Friday, January 20, 2012
Correcting Roll Call: No, Carnahan was Not "Tipping His Hand"
The "I'm not trying to be flippant" is a clue that the aide knew that the question wasn't actually being answered. According to Missouri law, Carnahan could move to a new district and run there, so "running where he lives" doesn't really mean much. And this has been confirmed in quotes from Carnahan's office who said that the quote was misinterpreted. Roll call also cites an anonymous "Missouri Democratic source" as saying that Carnahan has been "sniffing around the 1st District for a long time." I wouldn't be surprised if he's exploring his options, but please keep in mind that both Antonio French and the St. Louis American have pointed out that there are St. Louis political operatives who have a vested interest in pushing for a primary fight.
I suppose it's possible that saying he'd run "where he lives" is a way of testing out some messaging he would use if he decided to run against Clay, but reading too much into a quote from an aide who was clearly instructed not to reveal his decision would be a mistake.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
What Does the State Supreme Court Decision Mean For Carnahan?
Most people had previously assumed that Rep. Carnahan would be stuck with bad pair of options under the current map, passed by a veto proof majority when three Missouri House Democrats sold their souls to Republicans. Carnahan could either run in Congressman Lacy Clay's safe Democratic district, thus setting up a potentially bitter primary fight, or he could run in the new 2nd District which leans Republican. This dilemma has been the subject of previous discussion on this blog.
However, this court decision potentially changes the dynamics of Carnahan's choice. Though many politicos suggested that the judge might rule that a strange "teardrop" in the Kansas City area would need to be changed but not mess with Carnahan's district, the decision in fact cites the new 3rd District (which contains some previous Carnahan territory) as being problematic in addition to the 5th District in the Kansas City area. Here's the language from the summary of the ruling:
The applicable standard of review for a court in reviewing an article III, section 45 claim is the language of the constitution itself: whether the General Assembly divided Missouri into districts of “contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be. As long as the districts comply with these constitutional requirements, the circuit court shall respect the political determinations of the General Assembly and allow for minimal and practical deviations required to preserve the integrity of the existing lines of our various political subdivisions. Yet the duty to draw district lines of a contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be is one that is mandatory and objective, not subjective.I'm not a lawyer, but this language doesn't seem particularly strong to me. So it seems that while this makes it likely that the boundaries of the 3rd district will change (which will change the dynamics of Carnahan's decision, for better or worse), it doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that various districts, and the Map as a whole, violate the compactness requirement of article III, section 45. Districts 3 and 5 are alleged to be particularly suspect, as can be confirmed by any rational and objective consideration of their boundaries. However, it is a question of fact, yet to be tried, whether those districts are “as compact and nearly equal in population as may be.” Mo. Const. art. III, sec. 45 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court did rule against the claims that the new maps should be changed because they unfairly stacked the deck against Democrats. Now, they probably did stack the deck against Democrats, but unfortunately (and undemocratically if you ask me) this in itself isn't something the courts can legally take action on. From the Beacon's analysis:
But the Supreme Court said that Green was correct in dismissing some arguments -- such as the assertion that the new 3rd was crafted to curb the congressional influence of the St. Louis area and that it unfairly targeted Democrats. The critics contended that the new map leaves the statewide congressional delegation skewed improperly toward Republicans by protecting the six GOP incumbents.The court stated in its opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's "inability to state a clear standard" regarding gerrymandering has made it difficult for the state Supreme Court to make a ruling on that argument.
So there's nothing forcing the lower courts to make the districts more friendly to Carnahan. On the other hand, the Supreme Court seemed to think that the 3rd and the 5th districts would need to be redrawn. Given that the last boundary drawings were done by a hyper-partisan crowd doing whatever they could to maximizing Republican chances, any possible changes will most likely result in a somewhat better map for Carnahan. I already think he should run in the 2nd against Ann Wagner or Ed Martin, but if that district shifts a little more Democrat then the decision hopefully becomes a lot easier.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
I Agree With Antonio French (and mostly with the American) on Russ Carnahan's Options
Some people are encouraging Carnahan to run against Clay for very selfish reasons, such as to increase turnout in their own elections. A well-financed, racially charged Congressional primary fight is sure to bring out voters for lower profile races down ballot. Like the treasurer’s race, for instance. Carnahan shouldn’t allow himself to be a tool of self-serving people who care less about the Democratic Party and the principles it stands for (such as inclusion) than they do their own ambitions. And even if Carnahan squeaked out an Election Night win, he will have so divided the district and the city that there would be little to celebrate.If you recall, in late December I reached a fairly similar conclusion with different arguments.
