As a note, the 2010 count includes legal and illegal immigrants as well as citizens who call the U.S. their home.

Compared to other countries in rough percentage terms over the last ten years, Canada’s population grew by 10 percent, France and England increased by 5 percent, Japan stayed constant, and Germany decreased.

Although China grew by only 6 percent, their population grew to 1.3 billion or 20 percent of the world population. One in five of the people of the world now live in China.

Big shift U.S. population increases per 2010 Census

Michigan (-0.6)(-54K) was the only state to lose population.

In the previous census, these states were also big percentage increases with Nevada (66.3), Arizona (40.0), Utah (29.6), Idaho (28.5), Texas (22.8), Colorado (30.6), North Carolina (21.4), South Carolina (15.1), Georgia (26.4), and Florida (23.5).

This shows a big shift in population over the last twenty years to the Southeast and the West.

So why is the Census important and how does that affect our lives?

We get Representation:

There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives that are reapportioned among states with each new Census according to population. The goal is an even distribution of voting citizens across all states. In other words, the total population is divided by 435, or 710,767 as a goal for the size of a congressional legislative district starting in 2013.

From the 2000 Census, the average district population was 646,946 starting in 2003. States with population increases add new districts, and those with population decreases lose districts. And there are seven states whose population only entitle them to the minimum single district because they don’t have enough people living there for more.

District Gains:

Texas (+4), Florida (+2); Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (+1) each.

All but one of the gaining states (Washington) were won by Republicans in November 2010.

District Losses:

New York and Ohio (-2) each; Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania (-1) each.

Seven of the losing states were won by Republicans in November 2010.

Knowing where people live in the country allows the federal government to channel funding down to the states in a fair manner. It would be no fun if some states got all the road and bridge repairs, all the airports, all the post offices, all the disaster and college funding and all the other things the government pays for. Knowing where people live in the state allows the state to fairly distribute the federal money it receives to the cities and towns so schools can stay open and garbage can be collected.

And that all comes from the Census.

Congress:

When the 435 congressional districts meet in Washington, they generally discuss and act on national matters and enact national laws. That representation tries to insure that every person in the country is fairly spoken for.

Each district is represented by a member of a political party, mostly Republicans and Democrats. They vote the way their party leadership tells them to vote or how they think their district will want them to vote. When there are more Republicans in the 435 seats, things go the way the Republican leadership wants. When there are more Democrats, it goes their way. The 435 all come up for reelection every even-numbered year, and they are in their job for only two years at a time.

Electoral College

Every four years, a president is elected by the Electoral College. The Electoral College is made up of representatives of our congressional representatives. There are 535 members; the number of House representatives in the state plus the two Senators from each state.

While national elections focus mainly on electing friendly party representatives for each district and redrawing districts to their advantage, the Electoral College, in most cases, is a state-by-state, all-or-nothing voting system that protects the value of the individual state by choosing its own method of electing members without interference from other states or national parties.

The job of the Electoral College is to choose the most powerful executive leader in the world across the expanse of the nation by ignoring population concentrations, contested elections and voter turnout in other states.

The Electoral College was never meant to reflect the national popular will. It was designed to vote the individual state’s choice for the presidency. It gives as much weight to rural areas as urban centers. It enhances the status of minority groups concentrated in states with large electoral vote counts. It prevents nationalization of the government and enhances the collective opinion of the individual states. It promotes cohesion of the nation by requiring a distribution of popular support to elect.

Redistricting:

As the voting population moves South and West, new legislative districts are formed in those states to keep the population similar in all districts across the country. Constitutional law says that each district must contain approximately the same number of voters.

When a state adds or loses districts, the entire state population must be redistricted by drawing new maps to include similar populations in all districts.

The task of redistricting a state is a happy opportunity for the majority party in a state. The ruling party has the final vote (sometimes subject to governor approval) on new district lines. Shrewd politicians make every effort to redraw district lines so voters favorable to them will carry elections in all districts. And they can’t help being creative to reduce the competition.

Computer-generated simulations have made this job a lot easier and much more effective.

