Author: Ashleigh Barber

New Year, New Congress

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Congress is adjourning for the holiday break and when it comes back in January, the new congressional class will be the most diverse in history. The November elections saw historic wins for women and minority groups that have lacked representatives of their demographics.

The 116th Congress will include several notable members:

  • There will be a record 125 women in Congress
  • Twenty-one percent of members will be black, Hispanic, or Native American
  • Sharice Davids (KS-03) and Debra Haaland (NM-01) are the first two Native American women elected to Congress
  • Davids is also the first openly LGBTQ person elected to Congress from Kansas
  • Veronica Escobar (TX-16) and Sylvia Garcia (TX-29) are the first two Latinas elected to Congress from Texas
  • Marsha Blackburn is the first female elected senator from Tennessee
  • At 29, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) is the youngest woman elected to Congress
  • Ilhan Omar (MN-05) and Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) are the first two Muslim American women elected to Congress
  • Omar is also the first woman of color elected from Minnesota¹

A great infographic can be found here.

Although some new members of Congress have garnered quite a bit of news coverage (namely Ocasio-Cortez and her Twitter exchanges), the overall story of a more diverse Congress is yet to be written. The gains by Democrats in the House of Representatives, along with the increase in women and minorities, is already being dissected in terms of the next presidential election. Is the increase of women’s engagement in politics a response to Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016? Will Democrats reconsider the mostly white, male candidates that are moving into the forefront for 2020? How will Republicans respond in terms of their engagement of women in their party?

Source: Roll Call

Political pundits have been continuously discussing “identity politics” since the last presidential election, but one new member of Congress has commented on the issue very succinctly. As reported in the Washington Post, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma stated, “I’m very excited to be part of this new class that looks a lot more like our communities.”²

Is this then the essence of identity politics? For a representative body to “look” like the citizens they are representing? Or does this simply reduce politicians to their demographic data? Most of the newly elected members of Congress campaigned on identity issues and embrace their diversity. During the next congressional session, we will see how this translates to the world of policymaking.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How important are a candidate’s demographics to you? How important is it that a candidate has the same sex as you? Race? Religion? Social background? (A Take-A-Stand exercise would work well here.)
  2. Do you think it is the role of government to promote or advance diversity and inclusion in elected office?
  3. Some nations have national quotas for women and certain minority groups in elected office. Would this be appropriate in the United States? On a federal level? On the state level?

 

Sources:
Featured image: Freshman class of the 116th Congress, NBCNews.com; Mandel Ngan, AFP
[1] https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/interactive_116th-congress-freshman-younger-bluer-diverse/
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diversity-on-stark-display-as-houses-incoming-freshmen-gather-in-washington/2018/11/13/87ef9a5c-e783-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa63b7597154

 

Don’t Like the Election Results? Change Them!

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Just when you thought it was safe to declare the 2018 midterm elections over…

Historically, the results of elections have always been honored, even when the fairness of a given contest is debatable. In recent history, for example, some people questioned to what extent the elections of John F. Kennedy1, Richard Nixon2, Ronald Reagan3, George W. Bush4, and Donald Trump5 were influenced by domestic and/or foreign interference. Nevertheless, these men were sworn in as president with the full rights and privileges afforded to that office.

However, in the 2018 midterms, some have begun to question whether the line that protects the results of elections has been crossed.

On November 6, 2018, Wisconsin voters chose to replace incumbent Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, with Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers, a Democrat. The same night, Wisconsinites elected a new attorney general, Democrat Josh Kaul. Despite Democrats’ electoral victories, Republicans retained control of both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature. And this week, in the lame-duck session, the Legislature passed several bills that would limit the powers of the governor and the attorney general. These bills will go into effect in the new legislative session, unless outgoing Governor Walker vetoes them (which is unlikely).

Among their provisions, the bills limit the governor’s ability to overturn current work requirements for health care recipients under the Affordable Care Act, restrict the governor’s ability to ban guns on Wisconsin State Capitol grounds, and prevent the governor from appointing a new head of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation until September, giving the Legislature the ability to make lower appointments in the meantime.

