Voting in America

The first and last thing to take away from Chapter 9 as it concerns the AP Government exam is this...
Americans don't vote. (See Table 9-1 on p.315 and Table 9-1 on p.316 for evidence)

Reasons people tend not to vote
- not informed on the issues
- negative campaigning
- rational ignorance effect
- poor efficacy

Ideas for increasing voter turnout
- easing registration requirements
- move voting days
- allow for online voting

Then there is the issue of the electoral college
Read p. 329-332 for a better understanding of the electoral college


What follows is a narrative on running for public office. It addresses campaigning and voting.
Enjoy.

-------

So you want to run for public office. Great! We need good people in public service.
First, you need to organize a campaign. Campaigning is all about getting your message out.

How do you do that? 

Locally: door-to-door. Regionally/Nationally: travel and radio/tv ads
You also need staff, unless you plan to do the whole thing yourself. Oh, and you also need some 'bling' to help spread the word and get your name out there. You know...buttons, bumper stickers, yard signs.

Wait...this sounds like its going to cost some money.

Why, yes it is. Luckily, you can go out there and get people to donate funds to your campaign.

Sweet. I'll just find a really rich guy to cut me a check.

Not so fast. There are rules regarding fundraising. They are called campaign finance laws and they put certain limits on raising money for campaigns. Money donated directly to an individual campaign is known as hard money and is limited in the amount that can be donated. Money donated to a political party or political action committee however is known as soft money and has far fewer limits on it.

So you're saying I can get around it. And by the way, isn't limiting the ability to donate money to a political campaign a violation of the 1st amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?

Whoa there big fella! If you want to get into laws and Supreme Court case law on campaign financing, why don't you look up McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, Buckley v Valeo, and the Citizens United case. But aside from that let's move this campaign train down the track.

Once you are organized, you have to formally nominate yourself for elected office. This involves paperwork and either a filing fee or getting a requisite number of signatures in support of your candidacy.

Sounds easy enough.

What? You think you're the only one? There will probably be multiple candidates you choose to run. Probably multiple candidates within your own party. That is, unless your seeking a position on a non-partisan governing body.

A what?

Nevermind. Let's move on. You're going to need to devote some of your resources to winning your party nomination. This is usually done one of two ways. Through a party caucus or a primary election. Most primary elections are direct primaries in which the voters select the candidate.

How do I convince them I am the best candidate?

Well, you need to know who you are talking to. Who is choosing the candidate? Is it all potential voters, which happens in an open primary? Or is it a closed primary in which only registered voters of your party choose who they want to represent the party in the big general election? Obviously, in a closed primary, you need to speak the language of the party faithful and the hardcore base of the party to win their support. In an open primary, you would want to be more moderate and attractive to as many potential voters as possible.

Seems like there is a lot of strategy. 

You bet. You'll probably want to hire a professional for that.

Spend more money??!

Yep. Welcome to politics. If you are good enough to be able to win the party primary, then you must prepare for the general election against the chosen candidate of the other party. And now you really have to appeal to as many possible voters as you can. And really get the message out.

So be more moderate and spend more money?

Now you've got it! Keep in mind that the objective is just to get a plurality of support. That means, just get more votes than everyone else running for that position and you win. You don't even have to get over 50%. Just the plurality. Try and convince them early though. Because while most people will simply go to the polling location for their precinct on election day, a good number of people choose to vote early and some vote absentee.

So I should get out the moderate message of who I am and what changes I am going to bring into office early and often? And that's the key to winning elected office?

If only it were that simple. Even those who do that the best won't win. That's because voter behavior is a beast. The 1st thing to keep in mind is that most Americans don't bother to vote.

What? Why? This is America, isn't it? Why wouldn't they vote?

As Americans, we are fat, dumb, lazy, and happy. We would rather sit on the couch eating Doritos while we watch stuff blow up than actually get off of the couch and go down the precinct polling place to cast a vote.

That's terrible.