In June 2006 the Supreme Court issued an opinion that allowed states to redistrict at any time.

Some favored techniques are:

• “packing” where district lines are drawn to pack political opposition voters into as few districts as possible
• “cracking” or fragmenting the opposition voters thinly out into different districts so their votes become minimized or ineffective
• “kidnapping” involves redrawing the district so two strong opposition candidates reside in the same district and must run against each other. No matter who wins, one strong candidate is eliminated (see “Gerrymandering” > In Pennsylvania… further down on this page)
• “spoiler effect” provides candidates that cannot win, but draw votes away from contenders
• spreading the opposition voters thinly around a large district, causing campaign coverage expenses as high as possible for opposition candidates attempting to cover wide areas.

The purpose for the ruling party is to have as many “wasted votes“ as possible.

States such as California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas have already reduced competition by skewing their district maps to prefer ruling party favorites so that competition for congressional House seats has been virtually eliminated.

There are still 36 states where the state legislature has the primary responsibility to create a redistricting plan. In many cases, this is subject to approval by the state governor. Seven states (Arizona, California, Hawaii. Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington) use either a bipartisan or independent commission to create a plan. Three states (Florida, Iowa, Maine) use independent commissions to propose a plan which must be approved by the legislature.

Although the November 2010 elections put Republicans in full control of 35 state legislatures, their ability to redistrict in their favor is somewhat limited by population location (all districts must have roughly the same population and form one enclosed figure) and the 1965 Voting Rights Act which protects ethnic minorities (race or color) from voter bias.

There will still be redistricting plans that wind up in the courts.

“Gerrymandering” is the setting of electoral boundaries to establish political advantage. Some past examples are :

California’s 23^rd congressional district is an example of the packing style of districting. It is moderately to heavily democratic and confined to a narrow strip of coast so thin it is referred to as “the district that disappears at high tide.”

Illinois’s 4th congressional district is drawn like a pair of earmuffs “packing” two Hispanic areas (Puerto Rican in the north, Mexican in the south) while remaining connected (legal requirement) by narrowly tracing a small portion of Interstate 294. It completely surrounds the Illinois 7^th congressional district.

North Carolina’s 12^th congressional district is an example of “packing” a 64 percent African-American liberal majority into a single district by following Interstate 85 almost exactly in a long and thin and in some points no wider than a single highway lane. The boundaries were contested in the Supreme Court three times and redrawn. The current version has a small plurality of whites.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican-controlled state legislature used gerrymandering to defeat Democrat Frank Mascara representing the 20^th congressional district. A large portion of his district was moved into the newly-drawn 12^th congressional district including most of his neighborhood. The district split streets down the middle to form a thin tendril that ended at his house, but not where he parked his car. Mascara was “kidnapped” into the 12^th district and had to run there against another strong Democrat. He was defeated, but whoever won, Republicans eliminated a strong opposition candidate.

In Texas, the Republican majority redistricted the state in 2003, diluting the voting power of the heavily Democratic Travis County, Texas by “cracking” or distributing the voters out to more Republican districts.

The United States Supreme Court in 2006 upheld most of the Texas congressional district map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The decision allowed state legislatures to redraw districts as many times as they like and not just after the Census. This allows them to protect their political parties’ standing and number of seats, as long as they don’t harm racial and ethnic minority groups voting influence.

Ed.Note: Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, once considered among the nation’s most powerful and feared lawmakers, representing Texas’ 22^nd congressional district from 1984-2006 was found guilty of money laundering for campaign financing, on a felony conspiracy charge to move $190,000 in corporate donations to Republican candidates in the Texas State Legislature in 2002.   He was sentenced to three years in prison for the scheme to influence elections that already cost him his job, leadership post and millions of dollars in legal fees.

How they work it:

In districts where the ruling political party is in the voting minority, districts can be redrawn to make the loyal voters the slight majority for most districts; an attempt to insure continuing congressional majority domination for the state, and the casting of all the state’s electoral votes for the presidential candidate of the ruling party’s choice.