In the wake of these actions, some observers have strongly criticized Wisconsin Republicans. Governor-elect Evers will still be inaugurated in January, but some critics suggest that with the changes being pursued by the Legislature, he is essentially assuming a different office, one with fewer powers than the office he ran for. These critics argue that the Republican-controlled Legislature has figured out a way to legally change the results of the election: don’t replace the candidate, just replace the job.6

Republicans tell a different story. They argue that what they are doing is perfectly legal. The only thing that prevents lawmakers from making changes like this in a lame-duck session is timing and tradition. As long as they can organize themselves before the end of the session, they are perfectly within their constitutional authority to pass any and all legislation. Republicans also argue that these three limits are fairly small in scale when compared to the powers the new governor will retain. They aren’t voting to do away with the governor’s veto, for example; they are imposing limits that they deem necessary as a check against executive power.

Finally, Republicans insist that these limits reflect what the Wisconsin electorate really wants. Despite Democrats’ victories in the races for governor and attorney general, the Wisconsin State Legislature will remain under Republican control for the 2019-2021 term. Clearly, Republicans argue, the people of Wisconsin prefer a more conservative state government; these changes help protect the interests of Wisconsinites. (Although it is worth noting that a majority of Wisconsin voters preferred the Democratic candidates for governor and attorney general.)

Discussion Questions

  • Is it appropriate for a state legislature to introduce and pass new laws in a lame-duck session (after an election has taken place)?
  • Is it fair to change the powers of a political office before a new candidate is inaugurated? Does the fact that something is legal always make it something that should be allowed?
  • Is it appropriate for a legislature to act in what it believes to be the best interests of the electorate? Should legislators act only on what they know to be the will of their constituents? Or do they have a responsibility to make decisions that may be unpopular?

 

Sources:
Image credit: Mark Hoffman, Associated Press
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/08/heres-a-voter-fraud-myth-richard-daley-stole-illinois-for-john-kennedy-in-the-1960-election/?utm_term=.6ae7c4bb6442
[2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980-reagan-campaign-tried-to-delay-hostage-release.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/25/donald-trump-rigged-election-bush-gore-florida-voter-fraud
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html
[6] https://www.apnews.com/3f97de11f4404893936bfb49ce7f3bda

 

Mueller and the Lame Duck

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

Congress is back in session after Thanksgiving break, but the newly elected senators and representatives have not yet taken their seats. For the next month and a half, the outgoing Republican majority will continue to call the shots in the House of Representatives, meaning that these are the last few weeks of single-party control of Congress.

Lame duck congressional sessions often hold the possibility of cooperation between the parties, because the recent elections are over and the next elections are a long way off. But at the same time, when a party loses control of Congress, that party often has a desire to accomplish unfinished business. In this post, we will take a look at one of the issues likely to be addressed before the new Congress is inaugurated: whether or not Congress should act to protect special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

This short video from PBS Newshour can provide a roundup of expectations—including other issues Congress may address—during the lame duck session ahead.

 

Protecting the Mueller Probe

One of the most pressing issues during the lame duck session will be whether or not Congress should act to protect the special counsel’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia and into any efforts made to obstruct justice or mislead federal investigators.

In the aftermath of Republicans’ losses in the midterm elections, President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who he had long criticized for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and allowing for the appointment of Mueller as special counsel. President Trump’s pick to be the new acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker, is seen by some as a threat to the independence of the Mueller investigation because he has been critical of the probe in the past. This MSNBC article details the concerns that some people—especially Democrats—have about Whitaker.

Source: CBS News, November 20, 2018

At the end of November, most Senate Republicans decided not to join Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in working with Democrats to protect the probe. Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, argued that a special counsel should not be made an unaccountable “fourth branch of government,” effectively blocking the legislation from moving forward. (See this Salt Lake Tribune article for more detail.)

However, it is still possible for the Senate to act. This editorial in the Denver Post makes the case to Colorado readers that Senator Cory Gardner, R-Colo., should join Senator Flake and Democrats in protecting the probe.

After sharing these resources with your students, ask them to consider the arguments made by those who support and those who oppose congressional action. Writing in National Review, Jonathan Tobin makes the case against Senate action and urges legislators to be cautious about setting precedent. In the Washington Post, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck makes the case for legislation to protect the investigation, arguing that the president cannot be trusted to allow the probe to continue.

