Randy's Views

The United States Supreme Court upheld a voter identification requirement for voting. Six of the nine Justices agreed that Indiana’s identification requirement (which is one of the strictest in the United States) was Constitutional. Significantly, one of the Court’s most liberal members, Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote the deciding opinion on behalf of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. If one was needed, the unequivocal language of the majority opinion appeared to put the final nail in the coffin of challengers who attempted to thwart any meaningful measures to assure the integrity of elections by preventing in-person voter fraud. Justice Stephens wrote that the Indiana voter identification requirement was “amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Judge Murphy has ruled that Georgia’s photo identification law is Constitutional.

Case closed.

Not so fast Eddy

But what does all of this mean in the real world? Mostly, it means that the kind of superficial challenge successfully used in Georgia after shopping for the right venue (Rome, Georgia) no longer works. For some time now, it has become clear that the arguments that the Georgia lawyers used to convince Judge Harold Murphy in Rome to issue injunctions preventing the enforcement of Georgia’s photo identification statute were meritless. Both the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made clear that Georgia lawyers’ argument lacked merit. The Georgia Supreme Court had kicked the case out based on the fact that the Georgia lawyers could not even find a single plaintiff who lacked an acceptable photo ID.

Eventually, even Judge Murphy recognized that he had been led by the Georgia lawyers to a “legal island” isolated from any Constitutional or legal basis to enjoin the enforcement of Georgia’s photo identification statute. After repeated injunctions were issued while the rest of the legal world recognized that voter identification requirements were Constitutional, Judge Murphy eventually decided that Georgia’s photo identification statute met the standards imposed by the United States Constitution. Significantly, this only occurred after it became clear that the data that Judge Murphy had been provided by former Secretary of State Cathy Cox in her quest to undercut Georgia’s photo identification law was inaccurate and unreliable.

Unfortunately, there is little remedy for either the State of Georgia (which incurred and continues to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees) or for Georgia voters (who endured election after election without the benefit of the greater election integrity that derives from better protection from in-person voter fraud). Under any meaningful system, there should be some accountability for perpetuating a case after it is clear that it lacks either factual or legal basis. Yet, neither the former Secretary of State nor the Georgia lawyers pursuing the challenges face any accountability for the harms to Georgia voters they have inflicted.

The saddest part of this story is that the opposite has in fact happened. Although it is impossible to believe, the Georgia lawyers challenging Georgia’s photo identification have convinced Judge Murphy to award them attorneys’ fees in a case they lost. In addition, they continue their appeal of the decision finding Georgia’s photo identification requirement Constitutional notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court’s decision. It is worse. They have even appealed Judge Murphy’s attorney fee award to them insisting that he should have given them more money as attorneys’ fees in the case they lost.

In the days following the announcement of the United States Supreme Court’s decision, the Georgia lawyers challenging Georgia’s photo identification law quickly announced that it had no impact on their case and it was their intent to continue their challenge to Georgia’s photo identification requirement.

There does come a point when folks need to just step up to the plate accept that they got it wrong. Now that the Supreme Court has upheld voter identification requirements, and the hand-picked judge decides that Georgia’s law is Constitutional, this would be that time - unless of course this has never really been about the Constitution or the law - could be.

“Katie - bar the door, thar’s a stampede a comin”

Popular United States Senator Johnny Isakson has confirmed that he will NOT be a candidate for governor in the 2010 gubernatorial election to replace term limited Sonny Perdue. Georgia Republicans braced for a political free-for-all that could rival any Texas “no holds barred” wrestling match. Georgia Democrats heaved a huge sigh of relief. The list of potential candidates is long and impressive.

The first into the race is Georgia Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner John Oxendine. Like Ronald Reagan and Sonny Perdue, John Oxendine is a former Democrat turned Republican. In 1994, he originally announced his intent to run as a Democrat for the Office of Labor Commissioner. Instead, he became part of the Republican revolution in 1994 as a candidate for Insurance Commissioner. Since then, he has been reelected by comfortable margins in 1998, 2002, and 2006. Interestingly, the worst knock on him is that Georgians hate to lose such a good Insurance Commissioner.

Not far behind will undoubtedly be Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle. In a bruising primary in 2006, Casey Cagle defeated Ralph Reed to become the Republican nominee and eventual Lieutenant Governor. Having endured two terms under Democrat Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor, the Republican controlled Senate was ready for a Republican Presiding Officer. With a Republican Governor and a Republican Speaker already at the table, Cagle’s introduction to the Gold Dome power structure was ripe with challenge. Most notably, Casey Cagle has been a loyal lieutenant governor to Governor Sonny Perdue. On more than one occasion, he has interceded on Governor Perdue’s behalf. Undoubtedly, his hopes are that Governor Perdue’s extraordinary popularity will transfer over to his candidacy.

Although his focus for the remainder of 2008 will be on reelection to the United States Congress, Third District Congressman Lynn Westmoreland is certain to have one eye cast on the 2010 gubernatorial election. Immensely popular among conservatives, Lynn Westmoreland has distinguished himself in Washington, D.C. Having served in the Georgia legislature as the Minority Leader in the Georgia House of Representatives, he is very familiar with state government and the issues involved. And, undoubtedly, he has grown weary of serving in the minority in the United States House of Representatives. Many believe that his statewide base among fiscal and social conservatives will give him a strategic advantage in a Republican primary for statewide office.