Since any challenging candidates have little or no chance of winning, voter turnout diminishes to the point where the dominant party may run uncontested. The “wasted vote” ploy succeeds and the American citizen loses his ballot.

Partisans drawing district lines, however, face challenges between protection of their incumbents and maximizing their party’s campaign potential. Many times, the only way to increase their party’s campaign potential is to shift boundaries so reliable partisans are moved out of their districts, cutting margins of safety for incumbents, but making elections more competitive. Incumbents, finding new voters in the district, must establish their personal relationships with them if they hope to get reelected.

As a note, it has been found that when commissions or courts draw district boundaries, elections are more competitive compared to those drawn by legislatures. In 1992, statistical analysis showed that incumbents benefited from bipartisan redistricting which produced reduced competition.

How it has worked:

Favorable redistricting did not come easily. After the 1990 Census, 20 states had suits in state courts concerning redistricting plans; 28 states had suits in federal court. Eleven states had suits in both state and federal courts on the same district plan. New York had cases in four different federal courts and three different state courts.

Republicans under the leadership of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich worked for 10 years setting up state legislatures as a basis for the 1994 Republican sweep of the congressional House of Representatives.

Gingrich worked with state party chairmen to find candidates who could win congressional districts and were aligned with favorable state and district issues such as lower business taxes, term limits, welfare reform, pro-choice and clean energy. These candidates received the most party funding, and many won their elections.

The Republican Revolution started in the 1992 elections when Republicans gained 9 congressional seats, leaving the balance at 258D-176R (+1 Independent), but it really delivered the message in the 1994 elections when Republicans gained 52 congressional seats and won two special elections, leaving the House balance at 230R-204D (+1 Independent).

Nearly one-third of those defeated by Republicans had been in office only for one term. Republicans carried the country with less than a 7 percent majority.

The “Republican Revolution of 1994″ was caused mainly by national voter discontent who showed their displeasure of Democrats, the issues they supported and their alleged corruption. Republicans built on the general voter perception that the House Democratic leadership was corrupt.

Issues causing dissatisfaction with the president was Clinton’s push for massive healthcare reforms and the 1993 tax hikes.

Foretelling the Democratic trouncing were off-year election losses of heavily Democratic mayoralties (Jersey City, Los Angeles, New York) state governorships (New Jersey, Virginia), and special elections (one Texas Senate and two House).

The Southern response to Supreme Court rulings to redraw district boundaries allowed the Southern states to draw maps that concentrated black voters in districts surrounded by white voter districts, increasing by far the white Republican dominance in those districts and those states.

As a result, Republicans swept the South, formerly a Democratic haven, at congressional and statewide levels, and in gubernatorial and special elections. It remains a Republican stronghold today.

Republicans also gained 3 out of the 7 new districts in California, 2 out of the 4 new districts in Florida and 2 out of the 3 new districts in Texas.

The Republican Revolution of 1994 was based on the preparation by the minority party, choosing candidates who could win, with platforms everyone favored, redistricting and shifting blocs of voters, waiting for the majority party to alienate the voters.

And that all came from the Census forming a way for voters to vent their displeasure at how the country was being run.

Gaining and holding:

There are two major parts to control – gaining it and holding it. In the 1996 elections, Democrats made gains in 13 states, while Republicans made gains in only 9. Republicans lost the popular vote, as well as 9 of the 54 seats they had held for only one term. Republicans were still the ruling party in Congress, but Democrat Bill Clinton was elected for a second term as president with 379 Electoral College votes (270 votes elect) and 49 percent of the popular vote.

Leading up to the 1998 elections, Republicans again tried the corrupt leadership ploy against the president for his embarrassing affair with Monica Lewinsky. Newt Gingrich, now House speaker, was in the lead of the attacks. After all, it had worked in 1994.  But voters turned against the Republicans, and another 5 (net) House seats were lost.

In Florida, in the worst possible outcome of redistricting and “wasted votes,” there were only 6 races for 23 districts; 12 Republicans and 5 Democrats ran unopposed. These 17 Florida districts had their right to vote virtually eliminated. They now lived in “why bother” districts.