Hold a discussion with your students about whether or not they think Congress should protect the investigation. Why or why not? How has what we have learned so far from the investigation shaped the way your students view the president?

 

Sources:
Cartoon Credit: Ann Telnaes, Washington Post

 

Congressional Term Limits: A Balance on a Check?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

In this week’s blog post, we will explore an idea that is gaining some traction in the United States: term limits for members of Congress.

New Kids on The Very, Very Old Block

After attending orientation classes (yes, those are a thing) and being sworn in, freshman representatives and senators will take their seats next to members that include Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Representative Don Young, R-Alaska, who have served in Congress for 44 and 46 years, respectively. For those doing the math, Senator Leahy is currently serving his eighth term in the Senate and Representative Young just won his 23rd term [1]. Yet neither member touches retired Representative John Dingell’s, D-Mich., record 59 years and 21 days in the House, standing for election no less than 30 times.

Since 1964, incumbent senators typically have an 80 percent chance of being reelected; representatives average closer to 95 percent [2]. There are a number of factors that account for the incumbent advantage. Incumbents usually have more name recognition, more campaign money, and a congressional record to point to. With those factors in place, the most likely reason a member of Congress is not reelected is either retirement or death (although that isn’t always a deal-breaker; see Mel Carnahan in 2000 [3]).

The prevalence of career legislators has led some to question whether or not the absence of term limits in the House and Senate is at odds with Congress’ role as a truly representative body. Besides, we’ve limited the terms of presidents, so why not do the same for members of Congress?

The biggest obstacle to implementing Congressional term limits is the Constitution itself. The only term limit that has been imposed has been on the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. Therefore, a precedent has been established that another amendment would be required to impose term limits on representatives and/or senators. The process of passing a constitutional amendment is arduous to say the least, but the most fundamental obstacle would be that Congress itself has to approve it. In a legislature dominated by career legislators, it is unlikely they would vote to limit themselves.

Amendments Aside, What Are the Arguments?

Those in favor of term limits argue that we should impose them on members of Congress for the very same reason we impose them on the president: to create a check on power. Congresspeople wield tremendous power and influence. They are the only 535 citizens (out of 320 million) who actually get to vote on our laws. They shape government policy, create budgets, confirm presidential appointments, and declare war. Yet holding power for lengthy periods makes members of Congress less like elected representatives and more like a political aristocracy—one that is secluded in a “Washington Bubble.” Some Americans feel that by spending so much time in Congress, members become detached from their constituents. And when they can take their reelection for granted, members are less inclined to represent their constituents’ interests. Some also argue that when a member of Congress has been in office longer than most of his or her constituents have been alive, that member is out of touch with the needs and changing sensibilities of his or her district.

So the logic seems pretty sound there. Are there any arguments for keeping things as they are? Well, yes.

Others believe that the absence of term limits protects the power of the legislative branch as a check on the executive branch. Take Representative Young and Senator Leahy, for example. Both have been in power since Watergate and have seen eight presidents come and go during their tenure. Without term limits, they are able to legislate beyond the scope of one administration. Furthermore, the responsibilities of a member can be enormously complicated. It can take years to forge relationships and master the rules that govern Congress.

Others caution against the creation of a lame-duck Congress. A “lame-duck” describes an elected official who has not been reelected but is serving out the remainder of his or her term. This period is sometimes seen as problematic, as those who will remain in power beyond the lame-duck period are less likely to work with lame-ducks on new policies since they’ll soon be dealing with replacements who may want different things. As it stands, there are 30 lame-duck representatives and a handful of lame-duck senators for the next two months. With term limits, there could be hundreds of lame-duck members for years at a time.

Discussion Questions

  1. Should members of Congress be subject to term limits? How many terms should they be allowed to run for?
  2. Do you think the incumbent advantage presents a problem for true representation in Congress? Would term limits solve this problem? What other changes might make races more competitive?
  3. Currently, the Constitution requires representatives to be at least 25 years old and senators to be at least 30. Rather than enacting term limits, some have suggested imposing a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress or a maximum age of election. Do you agree with this? Does this idea present problems of its own?
  4. The 22nd Amendment prohibits the president from serving more than two full four-year terms, even non-consecutively. Some have argued that the absence of a limit on consecutive terms for members of Congress is the true problem with the system. They suggest that members of Congress be allowed to serve unlimited terms, but that after a number of consecutive terms, they be required to stand down for at least one term. For example, a senator could run for two consecutive six-year terms, be required to stand down, and then run again six years later. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages to this suggestion?

