where some voters could not possibly vote in any potential Congressional primary.)

Vote-splitting

Mr. Schedler said that the three smaller parties could hold private conventions or caucuses to choose their nominees. They could do that, but those nominations would have no effect on which candidates appeared on the general election ballot nor on how those candidates would be labelled. Under HB 776, even if the Green Party privately chose to nominate a particular candidate, there could still be multiple candidates in the general election with the "Green" label under their names.

In contrast, there could be no more than one Democrat and no more than one Republican on the general election ballot.

You can see how unfair that would be if you imagine an election in which the Democrats had multiple candidates on the general election ballot, thereby splitting the Democratic vote, but the Republicans were statutorily protected from that sort of vote-splitting scenario.

Further action on HB 776 was deferred until the committee's next meeting on May 27.

HB 776

2009-05-04T20:16:00.003-05:00

Louisiana State Rep. Wayne Waddell (email him), has introduced a bill which would abolish Congressional party primaries for the Libertarian, Green, and Reform parties of Louisiana. It would do this by creating a new category ("major recognized political parties") which would include those recognized parties that have at least 40,000 voters registered as being affiliated with the party. Congressional party primaries would only be held for major recognized political parties.

Currently, only the Republican and Democratic parties meet the 40,000 registrants requirement.

The Green, Libertarian, and Reform parties of Louisiana all have substantially less than 40,000 registrants.

Those three political parties (which, presumably, would be called "minor recognized political parties") could suffer great disadvantages as a result of this demotion.

First, it would prohibit those political parties, and candidates from those parties, from fully participating in Louisiana's Congressional elections. For example, in the absence of a Libertarian primary, Libertarian candidates would be deprived of the various advantages (e.g., media attention, ballot exposure to the voters) that the Republican and the Democratic candidates would gain from the party primary process. Also, by requiring that all Libertarian candidates for a particular Congressional office run against each other in the general election (rather than thinning their numbers down to one nominee, as the Republicans and Democrats could, in the primaries), a grossly unfair disadvantage would be created for the Libertarian Party and its Congressional candidates.

Second, there would be a partial disenfranchisement of voters who are affiliated with the Green, Libertarian, or Reform parties. Those voters would be unable to vote in any of the party primaries, even if there were a plethora of Green, Libertarian, and Reform candidates in a particular Congressional race. Republican voters and Democratic voters could cast ballots in their respective primaries and voters who are not affiliated with any of the recognized parties could cast ballots in the Democratic primary (or the Republican primary, if the Republicans open their primaries to such voters), but voters who are affiliated with one of the minor recognized parties would be shut out until the general election.

Since being registered as a member of one of the minor recognized parties would effectively bar a voter from casting a ballot in the early stages of Congressional elections, it could be very difficult for those parties to hold onto the registrants they have. With this disenfranchising handicap, it would be practically impossible for those parties to add the registrants they would need to achieve major recognized party status.

Further, since Louisiana's Congressional elections would still, under HB776, require the winner to receive only a plurality of the votes cast in the general election, the proposed change could lower the percentage of the vote necessary to be elected. In four of Louisiana's Congressional elections held in 2008, the winner was elected with less than half of the votes cast. This means that an absolute majority of those casting ballots voted against the candidate who was elected. A crowded general election ballot, which would be more likely under the proposed change, would increase the likelihood of a U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator being elected with significantly less than half of the votes cast.

Requiring a political party to show a modicum of support before that party is granted full ballot access may be justified by the state's interest in avoiding ballot-crowding and voter confusion. However, as stated earlier, under HB776 Louisiana's Congressional general election ballots could actually be more crowded. Also, the presence of multiple "Green," multiple "Libertarian," and multiple "Reform" candidates on the ballot (as opposed to the single "Republican" candidate and the single "Democrat" candidate) could increase voter confusion.

Last Friday evening, I sent Rep. Waddell an email expressing my concerns about his bill. I have not gotten a reply. I will update this post if I get one.

I also asked him why he thought the bill was necessary. There has only been one round of regular Congressional elections since Louisiana adopted the party primary system for its Congressional elections. So far, there have not been any Green, Libertarian, or Reform primaries in Louisiana, since no more than one candidate from any one of those parties has qualified to run in the same Congressional race. (There has also been no statewide Democratic or Republican party primary held under the new system. In Louisiana's 2008 U.S. Senate race, only one Democratic candidate qualified for the primary. Two Republicans qualified for the Senate race, but one of them withdrew a few days later.)

HB776 has been referred to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee. Email addresses for each member of that committee can be found by clicking on their names at the committee's webpage. Mailing addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers for each committee member can be found in this directory.

SB314

2009-05-04T20:01:00.001-05:00

Louisiana State Sen. Robert Adley has introduced a bill which would bring back a top-two system for Louisiana's Congressional elections.

Sen. Adley's bill seems very similar to an earlier failed attempt to get around Love v. Foster.

I'm curious what Adley's reasons were for proposing this bill. The party primary system for Louisiana's Congressional elections have only seen limited usage so far. I wonder why Adley is ready so quickly to change things back.

Even disregarding the bill's possible conflict with federal law, I would prefer that some other electoral system be tried rather than going back to top-two.

As I've said before, instant runoff voting might work:

Louisiana As I Have Seen It, Part III

2009-03-15T07:46:00.003-05:00

Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Natchitoches.