After the election loss, the Republicans in Congress turned against Newt Gingrich. He resigned his House seat, took his pension and went home. This was his legacy.

The 2000 Census saw Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas gain two congressional districts each. The rush to California had abated, and that state only gained one district but still remained the largest state with 53 districts. Republicans lost another 5 seats in California with no wins. They lost a total of 2 (net) seats in the election, were hanging on to a majority by only 9 seats and won the popular vote by only 340,000, or some 0.3% out of 93 million votes.

Florida had only 6 unopposed races. This was the last election based on the 1990 census and Republican George W. Bush from Texas was elected President.

The 2002 elections were the first election using the reapportionment from the 2000 Census. Voters were still moving South and West with two districts each added to Florida, Georgia, Texas and Arizona. Republicans gained back 8 seats to reinforce their thin majority, but mostly on national solidarity after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City. Most of the states saw no net change. Republicans won California’s new district 21 and the two new districts in Texas. Florida had 8 unopposed races out of their 25 districts.

In the 2004 elections, Republicans gained 5 seats in Texas, making it a solidly Republican state, with control over 21 out of 32 districts. Florida had 9 unopposed races. The partisan image of the country remained mostly red.

Voter Anger Builds:

By 2006, voters were fed up with the president and the Republican Congress. Democratic candidates fed the country’s dissatisfied voters. They campaigned against the Iraq War during its bloodiest phase. They called up fears that the country was about to fall into recession in spite of the low 4.5 percent unemployment rate which consisted of low-paying occupations. They charged that the high-paying jobs were being outsourced by big business to countries where labor was cheap. They claimed the ranks of the uninsured and those in poverty were growing, and that the anemic government response to help the powerless victims of Hurricane Katrina (2005) was too weak and too late.

The Democrats won 31 seats to take control of the House 233D-202R. Republicans still held control of most of the states, but the lead was razor-thin (25-23, 1 tie). Even with their lead, they could not have mustered enough electoral votes to elect a president if this was a presidential year, but the Democrats could.

The predictions of the economic recession came true at the end of 2007. This recession was more widespread than anyone thought, encompassing many countries around the world. Unemployment climbed to more than 10 percent nationally, and is currently locked at 9.6. Millions of Americans are out of work and many have been for more than a year. Home values have plummeted, and remain low, facing homeowners with paying a debt on a home worth half as much. Many people walked away, discouraged, with no jobs.

The Stimulus Act of 2008, valued at $152 billion and signed by Republican president Bush was the first attempt to funnel cash directly to the people through tax refund checks. This “trickle-up” effort helped the economy somewhat, increasing spending by those receiving the check by 3.5 percent.

In 2008, the first year of the recession, Democratic Senator Barack Obama was nominated to run for president. He campaigned mostly on hope for the future and bipartisanship in Washington. The historic presidential election solidified the Democratic majority with a net gain of another 21 seats (257D-178R).

But the promise of hope came while the economy was still plummeting. Job losses climbed and the government spent huge amounts of money trying to stem the flow.

In a classic example of “trickle-down” economics, banks, mortgage companies, and large businesses were bailed out to prevent bankruptcies and resulting job losses for millions more.

Mistakes were made. Businesses that were supposed to use the funding to hire workers after stability was regained, kept the money or used it to absorb struggling smaller businesses.

In a classic example of “trickle-up” economics, unemployment was extended to the long-term unemployed, jobs were created through the repair of the nation’s transportation infrastructure, states were funded to continue teacher salaries and many other examples.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus Recovery Act, valued at $787 billion included federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector.

The bill was voted against by the entire Republican membership, who in later weeks appeared smiling in photo-ops handing out the checks in their districts.

The deficit got larger, and the population kept any extra money close, skeptical the economy would improve. Businesses, responding to slow sales, did not hire. Banks had money to lend but were cautious, so relatively little business expansion occurred. Layoffs slowly abated.

Unemployment continued to hover just under 10 percent, based mainly on that just under two million new people per year enter the Civilian labor force. If just those two million get jobs, the unemployment rate stays the same.