God bless America. No...really... God bless America. We believe in individual liberty so much, we're not even going to make you vote. Vote; don't vote; what business is that of the government? So long as you play by the rules.

What are the rules of voting?

Well, you have to be 18, a citizen of the state you are going to vote in, and you have to be registered to vote by the deadline before that election. Unless you are in North Dakota, where you don't even have to registered.

Why don't you have to be registered in North Dakota?

I don't know. Probably because there are only like ten guys named Hank and a couple of moose living in the whole state so if someone drops by and wants to vote, they're glad to have the company. Its cold up there.

Okay then.

So even if someone is registered and actually gets off their couch to go and vote, then you have to deal with the human element of voting. Despite the message that you have been trying to get out, voters rely heavily on a few things that influence their voting patterns. Party identification, their own views on the issues, your background and their background. Can they relate to you? Do they feel like you understand the issues that are important to them? Even if they think you do, some people are single-issue voters and your stance on one issue can cause them not to vote for you even though they really like everything else about you. And then there is your party. There are some people who will vote for, literally, anybody so long as their is a blue-D or a red-R next to their name. It doesn't matter what you say. They won't vote for you. You could be facing a goat in a hockey jersey in this election and they would vote for the goat because the goat represents their party.

So why do we do this?

Because of the opportunity to serve your community and to try and make things better for people. Look, elections can be rough. Negative campaigns win. People don't get registered on time and they don't vote. Money seems to have undue influence. Its enough to make anyone cynical. But campaigns and elections inform the voters and allow them to express their views on what should be done for society. That is the essence of the democratic process.

Alright then....let's do this.

Political Parties

Political parties lay claim to different areas along the political spectrum. From the extreme left to the extreme right and all points in between. The most successful parties are those that are able to lay claim to the most space on the political spectrum, thereby, appealing to the highest number of possible voters.

When the Constitution was written, there were no political parties in the United States. There were, however, ideological factions. While the Framers knew there was no way to avoid faction (see Federalist No.10) , Washington feared that organized parties would, well....., read for yourself above.

One thing the Framers did not anticipate was the fact that organized parties would be created so quickly. The creation of the two-party system was a natural reaction to the electoral system of the United States of America; a winner-take-all system. 

Two-party systems aren't the only way to operate though. 

There are One-party systems (China, Cuba) and there are Multi-party systems (India, Italy)

There are five functions that political parties in America serve according to the text.

- Recruit candidates for public office

- Organize and run elections

- Present alternative policies to the electorate

- Accept responsibility for operating government

- Act as organized opposition to the party in power

Each political party has its own hierarchy and structure. (precinct -> ward -> county -> state -> national)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz - Chair - DNC

Reince Priebus - Chair - RNC

The good and the bad of political parties:

- limits extremism

- provide stability

- build consensus

- identifiable 'brand'

- can't fulfill all promises

- big party contributors hold overwhelming influence

- gridlock

Trends in party politics in America

- Americans tend to prefer divided government

- Americans have trended towards ticket-splitting more often as of late

- There has been a cycle created between political polarization and 'safe seats'

While 3rd parties never win in America, there are few things to note about 3rd parties.

- the limited success of third parties (Table 8-1 on p.302)

- circumstances of the time create the need for a third party (Table 8-2 on p.303)

- strong personalities can be the catalyst that creates splinter parties from a traditional party

Interest Groups

Who are interest groups and what do they do?
  association of people who hold similar views and/or goals
- interest groups organize people
    organize letter writing campaigns, demonstrations
- interest groups encourage and provide means for political participation
     GOTV campaigns, group engagement in political dialogue, "checkbook participation"
- interest groups supply information to the public and to policy makers
     spreading literature, lobbying Congress, informative advertisements

The Iron Triangle

Why do Americans join interest groups?
- solidary incentives (sense of belonging to a group)
- material incentives (economic benefit or opportunity)
- purposive incentives (strong belief in the cause)