December Elections

2008-12-06T23:53:00.005-06:00

Although Louisiana's new electoral system for Congressional races was adopted to avoid the disadvantages resulting from December elections, we still ended up with December elections in two of Louisiana's Congressional races.

Republicans won in each of them. Joseph Cao beat incumbent William Jefferson in the Second District and John Fleming won in the Fourth District.

I'm surprised by the results in the Second District. I figured Jefferson would pull through. I'm very curious to see how high black voter turnout was for that election. I was actually hoping that Jefferson would win, so that he would be removed from office after he's convicted. Then, there could be a new election with a Jefferson-free field of candidates. (By the way, Louisiana's new Congressional delegation will have no black members for the first time in 18 years. However, Cao will become the first Vietnamese-American member of Congress. Just last year Louisiana elected the country's first Indian-American governor. Who would have thought that Louisiana would be such fertile ground for Asian-American politicians?)

Cao, Fleming, and Bill Cassidy (who was elected in the Sixth District last month) all won their elections with less than half of the votes cast. This is significant because that would not have been possible in Louisiana prior to this year.

Cao, Fleming, and Cassidy are all going to Congress to represent Louisiana even though a majority of those casting ballots in their respective districts voted against them.

The outcomes of the Second and the Sixth District races are especially bothersome because it seems likely that Cassidy would have lost to Don Cazayoux in a runoff and it's possible (though probably not likely) that Cao would have lost to Jefferson in a runoff.

Michael Jackson and Malik Rahim may have drawn enough black support from the Democratic nominees to swing their elections to the Republicans. (I certainly don't blame Jackson and Rahim for this. They each had the right to run and their campaigns added much of value. The new election system is just very, very flawed.)

If Louisiana had adopted instant runoff voting, we could have:

avoided the expense of a three-stage election,

avoided a December election, and

elected Representatives by majority vote rather than by plurality vote.

130,000 Inflatable Boobs Lost At Sea

2008-12-02T12:53:00.003-06:00

I always thought that pirates were only interested in booty, but it looks like some are breast men.

As I was typing the title of this post I wondered, "Were they really distributing just one boob per subscriber or were these 130,000 pairs of boobs (i.e., 260,000 boobs)?"

The article seems to indicate that we're only dealing with 130,000 single boobs. Of course, it may be that there were 65,000 boob pairs and the reporter did the multiplication necessary to get the 130,000 figure.

I just find the idea of a single, disembodied boob a lot more disturbing than the idea of a conjoined pair of disembodied boobs.

I was imagining the huge shipping crate containing all these inflated boobs, but then I realized that the boobs were probably shipped in a deflated state. That makes this whole story much less exciting.

I'm an erratic blogger.

2008-11-20T20:59:00.002-06:00

I know it's been awhile since I posted anything. I've gotten interested in other things and have been letting the blog slide.

I keep intending to post something about the political happenings in Louisiana these days, but I usually just end up posting my thoughts in the comments section of some other blog. If you want to read my comments on Bill Jefferson's perfect storm, the election of Bill Cassidy by a minority of those casting ballots in the Sixth District, the exclusion of Bob Barr from the ballot in Louisiana, or the placement of Ron Paul on the ballot here (an effort with which, I am proud to say, I was involved), you can click on the appropriate link. In some cases, you might have to scroll down.

I'll try to post more often in the near future. I'm planning a field trip. I'll bring my camera.

My Favorite Beer Commercial

2008-08-28T04:04:00.003-05:00

I'm not a beer drinker, but this commercial almost makes me want to become one. I must admit that I have mixed feelings, though, about the use of something this inspiring to sell something like beer. It's not that I object to beer. I just think that this commercial and the slogan "Know Who You Are" could be used to promote something a little nobler and less fattening.

I first saw this commercial a few years ago on the Steinlager website. I'm pleased to see that it made its way to YouTube. More on the commercial and the team that made it can be found here.

That's what she said.

2008-08-23T20:57:00.013-05:00

A Texas policeman is fighting his suspension for having sex with prostitutes while undercover.

In his own defense, suspended officer Keith Breiner said:

"I didn't have pleasure doing this. I was paid to do it."

David Vitter - Serious Sinner

2008-08-22T23:05:00.008-05:00

The FEC has ruled that David Vitter can use some of his campaign funds to pay for legal fees stemming from his involvement in the trial of the late D.C. Madam.

Vitter argued that he would never have been targeted by Palfrey if he had not been a senator, therefore his expenses are a result of his official position.

"I committed a very serious wrong and mistake," Vitter said in a letter to the commission. "My only point is that others who did the same but were not notable were not similarly treated or targeted by the defense in the Palfrey litigation."

Full article

Think of this before you contribute to his re-election campaign / legal fund.

Killer Bees Found In Winn Parish

2008-08-20T04:02:00.005-05:00

I've been waiting for this day ever since I saw The Savage Bees when I was a little boy growing up in Winnfield. So far, the actual occurrence has been very anticlimactic.

Louisiana Family Finds Jesus In Their Bathroom

2008-08-20T03:27:00.005-05:00

I see Darth Vader.

Here's the story.