Businesses are still outsourcing jobs to cheaper locations outside the U.S. Those jobs will not come back. The solution to employment is the implementation of new industries based and dependent on American labor.

Americans just want their lives back, and are angry at the president and congress for not fixing things. Besides jobs, voters want a better economy, a repaired housing market, a smaller deficit, and no tax hikes. They want to end to the war and its enormous expense, and have the government do more about terrorism.

Approaching the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans publicly announced their main goal was to destroy the president and his programs and elect a president that will not veto their legislation. They intend to dismember and de-fund the landmark Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (that all Republicans voted against, in addition to many more bills benefiting our citizens).

During the 2010 election, voters expressed their anger with the size of the deficit, the lack of jobs, and the state of the economy. In the 2008 presidential election, 117.4 million votes were cast. In the 2010 election, 84.1 million people turned out, 25 percent of the voters were over 65 years old (who tend to be Republican and fiscal conservatives).

Republican red spilled across the national map for the last election based on the 2000 Census.

Where from here?

In the 2012 elections, considering the mood of the voter stays the same and giving weight to the majority party in each of the 18 states, it is likely, with redistricting, that Republicans will pick up another 3-6 seats from the Democrats, making the balance around 247R-188D (currently 242R-193D).

If all else stays the same, Republicans will seat a new president, carrying 35 states with at least 350 Electoral College votes (270 are needed to win).

Something we should remember; in 1994, Republicans swept into office promising fiscal reform and accountability. By 2000, the 95 programs they had promised to cut, all remained and increased in total cost by 13%.

What Americans are dealing with is similar to the five stages of grief. They have passed the Denial and Discouragement stages and appear to be in the Anger stage on the way to Acceptance of a new economy and way of life.

What is the future? Will the Democrats be able to erase enough of the 350 electoral votes to reelect Obama? How will the continuing shift to the West and Southeast affect the 2012 election?

Is John Boehner the new Newt Gingrich? He helped write the Contract with America in 1994.

Will John Boehner run? Will Newt Gingrich run? Will Sarah Palin run? Will Jim DeMint run?

Some people say that to disagree with the government in power is unpatriotic. I disagree. It is the highest form of patriotism in the spirit of our founding fathers, as they disagreed with England. Voters have only their vote, and they should use it.

Are politicians using the population shift for their own ends?

Today, some other indicators work in the GOP’s favor. The measurable enthusiasm gap between Republican voters and Democrats means that House districts, gerrymandered to include as many members of a single voting bloc as possible, may limit the number of seats gained in the House, but the increased voter turnout will undoubtedly affect the statewide Senate races.

In an article from ChattahBox Political News

“October 27, 2010– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in a National Journal interview that the Republican Party has no intention of finding solutions to America’s many problems. And the Party of No has no intention of legislating to make the lives of ordinary Americans easier. What is on the top of McConnell’s to do list for the next two-years? Besides rolling over for special interests and giving their rich friends tax breaks, McConnell plans to lead his party on a campaign to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama, to ensure a return to power in 2012. And he has no problem saying it out loud. The Democratic National Committee released a video today shining a light on McConnell’s plan for America, asking the question “What does that mean for you?”

When asked by the National Journal to name the top Republican legislative strategies for the next two-years, McConnell responded that he has his sights set firmly on toppling the Obama administration.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” McConnell said, adding, “Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful.” ”

And I learned all that from the Census.

The importance of this election goes beyond controlling national legislation; the controlling party also has charge of the redrawing of congressional districts for fair representation of voters, but many times resulting in attempts to manipulate district lines that favor the re-election of the ruling party (gerrymandering). 

The exit polls show that voters are not happy with the economy as it is or the slowness of its growth.  And many are not happy with the extensive unemployment in the country. 

Some candidates tried TV ads that painted their opponent in an extremely negative light, or tried to paint Latino immigrants as menacing invaders.  Many times these ads backfired and the candidate lost. 