French also links to the latest Political EYE in the St. Louis American which also argues, as I did, that Carnahan should run in the slightly Republican leaning 2nd District rather than against Clay. While I agree with much of what is said in the American, some of it is a bit perplexing. First of all, the title is "The growing isolation of Russ Carnahan," which strikes me as needlessly antagonistic. Carnahan might be somewhat isolated if he decided to run against Clay, but he hasn't decided that yet, so there's no reason to use that terminology. The EYE then goes on, I guess in support of their "isolation" thesis, to say the following:
Carnahan’s increasing isolation in this legal battle was made most painfully evident when the three judges on the Supreme Court appointed by Democratic governors – Chief Judge Rick Teitelman (appointed by Gov. Bob Holden), Judge Mary Russell (Holden) and Judge George Draper (recently appointed by Nixon) – recused themselves from the case.This claim doesn't make much sense to me. McCaskill and Nixon, as the EYE points out elsewhere, don't want a contested primary. So why would they tinker with the courts in a way to make a contested primary more likely?
If the EYE were to look suspiciously for evidence of behind-the-scene power-playing by party giants, such as Nixon or U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, this is the place to look. With these recusals, the EYE would conclude, the Missouri Democratic Party abandoned Russ Carnahan and all but doomed this legal effort to failure.
But there's one part of the EYE that I think would be an especially good lesson for Democratic activists in the St. Louis area:
Democrats, both in Missouri and nationally, who do not want to see the black base antagonized by a primary challenge to Clay have pledged Carnahan all but limitless financial support to run against Akin, the EYE is told.We need to remember that both sticks and carrots are important. Many people are spending their time telling Russ Carnahan about all of the bad things that will happen if he runs against Clay. But it's just as important for people to be committed to making good things happen if he decides to run in the 2nd. If Carnahan makes the right decision and engages the Herculean task of trying to win in the 2nd (while leaving Lacy Clay a cakewalk, and perhaps one he really doesn't deserve given the way the redistricting fight played out), then Carnahan should be rewarded with serious energy and money from St. Louis Democratic activists. He got screwed in this mess, but if he decides to do the right thing in spite of his raw deal, people should make sure that he gets the praise and support he deserves.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Jeff Smith Is Using The Wrong Sense of 'Should' And Carnahan Should Run In Missouri's 2nd District
So Carnahan shouldn't put too many eggs in his legal basket. Instead, he should be raising money and canvassing the new 1st CD.As you would expect from a Political Science professor and former State Senator, the analysis is detailed and insightful. However, the fatal flaw in Smith's argument is that he's relying on a self-interested notion of 'should' where saying that a person should do action A is equivalent to saying that A is in that person's best interest. This certainly is a common usage of the term and one used to make many decisions. However, this isn't the correct notion of 'should' for a public servant like Congressman Carnahan.
As a Congressman, Carnahan ought to be making his decisions based on a moral 'should,' where saying that someone should do action A means that A is in the best interests of the country, in the best interests of the constituents, or in the best interests of the Democratic party, or better yet, that A is the right thing to do. And on any of these senses of the word 'should,' I think it's pretty clear that Carnahan should run for office in the Republican-leaning 2nd District. Yes it would be an act of altruism, since Carnahan's chances of winning might be slightly lower in the 2nd, but it nevertheless would be the right thing to do.
In fact, one doesn't even have to stray very far from Smith's own analysis to see this is true. First, as Smith has noted, the Democratic Congressional leadership is urging Carnahan to run in the 2nd. Now, Lord knows, the Democratic Party is not always the best judge of what's in its own interest, but the fact that they think Carnahan should run in the 2nd is at least solid initial evidence that someone has crunched some numbers and decided that the best thing for the Democratic Party is to put up a good fight in the 2nd District.
Second, as Smith acknowledges, there's no clear reason to think that Carnahan winning Clay's seat would make Congress any more progressive. Here's what Smith writes:
Although I've seen both congressmen in action, I don't have a strong opinion on who would be a more progressive or effective representative.So while Carnahan might gain something by beating Clay, it's not at all clear what anyone else would gain (other than the pundits and insiders who would love to cover the race).
But finally, and most importantly, a heated primary between Clay and Carnahan could be tinged with racial acrimony and possibly jeopardize turnout in the general election. Again, here's what Smith writes:
It would be nice to have a high-minded debate about the direction of national policy in a time of gripping economic anxiety, but anyone who knows St. Louis politics or the two principals doubts the likelihood of that. It won't be a race between a modern-day Bobby Kennedy and Barack Obama. Instead, given both candidates' limited crossover appeal, observers should prepare for a racially polarizing campaign in the long, sad tradition of St. Louis politics.Even without any intentional shenanigans, a bitter primary might turn off voters from a general election if they felt like dirty tactics were used in the primary. And in the reddish-purple state of Missouri, with important Senate and Gubernatorial races and a legislature that's on the brink of a fully veto-proof majority, we just can't afford to have people sitting at home during the general elections. And it's actually worse than that, because the reality is that there will be shenanigans, as sadly both people in the Democratic Party and Republicans have cynical reasons to stoke racial divisions among Democrats. A primary battle would very likely be a bloody fight, and that might be good news for pundits but would only create new scars in an already damaged St. Louis political landscape.
So while Smith is right that Carnahan's own short-term self-interest might be better served by running against Lacy Clay, it would be better for the citizens of St. Louis, for the Democratic Party, and, yes, for the country if Carnahan ran in the 2nd District against Ed Martin or Ann Wagner. He might be slightly more likely to lose in the Second, but at least he would be fighting for the right reasons.