La. Senate Secretary Glenn Koepp Hopes to Keep Racial Quotas in Redistricting

2008-08-18T08:39:00.003-05:00

According to an article in the BR Advocate, an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case from North Carolina asks the questions:

Does a district have to be crafted so that a racial minority has at least a 50 percent majority to avoid claims that black voting strength is being diluted? Or can state legislators comply with federal law by drawing a district with no racial majority but where a “realistic opportunity” exists for a minority candidate to be elected because of reliable white crossover voting?

If the Court approves the second option, then states would be able to base their redistricting plans less on race and more on other relevant factors (e.g., natural geography, municipal boundaries).

It seems like a reasonable step toward sanity and away from racial gerrymandering in the redistricting process.

Also, it needn't lessen the number of black legislators:

“The 50 percent rule imposes a racial quota on the Voting Rights Act,” said Sam Hirsch, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who filed arguments in the case for the League of Women Voters of the United States.

Twenty-one black legislators are in Congress — elected from non-black-majority districts, Hirsch said. “Let’s hope the Supreme Court does not put a strait jacket on you,” he told a packed room of lawmakers from across the nation.

However, Louisiana Senate Secretary Glenn Koepp seems to be hoping that the Court keeps the 50 percent rule in place:

“If the court takes away the bright-line, 50-percent district, there’s no way for us as a Legislature to perfect a redistricting plan,” said Koepp, the Senate secretary. “We’ll get sued. No matter what we do, somebody is going to be able to show you can do it better.”

Koepp said that going the coalition-district route would “give all of the attorneys and political scientists out there the fodder to second-guess us and file suit against anything we do.”

Think about what Koepp is saying. He's willing to sacrifice state sovereignty so that the state legislature can keep passing the buck on the racial aspect of redistricting.

Mr. Koepp is right about one thing. Attorneys and political scientists and even ordinary citizens might second-guess what he does. He's a public employee, so he should be used to that.

However, if the Court discards the 50 percent rule, then it will surely replace it with instructions on what the states must use in its place. The new rule might be more nuanced than the old one. It might require state legislatures to use some common sense, rather than just applying a mathematical formula aimed at creating districts based exclusively on race.

Yes, someone might sue. If they do, then face the lawsuit and argue the state's case in court.

The federal courts are finally showing some signs of abandoning federally-mandated racial quotas in redistricting. Let's hope milquetoast state employees don't stop that long-awaited reform.

Michael Jackson Among Top Ten Independent / Third-party Candidates

2008-08-15T19:58:00.005-05:00

Political commentator Trent Hill has released his list of the top ten independent/third-party candidates of 2008.

State Rep. Michael Jackson, who is running as an independent in Louisiana's 6th Congressional District race, comes in at number 5.

Jackson's candidacy is noteworthy because he will probably take enough black votes from the white, Democratic incumbent to swing the election to the Republican nominee.

5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turns down Fahrenholtz case

2008-08-13T11:34:00.002-05:00

...but he plans to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here's the story.

Winnfield's Taser Policy

2008-08-12T18:16:00.005-05:00

The family of Baron Pikes, who died as a result of Tasering by the Winnfield police, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against several parties, including the city of Winnfield, Louisiana.

One of the lawsuit's allegations is that Winnfield failed to properly supervise and train its police officers in the use of Tasers.

An article in last week's edition of Winnfield's local newspaper deals with that question, though in a mostly different context. The article is not available online, but it documents poor judgment, a lack of communication among city agencies, and a severe lack of oversight regarding the police's use of a potentially deadly weapon. It's too incredible and too frightening to let disappear into the obscurity of small-town print journalism, so I'm transcribing it below. There's no byline, so I can't make any more precise attribution.

From the Winn Parish Enterprise, August 6, 2008:

City Panel Reviews Taser Policy

Policies and procedures of the Winnfield Police Department regarding the use of tasers were addressed at a public safety committee meeting held Tuesday, July 29.

“We had a meeting at the police station and we went through what the department was proposing when the department first adopted the tasers,” said Herman Castete, city attorney. “This was presented to the city council and the council approved it.

“We’re not following any of the procedures and I want to know why. What has been changed and who authorized the changes?”

Castette also wanted to know if no one authorized the changes how did they get changed.

“The council has never changed anything,” he added.

One of the major questions raised by Castete was the medical part of the taser policy.

“You pull the probes out yourself now,” he said. “The policy and procedure says you can’t do that. This was approved by the council. For this to change, it has to go back before the council to be approved. These council members are the ones that decide what happens within these city limits.”

Adam Cockerham, who is in charge of the tasers at the police department, argued that the policy and procedure are just guidelines and they are not set in stone.

“The chief can change it if he wants to,” he said.

Castete said that the chief can not change the policies and procedures.

“Nothing ever goes by policy procedure in the whole department,” said Cockerham. “Not until something bad happens does anything happen with policy and procedure.”

According to Castete, officers followed the policy and procedure in the beginning and quit somewhere along the way.

Cockerham explained that when MedExpress was in Winnfield their personnel pulled out the probes for the department. When Advanced came in, their personnel will not remove anything from the skin.

“Even if we’re there telling them how to do it, they won’t do it,” said Cockerham. “Every time we taser someone and have to pull the probes out, when the ambulance gets there, that’s when we pull them out. Ambulance personnel looks at them and says they can go to jail.”

Castete advised that the department should have come back to the council and said that the policy needed to change because that wasn’t the way officers were doing it anymore.

“You all didn’t do that,” said Castete. “You just automatically started pulling probes.”

