Trump administration to rescind Obama-era guidance on affirmative action
The Trump administration is rescinding Obama-era guidance that encouraged schools to take a student’s race into account to encourage diversity in admissions, a U.S. official said Tuesday. The shift would give schools and universities the federal government’s blessing to take a race-neutral approach to the students they consider for admission. Such guidance does not have the force of law, but schools could use it to help defend themselves against lawsuits over their admission policies. The action comes amid Supreme Court turnover expected to produce a more critical eye toward schools’ affirmative action policies. The high court’s most recent significant ruling on the subject bolstered colleges’ use of race among many factors in the college admission process. But the opinion’s author, Anthony Kennedy, announced his resignation last week, giving President Donald Trump a chance to replace him with a justice who will be more reliably skeptical of affirmative action. A formal announcement was expected later Tuesday from the Justice and Education departments, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak on the record. The guidance from the Obama administration gave schools a framework for “considering race to further the compelling interests in achieving diversity and avoiding racial isolation.” In a 2011 policy document, the administration said schools have a “compelling interest” in ensuring a diverse student body, and that while race should not be the primary factor in an admission decision, schools could lawfully consider it in the interest of achieving diversity. “Institutions are not required to implement race-neutral approaches if, in their judgment, the approaches would be unworkable,” the guidance said. “In some cases, race-neutral approaches will be unworkable because they will be ineffective to achieve the diversity the institution seeks.” The administration issued a similar guidance document in 2016 aimed at giving schools a framework for “considering race to further the compelling interests in achieving diversity and avoiding racial isolation.” The Obama approach replaced Bush-era policy from a decade earlier that discouraged affirmative action programs and instead encouraged the use of race-neutral alternatives, like percentage plans and economic diversity programs. The Trump administration signaled Tuesday that it planned to reinstate the Bush administration’s philosophy. Civil liberties groups immediately decried the move, saying it went against decades of court rulings that permit colleges and universities to take race into account. “We condemn the Department of Education’s politically motivated attack on affirmative action and deliberate attempt to discourage colleges and universities from pursuing racial diversity at our nation’s colleges and universities,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. In 2016, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Kennedy, granted affirmative action policies a narrow victory by permitting race to be among the factors considered in the college admission process. Kennedy wrote that the University of Texas’ admission plan was in line with past court decisions that allowed for the consideration of race to promote diversity on college campuses. The ruling bitterly disappointed conservatives who thought that Kennedy would be part of a Supreme Court majority to outlaw affirmative action in education. Justice Antonin Scalia died after the court heard arguments in the case but before the decision was handed down. Eight states already prohibit the use of race in public college admissions: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. The Wall Street Journal first reported the move. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Donald Trump rewards Michigan party chair with national role
President-elect Donald Trump wants Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel to be national party chairwoman, in part as a reward for the party carrying Michigan for the first time in 28 years. The choice of McDaniel to serve as Republican National Committee chairwoman was confirmed Tuesday night by a person familiar with Trump’s decision. The person asked for anonymity because the announcement has not yet been made. The niece of 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney also earned credit with Trump by faithfully supporting him after he won the party’s 2016 nod, despite sharp criticism from her famous uncle. “Ronna McDaniel, what a great job you and your people have done,” Trump told thousands at Deltaplex Arena in Grand Rapids, Michigan, last Friday. “I was very impressed with you. She didn’t sleep for six months!” Trump’s decision also marks a key victory for outgoing RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. As Trump’s incoming White House chief of staff, Priebus, who guided the at times unwieldy Trump through the general election, supported McDaniel as his replacement. Other Trump loyalists were urging him to name Nick Ayers, a close adviser to Vice President-elect Mike Pence. While Trump’s team has said there’s no outright power struggle, Trump’s deliberations over secretary of state were seen as an indicator of influence between Priebus and senior adviser Steve Bannon. Priebus was seen as supporting Mitt Romney to become Trump’s secretary of state. On Tuesday, Trump named Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as his choice for the nation’s top diplomat. McDaniel would seem to validate Priebus’ performance as the chairman who turned around the financially strapped committee and ended its presidential losing streak. McDaniel would probably maintain the strategy of early spending