The anti-incumbent feeling ran high.  Voters in this country are mostly swing voters.  They will swing to the candidate who promises the most and away from the one who has not performed miracles in the last two years.  An example is Wisconsin, who unseated an 18-year incumbent and elected a senator who was so new he was unclear as to what he would do because he had not even studied the issues. 

Many states showed displeasure with the mandated health care act.  Some legislators lost their seats because of their support of health care in Congress.  Some states passed state amendments to their constitutions prohibiting mandated health insurance.  The Supreme Court will certainly visit the constitutionality of the state amendments especially Article Six. 

What was the impact of the Tea Party on the election?  It drove people to vote, and that is a good thing even if they didn’t vote the way some readers wanted. 

Some exit poll findings for voting Republican for the House and GOP gains from 2008:

Overall, in a voter population of 47% men and 53% women, 57% of men voted Republican, up by 10%; 51% of women, up by 8%. 

By race and ethnicity, in a voter population of 78% white, 10% black, 8% Hispanic and 1% Asian, the Republican vote was 62% white, up by 8%; 41% Asian, up by 8%.

Blacks are still high at 91% Democratic; Hispanics are at 66% Democratic. 

By voter age (adjusted for those too young to vote in the last election), 42% of those 18-29 voted Republican (58% voted Democratic), up by 7% and steadily rising to 58% of those 65+, up by 10%.

First-time voters were evenly split.

By voter location, 61% of those in the south (31% of the population) voted Republican, up by 10%.

By religious preference, in a population of 54% Protestant, 61% voted Republican (up by 7%). 

By family income for the 18% voter families earning less than $30,000, 43% voted Republican, up by 11%; steadily rising to 57% for families earning more than $100,000, up by 6%. 

By financial situation, in a population where 63% have a family income of $50-100,000, and 41% said their family situation had worsened over the last year, 65% voted Republican, up by 37%.  In contrast, the 57% who said their family situation was better or had stayed the same, 46% voted Republican, down by 8.5%.

By ideology, in a population where 42% claim to be conservative, 86% of them voted Republican, up 9%. 

By location population, rural areas voted 64% Republican, up by 15%.  Voters in areas having more than 500,000 people, 34% voted Republican, up 7%. 

Comparing 1994 and 2010 elections, Republican votes by women (53% of the population) went up from 2% to 8%; Hispanic votes (8% of the population) went up less than 1994, from 11% to 4%; voters 60 years and older (34% of the population) went up from 7% to 10%; college grads (28% of the population) went up from 1% to 9%; voters in the south (31% of the population) went up from 6% to 10%; people with family incomes less than $30,000 (18% of the population) went up from 6% to 11%; people whose financial status is better than last year (14% of the population) went down from -26% to -22%; union households (17% of the population) went up less than 1994, from 7% to 3%; and people in rural communities (13% of the population) went up from 8% to 15%. 

There were some interesting excerpts from interesting states in the exit polls. 

AL:  Republicans also took all but one of the state’s seven seats in the House.  Republicans won a majority in the State Legislature for the first time in the 136 years since Reconstruction.

AK: The fiercest political battles in Alaska in recent years have not been across party lines but within the Republican Party.  The majority vote went for Senate write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski-R (41%).  The victory by Murkowski was a stunning upset, as no senator has won a write-in campaign since 1954. It also represents a significant setback for Republicans, who took her off the ticket and Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who strongly backed Joe Miller-R.  Miller’s conservative stance on issues like the growing budget deficit worried many Alaskans, whose economy is highly dependent on federal spending. 

Even though write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski is claiming victory in Alaska’s Senate race, Republican tea party candidate Joe Miller is not giving up until all the absentee ballots have been counted and the write-in votes have been reviewed.

 AZ: Passed a state constitutional amendment preventing mandated health insurance.  Governor Jan Brewer has agreed to eliminate a health insurance program for low-income children. 

AR: A Republican will represent Arkansas in the Senate for only the second time since Reconstruction.  Defeated Sen. Blanche Lincoln-D appears to have lost due to her support of the president’s health care bill. 