According to Cockerham, the whole thing needs to be changed.

“I have told everyone above me that the ambulance people would not pull them out anymore and that we pull them out on the scene with them there,” said Cockerham. “Even if they’re not on scene, ambulance personnel still look at them before they go to the hospital.”

When asked if the probes are pulled out before or after the ambulance personnel arrive, Cockerham said most of the time it is before.

“You are not following what the council said,” said Castete. “That’s the problem. I don’t know if it’s you, or the chief, or the council, but somebody is falling down in their duties.”

Castete also asked the question of when did it get to be that officers could use the taser for passive noncompliance. No concrete answer was provided by Cockerham or Johnny Ray Carpenter, chief of police.

“You are making the city liable for a lawsuit every time you violate this book,” said Castete. “If you think this thing needs to be changed, then the department needs to come before the council and get it changed.”

So Many Socialists

2008-08-12T07:52:00.006-05:00

The Socialist Workers Party has become the first party to get on the presidential ballot in Louisiana this year. They are going to have some competition for the socialist vote, though.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is organizing their Louisiana ballot effort and the Socialist Party USA is also planning to be on the ballot here.

(The National Socialist Movement's candidate may also show up -- but, of course, national socialism is very different from regular socialism.)

One novel aspect of the Socialist Workers Party's ticket is the fact that their presidential candidate, Roger Calero, is not constitutionally eligible to be president. According to the BR Advocate:

"Calero’s name will not be on the ballot because he was born in Nicaragua, and federal law prohibits a non-U.S. born presidential candidate, campaign worker Amanda Ulman said. Stand-in candidate James Harris of Los Angeles will be on the ballot for the Socialist Workers Party, Ulman said.

Berry [the La. Sec. of State's press secretary] said he is not sure what the party’s bylaws allow after an election but the candidate on the ballot has to be U.S. born."

Interestingly, it does appear that Calero will be listed as the presidential candidate on some states' ballots. He ran in 2004 and only needed a surrogate in about half the states in which his party was on the ballot. The plan then was that if the SWP won, the surrogates would champion a constitutional amendment allowing Calero to take office.

Given that the November election is for choosing presidential electors rather than actually choosing the president, I don't think that Calero would be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution from appearing on the ballot.

The Constitution says that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President," but it doesn't say that such a person cannot appear on a state's November ballot.

The Constitution does allow each state legislature to direct the manner by which that state's electors are chosen, so a state could decline to print on the ballot the names of presidential candidates who are not actually eligible to take office.

I assumed that was the basis of Berry's statement, but I've looked through Louisiana's election code and can't find any law giving the Secretary of State that power. The qualifications for elector candidates are clearly stated, but not those of the presidential and vice presidential candidates whose names will be listed with the slates of electors. (I've only made a cursory look through the election code. I'll look more later and update this post if I find anything relevant. I've also emailed Mr. Berry. If I get a response, I'll pass along his explanation.)

Also, if Berry's statement about the presidential candidate appearing on the ballot having to be U.S. born is true, then is John McCain going to have to use a stand-in, too?

Louisiana As I Have Seen It, Part II

2008-08-10T00:57:00.001-05:00

I saw this sign at a carnival in Monroe. I thought it offered good advice for life in general.

Fahrenholtz Appeals in Federal Court

2008-08-09T07:40:00.003-05:00

Jimmy Fahrenholtz has asked the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Beer's decision.

At this point Fahrenholtz's chances don't seem very good, but he could argue that the case is not res judicata because the state court refused to properly consider his constitutional argument.

Red Shirt America

2008-08-07T10:26:00.005-05:00

Jeff Sadow has drawn parallels between technologies used on Star Trek: The Next Generation and the campaign strategies of Democrats.

Specifically, he compares holograms, cloaking devices, and shields to the methods Democrats use to hide their liberal voting records from the voters.

A much more apt analogy would be to the Changelings (from ST:DS9), who can change their shape and appearance to blend in with their environment or to otherwise suit their needs.

To balance things out, here's Rep. David Wu (D-Oregon) comparing Bush's neocons to Klingons:

Stephen Colbert also showed an amusing juxtaposition of Republican and Klingon invocations of "honor."

Fahrenholtz Fails in Federal Court

2008-08-07T03:37:00.005-05:00

Clancy DuBos reports that U.S. District Judge Peter Beer has declined to reinstate Jimmy Fahrenholtz as a candidate in the 2nd District U.S. House race. Judge Beer's ruling was based on res judicata, rather than any flaw in Fahrenholtz's claim that the state statute that lead to his disqualification was unconstitutional.

Fahrenholtz's mistake (the one most pertinent to Judge Beer's ruling, anyway) was pursuing his case all the way through state court. He should have removed it to federal court as soon as possible, since it dealt with a federal question. A federal court might have had a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution and more of a willingness to rule a state statute unconstitutional.

There are two very negative consequences to this ruling.

First, the Democratic voters of the 2nd District won't have as broad a range of candidates as they could have had.

Second, Louisiana will probably go on using a constitutionally flawed qualifying form until it causes problems for some other candidate. Let us hope that that candidate's lawyer learns from Fahrenholtz's example.

This ruling is probably most advantageous to Helena Moreno and Bill Jefferson.

As the lone white candidate remaining in the Democratic primary, Moreno now has a very good chance of making it into a party runoff with Jefferson.