in states, digital data and local party infrastructure, RNC insiders said. “They said a Republican could never win Michigan,” McDaniel told the audience in Grand Rapids Friday. “I knew better. You knew better and Donald Trump knew better.” For her work in Michigan, part of a swath of northern states that had eluded Republicans since the 1980s, McDaniel is the right call, said Henry Barbour, a Republican National Committeeman from Mississippi. Trump defied decades of precedent by also carrying Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — once-powerful, working-class Democratic states where manufacturing in smaller cities has declined. McDaniel, 43, would face immediate pressure to hold onto control of Congress in 2018. “I think she can help us hold a lot of these Rust Belt Democrats who voted for Donald Trump with good leadership and execution,” said Barbour. “Plus, she was willing to step out and support our nominee when her very famous uncle was doing the opposite. Now, that’s leadership.” Trump’s choices for RNC chairman and other party leadership positions carry immense sway with its members, who will vote on the team early next year. Should the committee approve Trump’s recommendation, McDaniel would become the second woman to be elected RNC chairman, and the first in 40 years. That’s a good sign for the party and Trump, said Michigan Republican Bob LaBrant, considering the 2005 recordings of Trump making sexually degrading remarks that were released during the campaign. “That sends a signal we need to send right now,” said LaBrant, former political director for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. “And Ronna is the right one to carry the message.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump praises Michigan GOP while weighing RNC chairman call
Donald Trump may have more than just his gratitude to offer in Michigan when he visits the state that capped his stunning presidential victory last month. Michigan Republican Party chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel is a leading contender for the Republican National Committee’s chairmanship. There was no immediate sign from Trump’s transition team Thursday that the billionaire planned to offer McDaniel the leadership post. The niece of 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is not the only contender. Rising national star Nick Ayers, a senior aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, also has vocal support from influential GOP figures. Whoever takes the post will face immediate pressure to hold onto control of Congress in 2018. Along with Trump’s public admiration, McDaniel has factors working in her favor, not the least of which is representing Republicans in a state that, until last month, was carried by Democrats in six consecutive presidential elections. McDaniel is scheduled to speak at a victory rally Trump plans to attend Friday in Grand Rapids. “Ronna’s record speaks for itself. The president-elect owes his success to the Rust Belt. Having a national party chair from here makes sense,” said Bob LaBrant, a Michigan GOP activist and former political director of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. As Trump assembles his Cabinet, the party’s leadership is also his to recommend. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, whom Trump has asked to serve as White House chief of staff, was a close adviser to Trump during the campaign. Priebus’ legacy – investing early in campaign staff and technology in key states – ahead of the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential election is something an existing RNC member, as McDaniel is, would be inclined to follow, party insiders say. Priebus has been publicly silent on whom he’d like to succeed him. But Trump singled her out for praise during a packed New York City fundraiser Wednesday. Top supporters and donors gathered for a private thank-you session, whose attendees included McDaniel, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and about 1,000 others. “The president-elect gave a big shout-out to Ronna” and said she had a “big opportunity,” Schuette recalled of Trump’s comments. Only a handful of individuals were mentioned by name, Schuette said. “I think that’s pretty significant.” Despite her uncle’s sharp criticism of Trump, the 43-year-old McDaniel fully endorsed the nominee who frustrated many in his party’s establishment. And still she’s widely admired across the RNC’s membership, several RNC members said. “I hold her in high regard,” Arizona committeeman Bruce Ash said. Other assets supporters cite: She is a quick study, has a solid fundraising reputation and has a strong Republican pedigree. Besides Uncle Mitt, the Michigan Romneys include her grandfather, the late former Gov. George Romney. After executing Michigan’s GOP election plan to victory, she next converted the state GOP into Trump’s recount legal team. She retained top lawyers who persuaded the state appeals court this week to deny Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s call for a recount. McDaniel did not requests for comment Thursday but told The Associated Press last month she’d be “interested in whatever Mr. Trump wants.” Some close to Trump are recommending Ayers, who has credentials that seem to defy his 34 years. Ayers was the Republican Governors Association executive director in 2010, a successful year for Republican state executives, and was a key adviser to Pence’s 2012 governor’s race. He joined Trump last summer, mainly helping Pence. He now advises Pence, who is chairman of the transition. “Trump allies are encouraging Nick to run,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller told The Associated Press this week. Ayers counts heavyweights former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former RNC chairman, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and incoming Missouri Gov.