 

Sources:
Image credit: Political Cartoon by Gary Varvel, IndyStar.com
[1] Estepa, Jessica. “Alaska’s Don Young to Become Most Senior Member of Congress After Conyers’ Retirement.” USA Today. 5 Dec. 2017. Web. 26 Nov. 2018.
[2] OpenSecrets.org. “Reelection Rates Over the Years.” Web. 26 Nov. 2018.
[3] Balz, Dan, and Mike Allen. “Mo. Gov. Killed in Plane Crash.” Washington Post. 17 Oct. 2000. Web. 26 Nov. 2018.

 

Making Sense of Election Results, Part 2

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

In this post, we will take a look at some important issues that voters weighed in on in last week’s election. Our previous post examined the shift in the national political landscape, especially the change of power in the House of Representatives. This post will take a look at ballot initiatives across the country.

For a full list of ballot measures in your state, check out this list from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Abortion

Three states considered ballot initiatives to restrict access to abortion. Voters in Oregon voted against an initiative that would have banned the use of public funding for abortion. Alabama and West Virginia both passed “sweeping anti-abortion language to the states’ constitution, proclaiming that women have no right to perform the procedure,” according to Axios.

Animal Rights

California passed Proposition 12, which requires that all eggs sold in the state come from cage-free hens by 2022. The proposition also calls for larger pens for breeding pigs and for calves raised for veal. This is a good article for teachers looking to help their students discuss the pros and cons of the proposition and its likely impact on issues related to animal cruelty and ethical farming.

Florida also passed bans on dog racing and betting on dog racing.

Criminal Justice, Civil Rights, and Constitutional Law

Alabama voters approved a constitutional amendment that allows for the display of the Ten Commandments in public spaces.

Colorado’s Amendment A put an end to forced, unpaid labor for criminals.

Most prominently, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 to restore voting rights to over one million felons.

One of the more controversial proposals to be adopted through ballot measure in this election was Marsy’s Law, a measure designed to empower victims in the criminal prosecution process. From Vox: “During Tuesday’s midterm elections, voters in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma approved a controversial ballot measure known as Marsy’s Law—writing what’s effectively a crime victim bill of rights into their state laws.”

The Vox article above provides valuable background on Marsy’s Law. For a strong statement against the proposal, here is the ACLU’s take on the issue; for a statement from the lead organization supporting the proposal, visit the website of Marsy’s Law for All.

Elections and Voting

Several states made major changes to voting and elections laws, including laws and processes related to redistricting and voter registration. This NPR article gives a good rundown of the outcomes.

Energy and the Environment

States considered an array of proposals regarding energy and environmental policy, including initiatives that dealt with renewable energy, clean air and water regulations, and fracking. Environmental protections did not get much public support. Two articles, one from the Washington Post and one from Vox, detail the policy proposals and the outcomes in each case.

Discussion Questions

  1. Were there any significant ballot measures in your state? Do you remember seeing any campaign ads about them?
  2. How would you have voted on some of the ballot measures described above?
  3. Are there any that you would like to see adopted in your state? Why?
  4. Which of these ballot measures do you think is most important? Why?

Optional Extension

Have students use NCSL’s Statewide Ballot Measures Database to investigate ballot measures that were either considered in your state or have to do with issues that your students care about. Have them investigate who supported the measures, who opposed the measures, and how much money was spent on advertising and campaigning.

 

Sources:
Image credit: NPR Illinois

 

Making Sense of Election Results, Part 1

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber
Source: BBC

Tuesday’s election strengthened the Republican majority in the Senate, but it is likely that the most significant outcome at the national level is Democrats’ new majority in the House of Representatives. In this post, we will explore some of the trends and data from the midterms as well as some of the implications of divided government and Democrats’ control of the House. In the next post, we will look at some of the ramifications at the state and local levels.