Jefferson, in turn, has a much better chance of winning a Democratic runoff against a white candidate than he would against another black candidate.

Since the Democratic nominee is almost certain to win the general election, Louisiana's constitutionally clumsy attempt at political reform has probably ensured the re-election of a Congressman who is currently under indictment for bribery, racketeering, and money-laundering.

Some of my previous posts on the Fahrenholtz case can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

The Hurricane Katrina Lightning Laser Memorial Tower

2008-08-05T21:30:00.010-05:00

MIT artist-scientist and Mississippi native Joe Davis is planning to build a tower which, according to this article, "will literally seize a hurricane’s force, bottle it up and hurl it angrily back into the sky" as a memorial for victims of Hurricane Katrina. He's naming it Call Me Ishmael and he's looking for funding.

“Katrina destroyed the legacy of my family, all the photos of my grandmothers and the furniture, and wiped away everything to the foundation," said Davis, who also lost his father and a friend to earlier hurricanes.

In the 1980's in protest of the censorship of female genitalia from previous attempts to contact extraterrestrials, Davis beamed sonic interpretations of the vaginal contractions of ballerinas into space for 20 minutes before the Air Force discovered his broadcast and shut it down. He called that project Poetica Vaginal.

More on Joe Davis (who is now one of my heroes) can be found here, here, and here.

David Duke Sort of Endorses Ralph Nader

2008-08-03T09:45:00.007-05:00

From the Jackson, MS, Clarion-Ledger:

In a telephone interview from Italy, Duke called Obama a "black racist" endorsed by communists and predicted if Obama wins "it will absolutely change politics forever. European Americans will realize we've lost the foundation of our country."

The former Klansman said he'd been told by others that if Obama becomes president it "paves the way for David Duke as president."

Asked if he'll vote for McCain, Duke replied, "No way. I'm not going to vote for somebody I consider a traitor to our American heritage."

Duke cited McCain's support for the war and immigration as reasons he opposes him. "If I were going to vote, it would probably be third party," he said. "I would probably vote for Ralph Nader."

Full article

Louisiana As I Have Seen It, Part I

2008-08-03T00:05:00.004-05:00

Memorial Tower at LSU.

I'm very keen on photography. I have been since I was a boy. I've decided to post some of my favorite photographs that I've taken in Louisiana. Some will come from my photo blog (which I still update occasionally) and others will come from the various shoeboxes, scrapbooks, and folders in which I keep most of my pictures.

DuBos and B.A.N. on Fahrenholtz

2008-08-02T21:40:00.002-05:00

Clancy DuBos reports that Jimmy Fahrenholtz will be pursuing his case in federal court.

Ballot Access News also has a followup post on the Fahrenholtz case.

Louisiana Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Fahrenholtz Case

2008-08-02T07:19:00.002-05:00

According to the Times-Picayune, the state Supreme Court has declined to hear Jimmy Fahrenholtz's appeal.

I don't know whether Fahrenholtz is planning to pursue his case in federal court, which is where it really should have been anyway. It's an interesting case that should have had a better resolution. If his case does ultimately fail, it will probably be because of mistakes that were made in the handling of this specific case. Constitutional law was heavily on Fahrenholtz's side.

Uncle Joe, Il Duce, Der Fuehrer, and The Kingfish

2008-07-31T22:17:00.004-05:00

A few years ago I found this image of the great dictators of the '30s. I can't remember where I found it. I know it was online, but I don't think I knew its ultimate origins even then.

Anyway, I like it.

I don't understand why Huey's pulling a toy horse, though. Is that a Long reference I'm not getting or is it just part of the Napoleonic setting?

Also, why are Huey and Hitler portrayed as being so much shorter than Stalin and Mussolini? I'm pretty sure that's ahistorical. If Huey were really a dwarf, I think I would have heard about it.

I guess Huey is supposed to be a child compared to the others. Maybe that's what the toy horse is about.

I just noticed a morbid coincidence: Three of these men died from gunshots.

Huey was assassinated, Mussolini was executed, and Hitler committed suicide.

Sic semper tyrannis, I guess, except that good ol' Stalin, who was the bloodiest of the bunch, died of natural causes (officially, anyway).

UPDATE ON THE ORIGINS OF THIS IMAGE: It's titled Impossible Interviews- No. 18: Herr Adolf Hitler and Huey S. "Hooey" Long versus Josef Stalin and Benito Mussolini. It was painted by the Mexican caricaturist Miguel Covarrubias and published in the June 1933 issue of Vanity Fair.

Fahrenholtz Appeals Election Case To Louisiana Supreme Court

2008-07-29T16:03:00.003-05:00

According to Ballot Access News, Fahrenholtz has filed his writ application, but the state Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear his case.

Dual Redundancy

2008-07-29T00:12:00.000-05:00

Earlier this month Jeffrey at Library Chronicles wondered whether U.S. Rep. Bill Jefferson might “pull a Lieberman” and run for the Second District House seat as an independent if he failed to win the Democratic primary. It’s too late for that to happen since the qualifying period for both those options ended on July 11, but Jeffrey’s question lead me to another one: Could Jefferson have qualified as a candidate in the September 6 Democratic primary and as an independent candidate in the November 4 general election?