-elect Eric Greitens among his backers. “The fact is Nick wins,” said Greitens, whom Ayers advised during his 2016 campaign. “I am 100 percent behind Nick Ayers.” The showdown between Romney and Ayers has the makings of the first power struggle within Trump’s budding administration. Then again, the unpredictable Trump could always surprise. Others said to be interested: Matt Pinnell, RNC liaison to state parties; David Bossie, committeeman from Maryland; David Urban, Pennsylvania GOP operative. One name won’t be in contention. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had expressed interest, is no longer considering seeking the party chairmanship, Christie aides said Thursday. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Focus of recount effort shifts to Michigan, Pennsylvania
Presidential candidate Jill Stein‘s fight to force ballot recounts in three states focuses Monday on Pennsylvania, where her Green Party is seeking an emergency federal court order for a statewide recount, and Michigan, where a federal judge has ordered a hand recount to begin by noon. The recount is underway in Wisconsin. President-elect Donald Trump narrowly defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in all three states. The recounts were not expected to change enough votes to overturn the result of the election. Stein, who received about 1 percent of the vote in all three states, says her intent is to verify the accuracy of the vote. She has suggested, with no evidence, that votes cast were susceptible to computer hacking. She also scheduled a rally and news conference for Monday morning outside Trump Tower in New York. Here’s what’s going on in each state and in Nevada, where a partial recount of the race was requested by independent presidential candidate Roque De La Fuente: — WISCONSIN The recount began Thursday and continued over the weekend, with little change so far in the unofficial results as reported on election night. A federal lawsuit was filed late last week by a Trump voter and two super PACs seeking to stop the recount. The judge rejected a request to halt the recount while the lawsuit is pending and scheduled a hearing for Friday. State and local election officials have all said they don’t expect Clinton to surpass Trump in Wisconsin, where he won by about 22,000 votes. — MICHIGAN A federal judge late Sunday night in Detroit ordered a statewide hand recount of roughly 4.8 million ballots to start by noon Monday. Trump won the state by about 10,700 votes, or two-tenths of a percentage point, over Clinton. Stein argued that a law is unconstitutional that requires a break of at least two business days after the Board of Canvassers’ final action on a recount request. Judge Mark Goldsmith found that Stein had “shown the likelihood of irreparable harm” if the count was delayed even by two days and rejected the state’s arguments about the cost to taxpayers. Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette, the Trump campaign and super PACs have filed separate lawsuits asking state courts to prevent the recount, arguing that Stein, as the fourth-place finisher, is not “aggrieved” because she has no chance of winning in a recount. — PENNSYLVANIA The Green Party filed a federal lawsuit on Monday seeking a statewide recount – a move that came after the party on Saturday dropped a case set to be argued Monday in state courts. An updated count Friday by state election officials showed Trump’s lead shrinking to 49,000 from 71,000 over Clinton, out of 6 million votes cast, as more counties finish counting overseas ballots and settled provisional ballot challenges. That is still shy of Pennsylvania’s 0.5 percent trigger for an automatic statewide recount. Final counts are outstanding in some counties, but there are not enough uncounted votes to change the outcome, officials say. — NEVADA A recount of a sample of ballots has begun in Nevada at the request of De La Fuente. Clinton won Nevada and De La Fuente finished last, but he requested and paid about $14,000 last week for the recount, which he called a counterbalance to the review sought by Stein in Wisconsin. Nevada Secretary of State spokeswoman Gail Anderson said late last week that the recount of ballots from Carson City and Douglas, Mineral, Nye and Clark counties should be completed by Friday. If the sample shows a discrepancy of at least 1 percent for De La Fuente or Clinton, a full recount will be launched in all 17 Nevada counties. Clinton defeated Trump in Nevada by 27,202 votes out of 1.1 million votes cast. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Lawsuits seek to block or halt Wisconsin, Michigan recounts
Supporters of Republican Donald Trump filed a federal lawsuit trying to halt Wisconsin’s ongoing presidential recount, and Michigan’s attorney general on Friday sued to stop a recount from happening in his state. The Wisconsin lawsuit and motion for a temporary restraining order was filed late Thursday in U.S. District Court in Madison by the Great America PAC, the Stop Hillary PAC and a Wisconsin voter, Ronald R. Johnson. The legal filings contend that the recount is unconstitutional because it doesn’t satisfy equal protection requirements under the law and may not get done by the Dec. 13 federal deadline to certify the vote, putting Wisconsin’s electoral votes in jeopardy. No court hearings had been scheduled as of Friday morning. The Wisconsin Department of Justice was reviewing the lawsuit, said Johnny Koremenos, spokesman for Attorney General Brad Schimel. Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who requested both recounts and a third in Pennsylvania, has suggested that Trump and his backers would try to delay the recounts to make them hard or impossible to complete by the Dec. 13 deadline for states to certify their election results or have their electoral votes be decided by Congress, which is controlled by Republicans. A spokeswoman for Stein’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment Friday. With workers in Wisconsin busy re-counting votes for a second day, Michigan’s state elections board was meeting about the Trump campaign’s request to deny Stein’s recount request. In his request to the Michigan Supreme Court to block the hand recount, Attorney General Bill Schuette, like the Trump campaign, argued that Stein cannot seek the “frivolous” recount because she was not “aggrieved” to the point at which a potential miscounting of votes could have cost her the election. She garnered 1 percent of the vote in Michigan. The earliest a Michigan recount could start would be next week. In Pennsylvania, a hearing is scheduled for Monday on Stein’s push to secure a court-ordered statewide recount there. Elections officials in all three states have expressed confidence in their results. President-elect Trump won all three states by narrow margins. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker echoed that sentiment Friday, telling reporters that he doesn’t expect his state’s recount to significantly change the results. “Anytime there’s a canvass or a recount there’s slight adjustments, but I don’t think you’re going to see a significant adjustment,” the Republican governor said. Walker also said he’s open to changing the state’s election laws to prevent minor candidates from being allowed to request recounts. Stein finished a distant fourth in Wisconsin with a little more than 1 percent of the vote. Trump won Wisconsin by about 22,000 votes, or less than 1 percentage point, over Clinton. Stein requested the recount which began on Thursday and had to be done by Dec. 13. There is a “realistic risk” the recount may not be done in time of the deadline and the “chaotic rushing necessary” to meet the deadline “creates an imminent unreasonable risk of error that can lead to votes being erroneously counted, disregarded, or diluted,” the motion for a temporary restraining order in Wisconsin contends. Michigan’s elections board on Friday was considering Trump’s request to block a hand recount of all 4.8 million ballots cast in the state. He defeated Clinton there by about 10,700 votes. In their filing to the election’s board, Trump’s lawyers argued that Stein, a “bottom-dwelling candidate,” shouldn’t be allowed to force an expensive and time-consuming recount. They also said in their objection that Stein waited until the last minute to file her recount petition Wednesday, making it impossible to finish by the Dec. 13 deadline. Stein countered Thursday that Trump’s “cynical efforts to delay the recount and create unnecessary costs for taxpayers are shameful and outrageous.” The first reporting of recount results was expected Friday in Wisconsin. Recounts were not expected to flip nearly enough votes to change the outcome in any of the states. Stein has argued, without evidence, that irregularities in the votes in all three states suggest that there could have been tampering with the vote, perhaps through a well-coordinated, highly complex cyberattack. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Clinton team sees recount effort as waste of resources
Hillary Clinton‘s aides and supporters are urging dispirited Democrats to channel their frustrations about the election results into political causes — just not into efforts to recount ballots in three battleground states. The former Democratic presidential candidate and her close aides see the recount drive largely as a waste of resources, according to people close to Clinton. The effort is being fueled by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who’s formed an organization to try to force recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. “Believe me if there was anything I could do to make Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States I would,” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a longtime Clinton supporter. “But this is a big waste of time.” Aides say Clinton is focused on moving past her unexpected defeat and has devoted little attention to the recount or thinking about her political future. She’s been spending time with her grandchildren and going for walks near her Westchester home. Sightings of Clinton hiking with her dogs and shopping at a Rhode Island bookstore went viral on social media. “There have been a few times this past week where all I wanted to do was curl up with a good book and our dogs and never leave the house again,” Clinton said in an emotional speech at a gala for the Children’s Defense Fund, her one public appearance since her loss. Former President Bill Clinton, meanwhile, has been poring over the election results, second-guessing decisions by top campaign aides and intensely trying to figure out how his wife lost the white working-class voters who were the base of his electoral coalition, say people familiar with the campaign. Clinton’s team was aware of possible discrepancies soon after the election, telling top donors on a conference call four days after the election that they were looking into potential problems in the three states. But while many campaign staffers believe Russian hacking influenced the outcome of the election, blaming foreign actors for incursions into campaign and Democratic National Committee emails, they’ve found no evidence of the kind of widespread ballot box tampering that would change the results of the race — or even flip