CA: Meg Whitman’s-R personal $140 million went for nothing as her negative ads turned off independent voters and elected Jerry Brown-D as Governor by 13 points, along with a host of Democratic veterans instead of Republican newcomers.  Voters said they were not eager to make huge changes and a majority said they supported the job President Obama is doing.    A majority of voters early in the day said, in general, they preferred “an insider who knows how to get things done” rather than an “outsider who would shake things up.” 

Whitman’s personal unlimited wealth worked against her as she overdid it in ads and began to annoy voters.  How she turned against her undocumented immigrant housekeeper and said she should have been deported was the killing blow.  Didn’t she think that comment would affect the votes of 13.4 million Hispanics that make up 37% of the California population?  Personality is a large part of election, and Whitman failed.   

CO: Exit polls showed that the economy was a central issue for the state’s voters, with 4/10 saying their family’s financial situation had worsened in the previous two years. A majority of voters disapproved of President Obama’s job performance, and about half said that Congress should repeal the new health care law.  After a tight race and a recount, the incumbent Michael Bennet-D claimed victory.

CT: Connecticut voters defied the national trend by electing Democratic candidates in several close races.  Worries over the nation’s economy drove Senate support for Richard Blumenthal-D.  According to exit polls, 9/10 of voters expressed concern about the country’s economic future, with a clear majority of those voters backing Blumenthal.  The seat became open when Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat, announced his retirement. 

The race for governor was too close to call as of Wednesday morning.  The Connecticut Secretary of State declared that Dannel P. Malloy-D had won, while Thomas C. Foley-R declined to concede.

DE: Chris Coons-D won a closely watched race on Tuesday. The contest became a national sensation after Christine O’Donnell-R, who has tried several times for elected office, defeated the mainstream Republican candidate, Michael N. Castle, in the primary election. Republicans had been counting on Castle to win the DE seat as part of the party’s strategy for gaining a Senate majority. 

As it turned out, Mr. Castle’s former Congressional seat — the state’s only House seat went to Democrat John C. Carney Jr.  Exit polls suggested that Coons won easily, thanks in part to the continued popularity of President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, the native son. Two-thirds of those surveyed said they had a favorable view of Biden, and nearly 60 percent said they approved of the job that Obama is doing as president. 

Surveys showed that Sarah Palin’s enthusiastic support for O’Donnell may have hurt more than it helped: 46% of the state’s voters expressed opposition to the Tea Party, and two-thirds held an unfavorable impression of Palin.

FL: Marco Rubio-R, a Tea Party favorite, rode a wave of voter concern over the economy to win a three-way race for the Senate.  In the waning days of the race, many Democrats, including Bill Clinton, had urged Kendrick Meek-D, a distant third in the polls, to drop out to improve the chances of Charlie Crist-I. But Meek stayed in the race, and exit polls showed that Crist and Meek hurt each other’s results as the votes split between them. 

25% of those surveyed said they were angry at the government, and 75% of these respondents voted for Rubio, according to the surveys. More than 8/10 respondents who described themselves as Tea Party supporters voted for Rubio.

HI: President Obama’s birth state gave him a rare sweep of Democratic victories.

ID: Republicans swept Idaho and unseated Walt Minnick-D, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress.  He had backed away from his party’s agenda on economic issues and voted against the health care overhaul and the federal stimulus package.  And ads against his opponent seemed to have backfired.  Even some Democrats found them unfair.

IL: Voters narrowly elected a Republican to the Senate seat vacated by President Obama and three Republicans to House seats currently held by Democrats.  The Senate race held symbolic meaning for both parties because it was for Mr. Obama’s former seat.

IN: Indiana was a surprise victory for Barack Obama in 2008, and Republicans set their sights on bringing the conservative-leaning state back to them.  They succeeded in part, winning the Senate seat vacated by Evan Bayh-D. Republicans also took two House seats from Democrats, that left Democrats with control of only three of Indiana’s eight Congressional districts. 

KY: A majority of voters in this state want the federal government to get out of the everyday lives of its citizens and let the private sector create jobs and provide health care to workers, and they elected Rand Paul, to take its message to Washington.  Paul ran as a Republican, but he made it clear that his allegiance was to the Tea Party.