Louisiana has a law which bans dual candidacy:

RS 18:453 Dual candidacy

A. General prohibitions. A person shall not become a candidate in any primary, first party or second party primary or general election for more than one office unless one of the offices is membership on a political party committee, nor shall a person be a candidate at the same time for two or more different offices to be filled at separate elections.

B. Unexpired and succeeding term of office. A person may become a candidate in a primary or first or second party primary election or general election for the unexpired and the succeeding term of an office when both terms are to be filled at the same election.

C. Political party committees. A person may become a candidate in any primary or general election for membership on more than one committee of a political party, but a person may only become a candidate for one position, either at-large or from a political subdivision, on the same committee of a political party.

First, this law does not really apply to the Bill Jefferson dual Democrat/independent scenario described above, unless the Democratic nomination and the office of U.S. Representative are two different offices.

Second, I’m not sure that law could apply to candidates for federal offices. If it would add a substantive qualification to those that appear in the Qualification Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, then it could not be applied.

However, two other state laws that deal specifically with qualifying for Congressional elections would probably make the above scenario impossible.

RS 18:1275.3(B) says, "A person who desires to become a candidate in the first party primary election must be affiliated with a recognized political party. A person may qualify as a candidate only in the first party primary election of the party with which he is affiliated as shown on his voter registration."

RS 18:1275.17(A) says, "Any person desiring to become a candidate in a general election who is not registered as being affiliated with a recognized political party shall file his notice of candidacy which shall be accompanied by either a ballot access petition or by the qualifying fee required for state candidates as provided in R.S. 18:464."

Since Jefferson would have to be a registered Democrat to qualify for the Democratic primary and "not registered as being affiliated with a recognized political party" to qualify directly for the general election, I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up for an incredibly bizarre 2010 election.

However, if Jefferson is still around then and wants some electoral insurance and/or a place in election law history, he could argue that when 18:1275.17 says "a candidate in a general election who is not registered as being affiliated with a recognized political party," it refers only to the candidate's desired partisan label on the ballot, not to the voter affiliation of the person who is running. (I doubt that argument would win, but I like throwing in every argument that has any chance at all.)

For a less surreal (though, probably, less likely) scenario that could challenge Louisiana's dual candidacy law's application to federal candidates, let us ask what would happen if Barack Obama chose Mary Landrieu as his vice presidential running mate. Would Louisiana’s law against dual candidacy mean that she would have to withdraw from this year’s U.S. Senate race in order to appear elsewhere on the November 4 ballot as a vice presidential candidate? Does a state have the power to restrict federal candidacies in that way?

Even if the courts allowed Louisiana’s dual candidacy ban to be applied to federal elections, Landrieu could argue that a presidential or vice presidential candidate is not really a “candidate” for purposes of the Louisiana law, since the voters are actually electing a slate of presidential electors.

That interpretation, though, raises another question: Could a Louisianan run for Congress and for presidential elector at the same time? (I know that the U.S. Constitution says that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector,” but it does not say that a person who has been elected to one of those Congressional offices but has not yet taken office cannot serve as a presidential elector.)

I suppose you could claim that the position of presidential elector is not really an "office" since it is so temporary.

In that case, what if someone wanted to run for U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative at the same time? Could state law stop that?

What if a person wanted to run for two different U.S. House seats at the same time?

What if he wanted to run for all of his state's U.S. House seats at the same time?

Tidmore on Fahrenholtz

2008-07-28T17:18:00.005-05:00

Christopher Tidmore of The Louisiana Weekly has written a very good article about the effect that Jimmy Fahrenholtz's departure from the Second District Congressional race would have on the Democratic primary.

There are some points, though, that should be clarified.

Tidmore writes:

"Filing documents for the race ask whether there are outstanding fines owed. Technically, as Fahrenholtz has argued, this question is directed at federal accounts. A candidate for Congress must maintain a separate campaign account for his federal election; cannot transfer any resources from his state account or use his state account to aide his race; and he answers to the Federal Election Commission, not the Louisiana State Board of Ethics. All campaign documents go to the FEC, for example."

The argument that a Congressional candidate is only required to affirm that he does not owe any fines from federal campaigns is an interesting one, but there's no basis for that argument in the state statute, the qualifying form, the U.S. Constitution, or the case law. However, that's not really the issue in the Fahrenholtz case.

Also, the filing documents do not actually "ask" whether there are outstanding fines owed. If they did, then Fahrenholtz could have simply answered "yes." Part of the problem is the fact that it is impossible to sign the required form without affirming that all the statements on it (even the ones that are not legally relevant) are true.

Tidmore continues:

"Houma attorney Conrad S.P Williams III alleged in his lawsuit that the state sets the qualifications for Congressional candidates. If state law requires fines to be paid, then Louisiana law can be used as a justification to jettison a congressional candidate from a contest."

There's no doubt that states do not have the constitutional authority to set the qualifications for Congressional candidates. That's been well established. The question is whether the requirement that candidates not owe any campaign finance fines is a "qualification."

If so, then it's unconstitutional.

Of course, state law could still require that the fines be paid; it just couldn't use the non-payment of these fines as the basis for disqualifying someone from the Congressional ballot.

Fahrenholtz Case Discussed at Ballot Access News

2008-07-26T11:38:00.003-05:00

Here's the story.