a single state. Still, some dejected Clinton supporters have been unwilling to accept the results. Stein has raised $6.5 million for her recount campaign, according to a count posted on her campaign website on Tuesday. That’s nearly double the roughly $3.5 million she raised during her entire presidential bid. Some former Clinton aides have asked frustrated supporters to donate their dollars to what they view as more constructive causes, like state parties or the Democratic candidate in Louisiana, where a Dec. 10 runoff will be the party’s last chance to pick up a Senate seat this year. “I wouldn’t give a dollar to Jill Stein,” said Adam Parkhomenko, a longtime Clinton aide. “Volunteers, supporters and Democrats, they want to pick themselves up and get back out there. The best vehicle to do that is the Louisiana Senate race.” Clinton’s team conducted an exhaustive investigation into the possibility of outside interference in the vote tally, tasking lawyers, data scientists and political analysts to comb over the results. They contacted outside experts, examined the laws governing recounts and double-checked all the vote tallies. The campaign found no “evidence of manipulation,” wrote Marc Elias, the general counsel for Clinton’s campaign, in an online essay. But, he said, Clinton agreed to minimal participation in Stein’s effort, largely to make sure that her interests are represented. They put out a call for volunteers to monitor the proceedings and are relying on local lawyers to handle filings and other legal matters. Clinton is under pressure to participate from her supporters, some of whom have struggled to accept the election results given her lead in the popular vote, which has grown to more than 2.3 million in the weeks after the Nov. 8 election. “Now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported,” Elias wrote. Clinton’s lawyers filed motions with a Wisconsin judge on Tuesday looking to join Stein’s lawsuit demanding that Wisconsin officials recount ballots by hand. The state elections commission will formally began the recount on Thursday. Stein’s organization has also filed for recounts in six of Pennsylvania’s largest counties and says it plans to file a petition Wednesday demanding a Michigan recount. “It’s election law malpractice to not have your lawyers sitting around the table with Jill Stein’s lawyers,” said Adam Ambrogi, elections program director at the bipartisan Democracy Fund. “It is just due diligence.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Adam Goodman: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders are the ‘New American Transformers’
There’s a new reality show in America generating ratings and rave reviews before an audience that had been waiting a long time for it to begin. It’s called “The New American Transformers,” but unlike the “Transformer” movies this series does not revolve around a galactic battle but something much more down to Earth. It is a story about Americans looking to transform a system that’s broken, in a country that’s lost its way, led by politicians who’ve become more interested in self-preservation than national revival. The search for newness, freshness, and a jolt of confidence explains why both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, hailing from wholly different universes of ideology and temperament, whether they win or lose, are scoring big today. Both are armed with declarations of transformation, from policy and politics, to America’s relations around the world. Sensing our system is progressively collapsing under its own weight, Trump and Sanders have come to embrace this truth. To their credit, the American people have as well. Trump and Sanders, separate yet together, have lent voice to what we’re feeling. Separate, yet together, Trump and Sanders rejected canned political hyperbole in favor of spontaneous declarations, in the moment and for the moment. Separate, yet together, they command the stage, despite doubts about their electability, despite the establishment’s desperate attempts to explain it away, or wish it away. After all, how do you stop a movement? How do you slow the momentum of candidates who simply refuse to play by the normal rules of the game? Trump and Sanders are not programmed by advisers, manipulated by donors, or controlled by polls. They’re refreshingly real, dependably candid, and totally human. Do they mess up at times, driving the pundits and prognosticators nuts? Yes. Do they sometimes fumble when asked to fully explain their remedies? Yes. Yet, Americans today are more interested in the honesty of intent, than the dishonesty of promises never pursued. After a Versailles–like ceremony where Dr. Ben Carson blessed the Trump insurgency with an outsider’s hug, The Donald says, “I try to be who I am.” Bernie Sanders, in denouncing the system amid a throng of believers, says “there’s too much shouting at each other; too much making fun of each other.” Now anyone who’s ever run for office, and those like me who have served them, understand all voting is emotional. We are not robots. We vote our feelings. Psychiatrists liken this to falling in love, a kind of inexplicable madness that while not always rational, is overwhelmingly emotional. Consciously or not, Trump and Sanders are wooing America, without the varnish of prepared speeches, without the crutch of poll-driven drivel, without permission from the establishment or the media elites. That same establishment is now out to stop them, at all costs, and they’ve settled on their choice of weapon: the negative ad. When an establishment candidate can’t sell himself or herself, their strategy is to air negative ads against everyone else. When the audience is not buying the establishment’s pick, they