 

There will be a record number of female representatives in the next Congress.

A diverse group of women won elections across the country. According The Cook Political Report, there will be more than 100 women in the House once all of the election results come in. This article from The Guardian describes many of the new faces in Congress, including two Muslim women and two American Indian women.

Source: National Public Radio

 

High voter turnout set records.

Voter turnout for the midterms set a 50-year high, indicating a high level of energy, engagement, and anxiety. Exit polls and other polling indicate that most voters viewed the election as a referendum on President Donald Trump’s time in office, and Democrats led the national popular vote over Republicans by a margin of seven percent.

Turnout among young voters also hit high levels, and young people largely supported Democrats by a two-to-one margin, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

Source: CIRCLE

 

Democrats gain control of the House.

This CBS News article explores the ways that Democrats might try to slow down President Trump’s agenda, especially as it relates to immigration and tax cuts. Various House committees may also begin to use subpoenas to investigate the Trump administration and campaign and any ties to Russia, the president’s finances, and other issues. As far as legislative issues, this New York Times article says that Democrats will seek to strengthen campaign and ethics laws, protect health care, and push for infrastructure spending. This Vox article gives a more detailed account of what the Democrat-controlled House may try to accomplish in relation to health care.

 

Questions to For Student Discussion

  • What is your reaction to the election results?
  • Why do you think voter turnout was so high? What about turnout among young people?
  • What do you think of the Democrats’ likely goals?
    • Do you think Congress should spend more time investigating the president?
    • Do you think that Democrats’ legislative priorities (health care, campaign and ethics regulations, infrastructure spending) are the correct ones?
  • What else would you like to see the new Congress do?

 

Additional Resources

 

Sources:
Image Credit: Dave Grandlund, from PoliticalMurder.com

 

A Rumble in the House—What Are the Odds of Republicans Maintaining the Majority?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

What’s Up?

  • The members of the House of Representatives represent citizens on the basis of population. Representatives (who are elected to two-year terms) have many duties, but their most important ones are to make and pass federal laws by introducing bills and resolutions, offering amendments, serving on committees, and voting to represent their constituents.
  • Tomorrow, November 6, is Election Day. All 435 seats in the House are up for grabs. The winners will be sworn in to serve in the 116th Congress in early January 2019.
  • Republicans currently hold the majority in the House with 235 seats. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is not seeking reelection.
  • Democrats hold 193 seats in the House. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is the current minority leader.
  • Seven seats are vacant (due to a member’s death or resignation) going into the election.
  • To secure the House majority, a party must win 218 seats.
  • A rumble in the house: to take over the House majority, Democrats will need to gain 23 new seats.
Source: FiveThirtyEight

 

The Current Situation: 

  • Many polls are suggesting that Democrats will take over the House majority.
  • According to FiveThirtyEight’s aggregated poll data, there is an 85.4 percent chance that the Democrats will win the House majority in the midterms.

 

Why Might That Be?  

  • Open seats are typically more likely to flip. Incumbents are traditionally difficult to beat, so losing incumbents makes seats vulnerable for that party.
  • There are 55 House members who are not seeking reelection in 2018, leaving their seats open for the taking.
  • Republicans held 37 of those newly opened seats; eight of those seats are in districts that voted for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016.
  • Eighteen of those members not running for reelection are Democrats, but only four of them are in districts won by President Donald Trump in 2016.
  • An additional nine members of the House will leave their seats open due to early resignation. Seven of those members are Republicans, only two are Democrats.
  • History is not on Republicans’ side. According to The American Presidency Project, since 1934, the party of a newly elected president has suffered an average loss of 23 seats in the House in the following midterm election. This is the exact number of seats Democrats need to flip to become the majority.
  • Republicans are defending 25 seats in districts captured by Secretary Clinton in 2016. Democrats are defending 13 seats in districts that went for President Trump.
  • Democrats are leading in the polls for a generic ballot.

    Source: FiveThirtyEight

 

Why Do We Care? 