Various types of interest groups:
Economic Interests
- agricultural interests
   National Potato Council, Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
- business interests
    US Chamber of Commerce, American Wind Energy Association
- labor interests
    United Auto Workers
- cause-based interests
    Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Texans for Life Coalition
- societal interests
    American Association of Retired Persons, National Organization for Women
- professional interests
    American Medical Association, American Bar Association
Environmental Interests
Foreign Interests

What interest groups do:
- endorse candidates
- lobby elected officials (note section on lobbyists on p.267-268 of the text)
- inform the public
- file lawsuits

What they don't do:
- donate money to political campaigns
   Political Action Committees (PACs) are created for the purpose of raising money and contributing money to candidates for their campaigns

What makes an interest group effective?
- size and resources
- effective leadership
- cohesiveness

The good and the bad of interest groups:
- give a voice to minority political interests
- too much influence
- emotional, narrowly-focused interest vs. good of the country

Public Opinion, Political Socialization, and the Media

The content that follows corresponds with Chapters 6 and 11 in the text.

Public opinion
    collection of views shared by a segment of society on issues of interest or concern

Who is 'the public'?
   - the totality of the populace
      i.e. - all Americans
     often opinions of this grouping are led by the actions of leaders

           

        --or--

           

   - smaller public groups
      i.e. - female Americans; black Americans
     often opinions of these groups drive the public agenda








Why do we care about their opinions?
   public opinion helps shape public policy in the United States

How do we know the opinions of 'the public'?
  - writing letters to elected officials
  - speaking at a public hearing
  - public organizations
  - voting trends
  - public opinion polls


Political socialization
  the process by which people acquire their political beliefs

Influences on an individual's political socialization
- family
- peer group (school/work)
- age
- race
- gender
- religion
- socio-economic status

(See Table 6-1 on p.219 of the text)


Impact of the media on public beliefs and opinion
- covers political happenings
- monitors and shapes public agenda by way of what it covers (and doesn't cover)

Function of media in America
- entertain
- report the news
- identify public problems
- socialize new generations
- provide a political forum
- make profit*

Media used to be small. Now we have mass media.
Media used to be openly biased. Then objective journalism was en vogue. Today, shaded journalism.
News agencies used to engage in broadcasting. Now they engage in narrowcasting.

Common criticism of the media
- bias in reporting
- bias in story selection
- factual inaccuracy
- media consolidation


Measuring public opinion through polling
Straw polls have been used for years to gauge public opinion.
For an accurate measure of public opinion, one must conduct a scientific poll. This is done by:
- determining your sample universe
- selecting an appropriate-sized random sample
- using carefully crafted, non-leading questions
- measuring results and determining the margin of error (roughly 3-4% is acceptable)

Civil Rights

The right for all people to have fair and equal treatment under the law. The Constitutional basis for civil rights case law is found in the 1st, 5th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

Topics in civil rights:

- equal protection clause
   Amendment XIV: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws 

   As we have said, this becomes the basis for the incorporation of civil liberties and civil rights to all people in all jurisdictions throughout the United States. This is why the government cannot discriminate. Or can it??


- basis for acceptable discrimination
  The courts have determined that there are acceptable times when the government can make a reasonable distinction between people. Therefore, the government can discriminate. However, if the government is going to discriminate, the Court will review the discrimination using one of three tests.
     - Rational Basis Test
              Are reasonable methods used to accomplish a legitimate goal of government? 
              ( Example: age limits on driving)
     - Intermediate Scrutiny Test
             Same question but often with cases involving gender discrimination
             ( US v Virginia ) ( Example: selective service )
     - Strict Scrutiny Test
              Same question but: 1) a fundamental right is being restricted     and 2) involves race/origin
              ( Korematsu v US )  ( Loving v Virginia )


- segregation (de facto & de jure)
    Segregation was the law in many states throughout the south from the post-Reconstruction era through the mid 20th Century. These statutes were referred to as Jim Crow laws and constitute what we call segregation de jure (segregation by way of law). These laws were upheld, even by the courts, until the 1950's. While segregation de jure started to be repealed by way of Court rulings and Congressional acts of the 50's and 60's, certain economic and social facts remained and left us with segregation de facto (segregation as a matter of fact).