are made to feel stupid, uninformed, manipulated by ignorance. Yet this conventional dismantling of candidates is falling on hard times, outmatched by Sanders’ and Trump’s panache in made-for-television rallies built from enthusiasm and bred from frustration. Here are three reasons why. One. People don’t form impressions of candidates from negative ads, especially when the source is self-serving, the claims are questionable, and the intent is malicious. Two. After the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates on negative ads, funded by outside groups with outside interests, they’re not unique anymore. Three. When any voter bonds with a candidate, that voter resents anyone who stands in the way of that relationship. No wonder Trump and Sanders are transforming the face of politics. In their world, it’s us versus them. In parallel, they have challenged party rules that preserve the interests of insiders, while challenging Americans to feel empowered again. Together, they have given us a choice: accept mediocrity in our domestic and foreign affairs, or expect excellence from themselves, and the nation. Together, they represent the agony and optimism of the American people. Given that choice, Michigan and Colorado Democrats sided with Sanders. Given that choice, Mississippi and Massachusetts Republicans flocked to Trump. By exercising that choice, the American people have begun to feel something the system long ago took for granted: hope. Meet the “New Transformers” — Sanders and Trump. Meet the new America, where democracy is alive, and well. *** Adam Goodman, a national GOP media consultant based in Florida, has created, directed and produced media for more than 300 candidates in 46 states over the past 35 years.
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich all face must-wins in home states
In their efforts to derail Donald Trump from the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are all facing enormous pressure in their home state primaries, which account for about a fourth of the delegates up for grabs in the next three weeks. Failure to defend their turf could leave each explaining what states they can win going forward — and make the New York billionaire look all the more inevitable. After Trump’s impressive win in Nevada, the presidential race now shifts to Super Tuesday, featuring 11 largely Southern states, including Texas, with 155 GOP delegates. Those delegates will be awarded proportionally. On March 15 will come primaries in Florida, with 99 delegates, and Ohio with 66, and they are winner take all. If no one can dent Trump’s advantage by then, the race for the nomination may be all but over. But home states have buoyed candidates in the past. Four years ago, eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney used his native Michigan to quash a surprisingly stout challenge from Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich won his home state of Georgia and neighboring South Carolina but did little elsewhere. Of the trio with looming home-state primaries, Cruz may be in the strongest position. “I wanna say, I cannot wait to get home to the great state of Texas,” Cruz said Tuesday night after losing in Nevada to Trump. “Tonight, I’ll sleep in my bed for the first time in a month.” But Cruz will have to win more than just Texas on Tuesday if he doesn’t want to be looking up at Trump in the delegate count. Kasich and Rubio, meanwhile, may be battling for many of the same votes from traditional Republicans uneasy with the bombastic Trump and the firebrand conservative Cruz. As long as both remain in the race, they could continue to split the establishment bloc. And they’ll have to run Tuesday’s gauntlet before they can even reach must-wins at home. The home-state jockeying is underway. ___ FLORIDA Current and former members of Congress from Florida who had been backing Jeb Bush signed on with Rubio this week after the ex-governor left the race. That’s not to say Rubio’s a slam dunk in his state. Trump is the only Republican still in the race who had an obvious campaign presence in Florida — office space and paid employees on the ground — as of late last month. Trump is a part-time resident. Bush also was building a Florida operation and some of that may flow to Rubio. “Now that Jeb is out of the race, that helps Marco tremendously,” said Marcelo Llorente, a former Republican legislator in Florida who knows both men well. Cruz strategist Jason Johnson released a memo arguing that if Rubio’s hopes are built around winning Florida, that won’t work because almost half of the delegates needed to win the nomination will have been awarded by then. “That’s an even less plausible path to victory than Mayor Rudy Giuliani‘s ‘wait for Florida’ strategy in 2008,” Johnson said, referring to Giuliani’s short-lived presidential run. But Johnson’s argument presumes Rubio won’t do well Super Tuesday. ___ TEXAS The Texas senator has spent more time in the South than his rivals and built networks of supporters he hopes can not only help him in Texas but also nearby states. That approach did not work in South Carolina, the only Southern state where it has been tested. Cruz has for years been considered his state’s most popular politician and Gov. Greg Abbott is his friend, mentor and ex-boss — although Abbott has so far held off making a presidential endorsement. Cruz also has the backing of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and current Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, along with nearly one-fourth of the Republicans representing Texas in Congress and about half of the Republicans in the state Legislature. He’s also built a strong ground game, boasting 27,000 volunteers, but a similarly strong