Former Secretary of State Cathy Cox has kept her network in place for just this opportunity. There was little doubt that she would return to Georgia politics after suffering a disappointing loss to former Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Since then, she joined popular former Governor Zell Miller up in northeast Georgia as the 21st President of Young Harris College. Her name recognition and popularity among Georgia voters remains good.

Former Governor Roy Barnes is itching for a return to politics. Occasional political grandstanding in occasional lawsuits has just not provided the forum or platform for him. The sting of the 2002 loss has tempered and the appetite for politics has returned. With the gubernatorial race wide open, he could decide to mount a comeback to the Georgia political scene.

Current Secretary of State Karen Handel has proved that she can perform at a high level in a Constitutional office. Having been elected as Chairman of the Fulton County Commission, and then as Secretary of State, she can win tough primary and general elections. Like Cathy Cox, Secretary of State Handel has used her position as Chief Elections Officer to reach and touch Georgia voters on a regular basis. As a candidate for governor, she would be formidable.

Finally, Representative Jerry Keen could be a force to be reckoned with. As the Majority Leader of the Georgia House Republican Caucus, he has developed a network of state and local leaders that is noteworthy. No one disputes his record as a steady conservative leader in the Georgia legislature. He has led the fight to cut taxes and imposed fiscal restraint on spending.

The real story is that these are but a few of the many considering a bid to become Georgia’s next governor.

When Democrats won former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s Congressional seat in Illinois, it was a sign that the Democratic surge and the Republican decline manifested in the 2006 Democratic takeover of the Congress was not yet over. Republicans in denial insisted that the Republican candidate in the Illinois race was a weak candidate who made some serious tactical mistakes. Defensively, they also argued that Hastert’s district was a marginal district, especially without a Republican incumbent. The bottom line was that Democrats picked up a coveted Republican seat held by the longest serving Republican Speaker in history.

When Democrats won Republican Congressman Richard Baker’s Congressional seat in Louisiana, it was a sign that the Democratic surge and the Republican decline was continuing. Republican strategists had tried a new technique of political advertisements connecting the Democratic Congressional candidate to Senator Barack Obama. Republicans in denial insisted that the new strategy was working, but the clock just ran out. Then followed the familiar pattern of excuses about the quality of the candidate and the strength of the campaign. The bottom line was that Democrats picked up a prized Republican seat which had been held by a Republican for over two decades.

When Democrats won Republican Roger Wicker’s Congressional seat in Mississippi, it confirmed that the Democratic surge and the Republican decline remains a current political reality. The Mississippi First Congressional District is a traditionally Republican, heavily conservative district which by all accounts Republicans should win easily. After all, President George W. Bush carried the congressional district with sixty-two percent (62%) of the vote in 2004. While admittedly there was a bitter contest among Republican candidates to succeed the now Senator Wicker, the margins in the district should have been enough for any Republican nominee to win. Yet, the Democratic candidate won.

In the Mississippi race, Republicans employed in full force their strategy of connecting the Democratic Congressional candidate to Senator Barack Obama. No excuses apply - there were plenty of resources, plenty of time, and lots of play. It did not work. Some polls even suggest that it had the opposite effect among the targeted voters. Numbers for the Democratic candidate actually increased in some sectors of the Republican electorate. Not surprisingly, support among Senator Obama’s supporters skyrocketed.

Regardless, the bottom line was that Democrats picked up a seat in a district that should by all political measures be a safe Republican seat. By all accounts, the loss signals a potential devastating meltdown for Congressional Republicans.

With almost thirty retirements in the House of Representatives, and a number of House Republican incumbents facing stiff challenges, these special election outcomes have even greater significance. In the Senate, the numbers are even more challenging with Republicans defending two thirds of the Senate seats at play. The fact is that from a numbers standpoint, and from a messaging perspective, Congressional Republicans have some serious problems and there are no easy or quick solutions.

Candidly, their biggest problem is that they have a credibility crisis. Like the little boy who cried wolf, most Americans neither listen to nor believe in Congressional Republicans - and for good reason. It is almost impossible to deliver a message, even a new message, if no one listens.

When seeking control of the Congress, Republicans insisted that they would be different and that they would control government spending, end corruption, fix broken bureaucracies, and respond to demands for change. They did not. Now, when they make those same pledges in 2008, no one believes them. More significantly, no one listens.

Republicans had hoped that a “we’re not them” message aimed at Senator Barack Obama might be different. The results in Louisiana and Mississippi proved this strategy does not work - even in a safe Republican district. For voters in 2008, it was just another variation of crying wolf. Further complicating the problem for the Republicans is the fact that they have the same folks doing the crying.

Unless Republicans find a way to break with the politics of their past, there will be lots more crying to come. If the current trends continue, Congressional Republicans are looking at election losses that will return them to Watergate levels from 1974.