State Appeals Court Upholds Fahrenholtz's Disqualification

2008-07-25T18:39:00.006-05:00

In a 5-to-5 decision, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal has affirmed the trial court's disqualification of Jimmy Fahrenholtz from the Second District Congressional race. The opinion can be found here. The dissents can be found here and here. Since the court could not render a majority decree, the decree was issued in a separate per curiam opinion.

The court ruled that the state's ban on Congressional candidacy by people who owe campaign finance fines does not add a substantial qualification for Congressional candidates. Instead, they likened the ban to the "times, places, and manner" restrictions which states may enact for Congressional elections. They quoted U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that “[s]tates are entitled to adopt ‘generally applicable and evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself.’”

However, the "times, places, and manner" restrictions and the sorts of restrictions condoned in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. are nothing like Louisiana's ban on candidacy by people who owe campaign finance fines. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. (immediately after the quote cited in the Fourth Circuit's ruling), the Supreme Court gave examples of "generally applicable and evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself" and which had been approved by the Court previously. Here's the full quotation (I've removed the citations in order to make it more readable, but they can be found in the full text):

States are thus entitled to adopt "generally applicable and evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself." For example, in Storer v. Brown, the case on which petitioners place principal reliance, we upheld the validity of certain provisions of the California Election Code. In so doing, we emphasized the States' interest in having orderly, fair, and honest elections "rather than chaos." We also recognized the "States' strong interest in maintaining the integrity of the political process by preventing interparty raiding," and explained that the specific requirements applicable to independents were "expressive of a general state policy aimed at maintaining the integrity of the various routes to the ballot." In other cases, we have approved the States' interests in avoiding "voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, or the presence of frivolous candidacies," in "seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently," and in "guard[ing] against irregularity and error in the tabulation of votes." In short, we have approved of state regulations designed to ensure that elections are "`fair and honest and . . . [that] some sort of order, rather than chaos, . . . accompan[ies] the democratic processes.'"

Clearly, the Supreme Court was talking about procedural restrictions necessary to conduct elections in an orderly and fair manner. They were not talking about bans on particular classes of candidates.

They went on to say:

The provisions at issue in Storer and our other Elections Clause cases were thus constitutional because they regulated election procedures and did not even arguably impose any substantive qualification rendering a class of potential candidates ineligible for ballot position. They served the state interest in protecting the integrity and regularity of the election process, an interest independent of any attempt to evade the constitutional prohibition against the imposition of additional qualifications for service in Congress. And they did not involve measures that exclude candidates from the ballot without reference to the candidates' support in the electoral process. Our cases upholding state regulations of election procedures thus provide little support for the contention that a state-imposed ballot access restriction is constitutional when it is undertaken for the twin goals of disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clauses.

The Fourth Circuit court claimed that the Louisiana statute in question was a constitutionally-allowed restriction because it "enforces legitimate state interests in governing campaign finance and a duty to protect the integrity of the political process."

I can understand the connection they're trying to make between campaign finance law and "fair and honest" elections, but this sort of ban is far outside the scope of the procedural restrictions that the Supreme Court was talking about.

The Supremes were approving state measures aimed at making sure that the ACTUAL BALLOTING was done in a fair and orderly way. They were not saying that ANY law aimed at reforming the political culture was okay.

The Louisiana court was just wrong on this matter. I am relieved to see how close the decision was. Judge Tobias' opinion (especially his analysis of how Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton apply to the Fahrenholtz case) should have carried the day.

Fahrenholtz has said that he intends to seek reinstatement of his candidacy by a federal court. As Clancy DuBos has pointed out, this case should have already been removed to federal court, since it deals with a federal question.

No Statewide Primaries Yet

2008-07-25T15:54:00.005-05:00

Jacques Boudreaux's withdrawal from the U.S. Senate race's Republican primary earlier this week means that Louisianans will have to wait at least two more years (barring some unforeseen vacancy) before we hold a statewide primary under the "new" closed primary electoral system.

While the November 4 ballot for the Senate race is now set, there will still be Democratic primaries in the First, Second, and Fourth U.S. House Districts and Republican primaries in the Fourth and Fifth Districts. None of the state's other three recognized parties will be holding primaries, though there is one Green and one Libertarian in the Second District race and one Libertarian in the Senate race. The Reform Party (whose state organization seems to be dormant) didn't take advantage of their ballot line in any of Louisiana's Congressional races this year.

Those three parties are really missing an opportunity.

For example, if the Louisiana Libertarians had fielded two Senatorial candidates instead of one, then there would be a Libertarian primary for that race scheduled for September 6. Since that would now be the only statewide primary being held on that date, it would have brought a lot of attention to the party. The media would have certainly reported on that race, if for no other reasons than its novelty and the lack of other electoral news.

More importantly, since that primary would have been open to both registered Libertarians and voters who aren't affiliated with a recognized party and since it would have been the only option Louisiana voters had to cast ballots in the Senate race prior to the November general election, the Libertarians could have gotten lots of people used to voting for Libertarian candidates.

Even if that primary race had just been a friendly public discussion between the candidates about Libertarian ideals, it would have had PR value worth much more than the second candidate's $600 qualifying fee.

Instead, Richard Fontanesi will likely stay in the background with the "other" and "no party" candidates on the general election ballot.

Oh, well. There's still two years to recruit candidates for the 2010 Senate race.