organization didn’t spell victory in South Carolina. Texas may not have a decisive winner, unless the top candidate can get a majority of the votes cast statewide and in each congressional district. Otherwise, delegates will be awarded proportionally based on full-state results and results in each district. The only campaign or outside group advertising in Texas so far supports Rubio. Ads by the Conservative Solutions PAC tag Cruz as “calculated, underhanded.” Still, polls suggest Cruz is the favorite. “He’s a native-son candidate,” GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak said. “Support for him is very strong.” ___ OHIO Kasich is looking to the Midwest and Michigan’s March 8 primary to help carry him through to his neighboring home state a week later. His bid for the nomination is already a longshot and whatever viability he might have now surely would vanish if he faltered in Ohio. A new Quinnipiac survey has Kasich lagging Trump but within 5 percentage points of him, marking progress for the governor. Kasich brushes off any notion he may not win his state. “The last thing I’m worried about is how we’ll do in Ohio,” he said Tuesday. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: Mickey Mantle, pensions and safety nets
Employer-provided pensions across the U.S. are changing. The old standard, the defined benefit plan, is rapidly disappearing. I suspect that this change will have significant consequences. Pensions typically take one of two forms, defined benefit and defined contributions. A defined benefit plan guarantees annual payouts in retirement, typically based on earnings and years worked, and employer contributions plus returns on investments pay these benefits. Under a defined contributions plan, employers contribute a specified amount to an employee account, and the accumulated contributions plus investment returns, however much this happens to be, is the employee’s retirement. The proportion of salaried, private sector employees covered by defined benefit plans fell from 38 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 2008. Over this time, private sector workers with defined contribution plans increased from 8 percent to 31 percent. Most public sector employees currently have defined benefit plans, like the Retirement Systems of Alabama. But this is slowly changing; Michigan and Utah have switched new state employees to defined contribution plans. The form of the plan affects who bears pension risks. One risk is that contributions and investments will fail to yield sufficient funds for retirement. This could happen because of lower than expected investment returns, or because of mistakes in pension accounting, which is described as more of an art than a science. The potential also exists for someone to outlive their retirement funds. Employers bear these risks with defined benefit plans, versus employees with defined contribution plans. Both private and public sector defined benefit plans are often underfunded. Fewer than 10 percent of Standard & Poor’s 500 index firms with defined benefit plans, for instance, have fully funded pensions. Companies must make up the shortfall from an underfunded pension out of current revenues, which can drive an otherwise successful business into bankruptcy. Defined contribution plans avoid pension-induced bankruptcy, but result in people without funds for old age. As more companies and governments shift to defined contributions plans, this problem will only worsen. The life of baseball great Mickey Mantle illustrates the potential danger. I was in diapers when Mr. Mantle retired, but I learned early about his greatness as a player, and later about his famous carousing and drinking. Mr. Mantle often said that if he had known he was going to live so long (he died at age 63), he would have taken better care of himself. The progress and prosperity of our economy have supported modern medicine and a significant extension of life. Life expectation increased by 20 years between 1930 and 2010. Based on how economists estimate the value of years of life, living an extra 20 years is equivalent to a $2 million benefit for the typical American. I hope that progress in life extension continues, and even accelerates it if possible. We form expectations about life based on experience and available information. Mr. Mantle’s expectation was not unreasonable based on life when he was growing up in the 1930s. Before 1930, men did not on average to 60, and men in the Mantle family rarely saw 50. Many Americans never reached retirement age. Progress creates an imbalance between life plans based on yesterday’s world and a different, albeit better, future. For the lengthening of life, this imbalance takes the form of persons without funds for old age. Defined contribution pensions exacerbate this problem by placing the risk on people likely to make mistakes and possessing little ability to afford the consequences. Millions of persons without money for old age could lead to demands for a much expanded government safety net, perhaps an expanded Social Security designed to provide full retirement income. Ironically, defined benefit pensions provide a voluntary, contractual safety net. Pensions allow the sharing of risks involved in planning for old age. These pensions reduced the potential for people to save too little and voluntarily transferred wealth to those who live unexpectedly long lives. I do not know if defined benefit pensions will disappear. But if they disappear, I suspect that we will miss the market-based safety net they have provided for Americans as progress extended our life spans. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. Respond to him at dsutter@troy.edu and like the Johnson Center on Facebook.