  • The speaker of the House is an important role in the U.S. political system. The speaker, who is elected by the House (and, thus, typically a member of the majority), acts as the leader of the House and presides over the floor. The speaker is second in line to succeed the president, after the vice president.
  • Committee assignments are important for each member’s legislative agenda; party leaders organize and shape the composition of the committees. The House has 20 standing committees that have different jurisdictions. These committees consider bills and then recommend measures for the House to consider.
  • Before members are assigned to committees, each committee’s size and proportion of Republicans to Democrats must be decided. The number of committee slots given to each party is about the same as the ratio between the majority party and the minority party in the full chamber.
  • Each committee has a chair (a member of the majority party). The chair heads the full committee and has considerable power over what pieces of legislation or issues the committee considers.
  • The Rules Committee controls which bills go to the House floor and the terms of debate. The makeup of the Rules Committee has traditionally been weighted in favor of the majority party and has been in its current configuration of nine majority members and four minority members since the late 1970s.

 

What Are the Polls Saying About the Various Races? (Source: The Cook Political Report)

Definitions to know:

Source: New York Times/The Cook Political Report
  • Likely: This race is not considered competitive at this point but it has the potential to become engaged.
  • Leaning: This is a competitive race, but one party has an advantage.
  • Highly competitive: This race is a toss-up or is leaning slightly toward one party.
  • Toss-Up: This is one of the most competitive races; either party has a good chance of winning.

What are the polls showing?

  • Polls are showing more seats solidly held by Democrats.
  • There are 183 seats anticipated to be solidly Democrat; 140 seats are polling as solidly Republican.
  • There are 11 additional seats polling as likely Democrat; 28 additional seats are likely Republican.
  • There are 29 races leaning Republican; only one of these seats is currently held by a Democrat.
  • There are 15 races leaning Democrat; 13 of these seats are currently Republican.
  • There are 73 races polling as highly competitive; 69 of these seats are currently held by Republicans.
  • There are 29 races polling as toss-ups; 28 of these seats are currently held by Republicans.

What are these polls telling us?

  • Republicans seem to have an uphill battle to fight on November 6. There are 69 Republican seats that are considered a toss-up or leaning. So to maintain control of the House, Republicans must win 90 percent or more of their highly competitive races.

 

Specific Races to Watch on Tuesday: 

According to a New York Times analysis of The Cook Political Report, the toss-up races are:

State-District Republican currently holding the seat*Open means the current representative will not run for reelection.
CA-10 Denham
CA-25 Knight
CA-39 Open (Royce)
CA-45 Walters
CA-48 Rohrabacher
FL-15 Open (Ross)
FL-26 Curbelo
IL-14 Hultgren
IA-03 Young
KS-02 Open (Jenkins)
KY-06 Barr
ME-02 Poliquin
MI-08 Bishop
MN-01 Open (Walz)
NJ-03 MacArthur
NJ-07 Lance
NM-02 Open (Pearce)
NY-19 Faso
NY-22 Tenney
NC-09 Open (Pittenger)
NC-13 Budd
OH-12 Balderson
PA-01 Fitzpatrick
TX-07 Culberson
TX-32 Sessions
UT-04 Love
VA-02 Taylor
VA-07 Brat
WA-08 Open (Reichert)

 

Resources for Further Exploration:

 

Let’s Discuss

  • Given what we know about how the House functions, why is one party holding the majority important?
  • Moving into the future, what specific impact may result if Republicans remain in the majority?
  • What about the impact if Democrats move into the majority position?
  • What specific issues or areas of legislation may be particularly impacted by the majority being in the hands of Republicans or Democrats?

 

Campaign Ads and Campaign Cash

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

The 2018 election is easily going to be the most expensive midterm election in history. There are estimates that campaigns, parties, and interest groups will spend about $5.2 billion by the time it’s all over—about 35 percent more than was spent on the 2014 midterms.

Some of this money is spent on supplies, signs, the hiring of staff, and get-out-the-vote operations, but the vast majority goes toward advertising on television and social media. It is online and on the airwaves where much of the campaign is fought; this is how candidates and outside groups attempt to influence undecided voters and motivate supporters to go to the polls.

Since political advertising is the main tool of persuasion used by campaigns, it is important for students to learn to view political ads critically. There are a number of resources that allow students to learn about and research campaign ads.