- Civil Rights Act of 1964
    The most sweeping legislation that addressed the issue of civil rights in the United States. The major provisions of the act were as follows (laid out on p.178 of the text) :
 1) outlawed arbitrary discrimination in voter registration
 2) barred discrimination in public accommodations whose operations affect interstate commerce
 3) authorized federal govt to sue to desegregate public schools and facilities
 4) expanded power of Civil Rights Commission and extended its life
 5) provided for withholding of federal funds from programs administered in discriminatory way
 6) established right to equality of opportunity in employment
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act became cornerstone of employment discrimination law.


- Plessy & Brown
    Plessy v Ferguson  - established the doctrine of 'separate but equal' as precedent
    Brown v Board of Education  - determined that 'separate but equal' was inherently not equal


- extending equal protection
    To women:
      Equal Pay Act of 1963
      Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
      Meritor Savings v Vinson
 
    To Hispanics:
       Hernandez v Texas
       Voting Rights Act of 1975

     To the disabled:
        Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

     To gays/lesbians:
        reversal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
        US v Windsor
        

- affirmative action
   What is affirmative action?
     Policies whereby institutions and employers provide opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups
   What is the government and Court opinion on affirmative action?
      President Johnson's Executive Order #11246 (1965)
      Regents of the University of California v Bakke
      Johnson v Transportation Agency
      Gratz v Bollinger
      Fisher v University of Texas

      

Civil Liberties

Instead of making multiple posts, I have included the entire topic of civil liberties in this one posting. It is long, but since it is all so related, I find it appropriate.

Remember the ratification battle for the Constitution and the demand that Antifederalists had for "guarantees" of their liberties. This battle, of course, produced the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights - 1st ten amendment to the Constitution; protect civil liberties and civil rights

Civil liberties
   freedom to think and act protected from government abuse
      - regards personal actions in eyes of government
      - protected from abuse; can be limited

Civil rights
   right of fair and equal status/treatment for all people
      - regards status as person in eyes of government
      - right of fair treatment; much more difficult to limit

Bill of Rights

Civil liberties are the most litigated part of the Constitution. Since the Constitution is somewhat gray by nature, the openness to interpretation that many of the amendments exhibit leave it wide open to challenges over intent and application. The heart of these amendments are the liberties of the individual people. But what if they contradict? What if one person exercising their liberties interferes with another person exercising theirs? Or with the government attempting to carry out its responsibilities?

Where do your liberties end and mine begin?

This is why the study of civil liberties and civil rights is wrapped up in case law.

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with the Bill of Rights?

The 14th is how the Bill of Rights becomes applicable to the states. Prior to the 14th, they only apply to citizens of the United States, not the individual states. 

Read 14th Amendment

 - citizenship clause

 - due process clause

 - equal protection clause

Again, it is up to individuals to challenge institutions if they feel that their rights or liberties are being violated. Because of the 14th, the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states on a case-by-case basis. This is the process of selective incorporation.

(See Table 4-1 on p.125 to see the incorporation process.)

The most cherished and argued about Amendment to the Constitution is the 1st Amendment.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Religion:
The Constitution does not say anything about 'separation of church & state'. That phrase is taken from a writing of Jefferson  in which he said that he believed that the 1st Amendment created "a wall of separation between Church and State". What the Constitution does say, and what the federal court system has been tasked with interpreting regarding religion is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (establishment clause) nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof  (free exercise clause)
Establishment clause:
  Lynch v Donnelly
  McCreary County v ACLU
  Van Orden v Perry
  Everson v Board of Education
  Engel v Vitale
  Lemon V Kurtzman
  Wallace v Jaffree
Free exercise clause:
  Reynolds v US
  Minersville School District v Gobitis
  WV State Board of Ed v Barnette
  Wisconsin v Yoder