High court same-sex marriage arguments to start Tuesday
Five lawyers will take turns at the U.S. Supreme Court lectern Tuesday for the highly anticipated and extended arguments over same-sex marriage. Among them are the Obama administration‘s top lawyer at the high court, with more than two dozen arguments behind him, and two lawyers making their first appearance before the justices. The cases come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, all of which had their marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati. The justices will hear 2½ hours of arguments on these two questions: whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere. Civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto, backed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., will argue for the right to marry. Former Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch will defend the state laws. On the second question, Washington lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier will urge the court to rule that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. On the other side will be Joseph Whalen, Tennessee’s associate solicitor general. A look at the advocates: Bonauto has been called the Thurgood Marshall of the push for equal rights for gay and lesbian in the United States. She was the winning lawyer the first time a court granted same-sex couples the right to marry, in Massachusetts in 2003. She hopes her next argument is the last time same-sex marriage is tested in court. The 53-year-old has been at the forefront of the legal fight for gay rights, including same-sex marriage, for more than two decades. But it will be her first argument before the nation’s highest court. In her early days as the civil rights project director at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, where she has worked for 25 years, Bonauto said she used to say no when same-sex couples asked her to take on their marriage cases in the courts. As recently as late 2012, Bonauto worried that the time was not yet right to ask the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all. But that time has now arrived, she said. “There’s no reason to tell these families they should be denied legal respect. It’s our hope that we soon will be able to secure that for people everywhere,” Bonauto said in a recent call with reporters. Bonauto received a MacArthur Foundation fellowship last year. She lives in Portland, Maine, with her wife, professor Jennifer Wriggins of the University of Maine’s law school, and their twin teenage daughters. • • • Bursch made a Supreme Court name for himself as Michigan’s solicitor general, arguing eight cases at the high court in a little more than two years. That record included the contentious dispute over the state’s voter-approved ban on the use of race in college admissions. He defended the ban and the justices sided with him last year. His performance during that argument was typical of his appearances before the court — unflappable in the face of sustained, and at times hostile, questioning from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Same-sex marriage opponents have pointed to Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s opinion in that case, which affirmed the power of voters to decide sensitive issues, as a key point in favor of the voter-approved gay-marriage bans now being challenged. Bursch, 42, now is in private practice at the Warner, Norcross and Judd law firm in Grand Rapids, Mich.. The firm said it is playing no role in Bursch’s argument in defense of state same-sex marriage bans. A graduate of the University of Minnesota law school and Western Michigan University, he was a law clerk to Judge James Loken of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. • • • Hallward-Driemeier cheerfully acknowledged that he would rather not have the court decide the issue he is going to argue — that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. That’s because he would rather have the justices settle the larger issue of the right to marry. “We think there’s a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry and we think that pretty much ends the question” about recognition, Hallward-Driemeier said on a conference call with reporters. The Harvard Law School graduate is an experienced Supreme Court advocate with no previous ties to same-sex marriage cases. Tuesday’s argument will be his 16th at the high court. Hallward-Driemeier, 48, heads the appellate practice at Boston-based Ropes and Gray. He spent several years at the Justice Department and before that was a law clerk to Judge Amalya Kearse of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. He is a St. Louis-area native who graduated from DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind. He met his wife, the former Mary Hallward, when both were Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University in England. When they married, they combined their last names. • • • Verrilli is the most familiar face to the justices among the five lawyers they’ll hear from on Tuesday. He will follow Bonauto in support of a ruling forbidding states from limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. Verrilli, 57, has spent nearly four years as President Barack Obama‘s solicitor general, arguing a half-dozen or so cases at the Supreme Court each year. Among them was the epic re-election campaign year fight over Obama’s health overhaul in 2012. The administration prevailed by a 5-4 vote on the basis of a secondary argument Verrilli made before the skeptical court. He was on the losing end of last year’s fight over whether corporations can express religious objections to avoid paying for contraceptives for women covered by employer health plans. Before joining the administration in 2009, Verrilli was a partner at the Washington firm of Jenner and Block. His Supreme Court work included advocating for the rights of death row inmates and representing telecommunications firms in cases with billions of dollars in the balance. A graduate of Yale University and Columbia Law School, Verrilli was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. • • •