Grace on Fahrenholtz

2008-07-24T21:24:00.012-05:00

In her article on Jimmy Fahrenholtz's recent disqualification from the 2nd District Congressional race, Stephanie Grace of the Times-Picayune writes:

"Fahrenholtz, citing a separate, seemingly unrelated provision that exempts Congressional candidates, says he'll appeal."

I assume that the "separate, seemingly unrelated provision" that she's talking about is the language in RS 18:463A.(2)(a) (which corresponds to the second part of Clause 6 on Louisiana's generic candidate qualifying form) which says that a candidate must certify "...that he acknowledges that he is subject to the provisions of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (R.S. 18:1481 et seq.) if he is a candidate for any office other than United States senator, representative in congress, or member of a committee of a political party...."

That provision truly is unrelated to the problem that got Fahrenholtz disqualified. If it were the only basis of his appeal, then the appeal would surely fail. Instead, he should cite U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton in which the U.S. Supreme Court said:

Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.

Grace also criticizes Fahrenholtz for failing to follow campaign finance laws:

"Sure, there are plenty of worse things a politician can do. Fahrenholtz isn't accused of soliciting bribes, as the man he hoped to unseat, incumbent William Jefferson, is. And he's not accused of taking them, as former school board colleague Ellenese Brooks-Simms has admitted doing, from Jefferson's brother Mose, no less.

But that doesn't absolve Fahrenholtz of his utter indifference toward the law. At the very least, someone who wants to be put in charge of making the rules should show enough respect to follow them."

She's right. It's generally a bad thing for politicians to be indifferent to the law. However, she missed the much more egregious example of such behavior in this case: Louisiana state officials' disregard of the United States Constitution.

LRC Blog references the Winnfield Taser homocide

2008-07-24T20:58:00.009-05:00

Manuel Lora calls it a murder.

Jimmy Fahrenholtz disqualified from 2nd District Congressional race

2008-07-22T20:01:00.005-05:00

"Jimmy Fahrenholtz has been disqualified from the 2nd Congressional District race, according to Jacques Berry from the La. Sec. of State office.

Fahrenholtz, a Orleans Parish School Board member, said on qualification papers that he did not have any outstanding campaign finance fines from running for school board, however the judge found he does have fines still out against him."

Full article

Fahrenholtz's disqualification presents an interesting legal question. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that the U.S. Constitution's lists of qualifications for members of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate are exclusive. States cannot add to them. For example, a state may not prohibit a convicted felon (even one who is currently incarcerated) from running for Congress, so long as he or she meets the requirements set forth in Article One.

For U.S. Representatives, those requirements are:
1. Be at least 25 years old.
2. Have been a U.S. citizen for at least 7 years.
3. At the time of the election, be an inhabitant of the state from which he or she is chosen.

If states cannot legally prohibit convicted felons from running for Congress, it does not seem like they could prohibit people who owe campaign finance fines from running for Congress, either. (Please note that Louisiana can place such restrictions on state and local candidates.)

From the news stories I've read, it's not really clear whether Fahrenholtz was disqualified simply because he owed the fines or because he falsely stated on his qualifying form that he did not owe any such fines. If the latter is the reason, then the case might be more difficult.

However, he may still argue that the fault lies with the qualifying form itself.

The current qualifying form provided by the Louisiana Secretary of State contains the following clause:

6. I do not owe any outstanding fines, fees, or penalties pursuant to the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, and I acknowledge that I am subject to the provisions of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act if I am a candidate for any office other than United States Senator, Representative in Congress, or member of a committee of a political party. [R.S. 18:463A(2)(a), 18:1481, et seq.]

A candidate does not have the option of marking "yes" or "no" to the above statement. It is merely listed on the form along with several other statements, the last of which is:

10. I meet the qualifications of the office for which I am qualifying; I have read this Notice of Candidacy; and all of the statements contained in it are true and correct. [R.S. 18:463A.(2)]

By signing the form, the candidate is affirming that all the foregoing statements are true. He has no way of saying that some are true and some are not, but that the untrue ones are irrelevant to his legal qualifications as a candidate.

If the state's ban on candidacy by people who owe campaign finance fines cannot be constitutionally applied to U.S. Congressional candidates, then there is an obvious problem. Even though there is no valid law to stop a person who owes such fines from running for Congress, the qualifying form provided by the Secretary of State's office is an obstacle that achieves that same result.

Fahrenholtz might argue that the form itself is invalid because it seeks to add to the Constitution's qualifications for Congressional candidates.

Such a case would also help any convicted felons who want to run for Congress in Louisiana. The current qualifying form also contains the following clause:

9. I am not currently under an order of imprisonment for conviction of a felony, and I am not prohibited from qualifying as a candidate for conviction of a felony pursuant to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of Louisiana. [R.S. 18:463A.(2)]

The first part of that clause is clearly unconstitutional if applied to Congressional elections, but no imprisoned felon could complete the required form without being made into a liar. The second part of the clause is vague enough that it probably doesn't matter. A convicted felon isn't "prohibited from qualifying as a candidate...pursuant to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of Louisiana" since that part of the state's constitution cannot be applied to U.S. Congressional candidates.

There is a simple way that the Secretary of State could avoid this problem. He could provide one qualifying form (like the current one) for state and local candidates and another qualifying form (without the unconstitutional verbiage) for candidates for U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator.

In the Secretary of State's defense, RS 18:463A.(2)(a) would (if it were not partially unconstitutional) require the current, flawed form.