Speech & Press:
Congress cannot make a law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. But, again, that is not absolute. There are limits. The Court has traditionally protected individuals from defamation by way of slander (spoken) and libel (print). The Court has also traditionally protected the government in its attempts to prevent treason and sedition.
Speech:
  Schenck v US
  Whitney v California
  Brandenburg v Ohio
Press:
  New York Times Co v Sullivan
  Reno v ACLU
  Near v Minnesota
  New York Times Co v US
Symbolic Speech:
  Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District
  Texas v Johnson

Assembly & Petition:
Congress cannot abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The people also have the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. (Hence, all of those lobbyists people love to hate are legit)
  DeJonge v Oregon
  Edwards v South Carolina
  NAACP v Alabama


Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The Right to Bear Arms:
  US v Miller
  Heller v Washington DC










Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Protection Against Unreasonable Search & Seizure
  - law enforcement must have a warrant or probable cause to search and/or seize
  - "plain view" doctrine
  - evidence obtained via a warrantless search is subject to the exclusionary rule
  - electronic communications have been determined by the Court to be a person's "papers"
  - civil liberties of students are even more limited

Search & Seizure:
  Arizona v Hicks
  Weeks v US
  Mapp v Ohio
  Olmstead v US
  Katz v US
  New Jersey v TLO
  Board of Ed of Pottawatomie Co v Earls


Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

- Grand Jury cluase
- double jeopardy clause
- self-incrimination clause
- due process clause
- eminent domain clause

Due Process:
 Federal government cannot deprive person of life, liberty, or property with the due process of law
substantive due process v procedural due process
procedural due process - correct procedures must be followed (can't make it up as you go)
substantive due process - the laws themselves must be fair
Due process can be denied if the state has a compelling case for it.
  Mackey v Montrym

The 'Right to Privacy'
Like 'separation of church and state', this does not exist as text in the Constitution. However, the Court has upheld its belief that Americans have a right to privacy through their interpretation of the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.
  Olmstead v US
  Griswold v Connecticut
  Roe v Wade
  Planned Parenthood v Casey

The Rights of the accused
Even is charged with an offense, the accused still have certain rights that are retained.
  Miranda v Arizona
  Gideon v Wainwright
  Furman v Georgia
  Gregg v Georgia


Finally, civil liberties terms that are good to know. What do these terms refer to in the context of civil liberties and the Courts interpretation/application thereof?
  exclusionary rule
  lemon test
  clear & present danger test
  bad tendency rule

The Supreme Court

Procedure of the Supreme Court

- October - June/July

- prepare for block of cases, hear block of cases, decide and write opinions on block of cases (rinse, lather, repeat)

- law clerks do tremendous amounts of work for justices

- Court decides which cases it will hear during term (original and appellate)

- Justices must decide which appeals they want to take up (rule of 4)

- Court grants certiorari to cases it will hear

- Justices prepare by reading case briefs, studying law, researching and reviewing precedent

- Court may consult amicus briefs in preparation for oral arguments

- Oral arguments before the Court (30 minutes per side); Justices pepper with questions

- Justices meet behind closed doors to review/discuss case

- Chief Justice assigns duty of writing majority (if not unanimous) and dissenting opinions

- Many justices often offer concurring opinions

- Court opinions are detailed legal explanations of reasoning for the decision that was reached

- Opinions of case become part of Court precedent

                         

The process of appointing a Supreme Court nominee is the same as what we have examined before regarding judicial appointments. However, the harshness of the critique of the nominee is much greater.

- legal expertise

- party affiliation

- judicial philosophy

- acceptability to Senate

All of these are unofficial requirements to be a justice of the Supreme Court. There are no formal qualifications. But because of the scrutiny of being appointed to the highest court in the land, the Senate is usually much more deliberate about confirming a nominee.(See Table 15-1 on p.532 for background on 112 recent justices of the Court) 

Confirmation hearing of Justice Elena Kagan