C-SPAN Classroom has a number of excellent resources, and its lesson plan on What Makes a Good Campaign Ad—Advertisement Analysis is specifically about ads for the 2018 election. The lesson plan includes eight clips of current campaign ads with two professional campaign strategists, Steve McMahon (Democrat) and Todd Harris (Republican), analyzing why the ads are effective or ineffective. The lesson plan is well organized and the short clips are excellent; there’s even a graphic organizer to help students take notes and think about the ads they are watching.

Note: You must either register (for free) for a C-SPAN Classroom account or use the generic login (user name: students, password: C-SPANCLASSROOM).

Getting students to do their own research of campaign ads and cash will help them build their analytical capabilities. One idea is to assign pairs of students to different political races around the country, and have them analyze the candidates’ ads.

The best races for such an assignment are competitive races. The Cook Political Report assesses both House and Senate races and determines how likely each race is to go to one party or the other. Using The Cook Political Report’s House and Senate charts, select races in the “Toss-Up” or “Lean” categories; there should be plenty of ads for students to find, watch, and analyze. Once you assign students their races, make sure they do some background research on the candidates and the district or state before they watch the ads.

To find those ads, Google has a robust library of the political advertising that has appeared on their sites, both video and flat text versions. Students can search for ads using the name of the candidate or the sponsor (such as a specific party or political action committee [PAC]). Make sure that students are viewing ads from the 2018 cycle.

After they view their ads, have students consider the following:

  1. What is the main message of the ad?
  2. Would you consider this to be a positive or negative ad? Why?
  3. Who do you think is the target audience for this ad? Explain.
  4. Do you think this ad is effective? Why or why not?

You can have the pairs of students present to the class on the race they are covering, by sharing one of their ads and their analysis.

The other piece of the equation is the money that is spent on these ads (billions of dollars in this cycle alone). Who is contributing money to fund all these commercials?

There are four types of ads: (1) Those produced by the campaigns themselves, (2) those produced by an entity of a political party, (3) those produced by an interest group supporting or opposing a candidate, and (4) those produced by a PAC that does not have to report who funds it. The more groups that are involved in ad spending for a race, the more competitive that race probably is.

Source: The Tangled Web of Campaign Finance infographic, from The Sunlight Foundation

Students can research who is behind these ads. Google’s Transparency Report allows people to search out who has spent money on political ads, and on which specific races, on their sites.

Opensecrets.org tracks overall contributions to candidates and parties. You can conduct searches by interest group, industry, PAC, or party. Students can use this site to research which industries and interest groups are contributing to campaigns.

Have students consider why various groups are so willing to spend money on races for the House or Senate.

  1. What do these groups get out of it?
  2. What industries and interests are most involved in campaign contributions?
  3. Which industries and interests are contributing more to Democrats? To Republicans?
  4. Are there any industries and interests that contribute a lot to both parties? Why would they do this?

In the end, have students consider the influence that money has over the political system. The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are the equivalent of speech and therefore are protected by the First Amendment. Do students agree with this assessment?

 

Source:
Image Credit: Political cartoon by Mike Keefe of InToon.com, found at Denver Post’s Idea Log blog

 

Anger, Fear, and Polarization

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber
Source: Gallup

The hate-based mass shooting in Pittsburgh and the attempted assassinations of prominent Democrats and media figures are among the most recent and startling signs that the divides in the country are getting deeper and more dangerous. This post is intended to help teachers and students explore the sharp political divides that exist in the United States. It is also important for teachers to help students discuss the tragedy in Pittsburgh; fellow Teaching for Democracy Alliance members, Facing History and Ourselves and PBS Newshour, shared some resources and questions to help teachers do just that.

Evidence of Anger, Fear, and Polarization

Source: Pew Research Center

Several polls conducted by Gallup and the Pew Research Center in recent years indicate that political divisions in the country are serious and wide.

The trends in the above poll show that partisanship has been increasing for decades, with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, briefly uniting the country.

This second poll indicates that Americans’ worries about what the other party will do is a major factor in determining which party they support. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans said they are more opposed to the other party than they are supportive of their own.

This last poll indicates that both Democrats and Republicans hold negative attitudes, including fear, anger, and frustration. More highly engaged Republicans and Democrats felt these emotions even more acutely.

Taken together, these polls tell a story of a divided nation in which those on different sides of the political divide have negative views of each other—views such as fear and anger that can make political discourse difficult, if not impossible.

Polarization in Context

Political polarization seems to be everywhere. Americans are currently engaged in debates about protests during the national anthem, about the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements, and even about our choices in entertainment. Two news items from NPR—an article from January that looks at the state of American politics and an article from earlier this month that discusses partisan gaps on important political and policy issues—will help you and your students investigate polarization.

Discussion Questions

  1. What evidence of political polarization, if any, have you seen in your social and family network?
  2. Do you see evidence of political polarization in the media? In political ads?
  3. Do you think political polarization is a problem? Why or why not?
  4. What, if anything, should be done about political polarization?
  5. Do you think that one political party is more to blame for partisanship and polarization than the other? Explain your answer. What evidence supports your position?

Finally, share this article from The Atlantic about various proposed reforms to lessen or eliminate partisanship and polarization. Then, discuss which of these proposals, if any, students would support.

Extension Activity

  1. Investigate partisanship in your state or town. Look at election results in primaries and general elections in the last several elections (going back 15-20 years).
    • What trends do you see?
    • Are candidates from the two major parties growing further apart?
    • Is there a divide between different parts of your state or congressional district?
    • How has spending on advertising for Senate and House races in your state/district changed in the last 20 years?
  2. Write a short report or newspaper article on the basis of your class findings to help explain the impact of polarization on your community. To enrich the reporting, consider having students conduct interviews about political polarization. As an example, listen to this story about differences between generations in Orange County, California.

Additional Discussion Resources

 

Sources:
Image Credit: Berkley Political Review

 

Election Integrity or Voter Suppression?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

One of the most fundamental rights of citizens in a representative democracy is the right to vote—the right to decide who should govern and give input on key policy decisions. In recent years, conservative policymakers have raised concerns over voter fraud and its potential to influence the outcome of elections. President Donald Trump continues to claim that massive voter fraud took place during the 2016 election, but there is currently no evidence to support that claim. In fact, the president established a now-disbanded federal voter fraud commission, but that commission could not find any evidence that voter fraud played a significant role in the outcome of any state or national election.

However, policymakers in several states continue to consider and implement policies aimed at reducing or eliminating voter fraud. In this post, we examine voting rights controversies in North Dakota and Georgia and offer some resources and discussion questions to help teachers and students navigate the difficult and divisive topic of election integrity and voter suppression.

Source: Tyler Behm/Reuters

North Dakota

In North Dakota, there is a hotly contested Senate race between incumbent Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, and her Republican challenger, Representative Kevin Cramer. A court case is currently brewing that could affect the ability of almost 70,000 of the state’s residents to cast ballots. The state passed a law requiring voters to show an ID that lists a street address, meaning that a voter cannot have a P.O. box as his or her primary address. This affects many of the state’s rural residents and has a disproportionate impact on American Indians. This New York Times article offers details on the law, the court battle, and the projected outcome of the court’s decision on the 2018 election.

Georgia

Georgia is currently a focal p

oint of the voting rights debate because of two controversial policies. One policy, known as voter purges, is the practice of removing inactive voters’ names from voter rolls in order to limit fraud. The goal is typically to ensure that the deceased and those who have moved to other voting precincts do not maintain active registration, so no one can show up to vote in their place. The second policy, known as exact match, is meant to ensure that the people who register to vote are who they say they are. If names or addresses are misspelled or do not perfectly match on voter registration documents, those registrations are held up or must be re-submitted.

This NPR article offers background on the controversies in Georgia, and these two editorials—one from The Economist and one from National Review—offer competing views on the issue.

Discussion

  1. After examining these and other resources, do you believe voter fraud is an issue that government should be doing more to address?
  2. If stricter voting laws block legitimate, eligible voters from casting their ballots, are these laws worth enacting?
  3. What are the strongest arguments made by supporters and opponents of stricter voting laws?
  4. How should your state balance the need to maintain election security with the goal of making sure that all eligible voters are able to vote?

See our Controversial Issues in the News update on Voter ID Laws for more details and discussion questions.

Additional Resources