LA: Voters chose prostitution involement over presidential policies as they elected Incumbent Senator David Vittner-R to a second term.  Vitnner’s number showed up on telephone logs of a Washington prostitution ring. 

 ME: Paul LePage-R, a conservative favorite of Tea Party activists, won as governor in a three-way race whose outcome was uncertain until Wednesday morning.

MD: Republicans barely touched this increasingly Democratic state.  Senator Barbara A. Mikulski-D won a sweeping victory, for her fifth term. In January, she will become the longest-serving woman in the history of the Senate.  Democrats won six of the state’s eight House seats.

MA: Tuesday’s results served as a sobering reminder that Democrats still have the advantage in Massachusetts.  Governor Deval Patrick-D held off his Republican challenger and Democrats retained an open House seat in the 10th Congressional District.  The state is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Republicans had hoped to gain ground in Massachusetts after Scott Brown-R won the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy-D. Voters in many low-income, heavily Democratic areas turned out in far greater numbers than they had in Brown’s special election.

MI: Rick Snyder-R, a moderate and former CEO of Gateway computer, won the race for governor by talking more about jobs than about divisive social issues. 

MN: After a seven-month recount after a deadlocked 2008 Senate election elected Al Franken-D voters face more uncertainty. The governor’s race remained undecided on Wednesday, with Mark Dayton-D clinging to a narrow lead.  A recount is likely as Dayton’s 9,000-vote lead was less than half of 1 percent of the 2.1 million votes cast.  A frequently debated issue in the governor’s race was how to lessen the $6 billion deficit. Dayton said he would raise taxes on the wealthy, while his opponent pledged to cut government spending.

MS: Two of the state’s House representatives were ousted, perhaps in reaction to the Gulf oil spill since Gene Taylor-D was well liked and had held the office since 1989 and his opponent, Steve Palazzo-R was not well known. 

MO: Vicky Hartzler, a Republican backed by many Tea Party members and endorsed by Sarah Palin, scored a stunning victory over Representative Ike Skelton, a 17-term Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.  Hartzler said Skelton had lost touch with the district. She criticized him as an ally of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

NV: In a heavily Latino state that elected a Latino governor, defeated Senate challenger Sharron Angle-R was a loud voice against big government, against high taxes and against illegal immigration.  She ran negative ads portraying Latinos as menacing invaders which pushed 2/3 of Latinos to vote for Senator Harry Reid-D.  Reid promoted his support of  immigration legislation and economic recovery of housing which employs many Latinos and led a big push to register Latinos to vote. 

NH: There is reason NH is known as a swing state.  After swinging heavily Democratic four years ago, Republicans won both House seats and kept the Senate seat.

NM: Susana Martinez-R drew great support from Hispanics who usually vote Democratic.  She will be the first woman governor in this state. 

NY: In a survey of voters leaving polling places, 6/10 New Yorkers described the economy as the top issue.  Although NY remains a strongly Democratic state, Republicans took 5 Congressional districts away from Democrats, tying with Ohio for the biggest shift in House seats.  Andrew Cuomo-R won the race for governor by one of the widest margins in history (61.4%-34.1%).  Both incumbent Senators won strongly; Charles Schumer-D (65.4%) and Kirsten Gillibrand-D (62.0%) who was appointed in 2009 to replace Hillary Clinton and will finish out the two-years remaining in the term.  Despite facing ethics charges, Congressman Charles Rangel-D was re-elected by a wide margin (79.9%).

NC: Senator Richard Burr was re-elected to a seat that has not had a two-term member since 1967.  In House races, Bob Etheridge-D was the only incumbent to lose, but is asking for a recount of the 2,000 votes separating him from Renee Ellmers-R who was endorsed by Sarah Palin and helped by ads featured a mysterious video showing Etheridge grabbing a young man, demanding “Who are you?” 

ND: The state shifted parties as the popular governor, John Hoeven-R was elected Senator (76.2%).  The race for the only House seat saw Earl Pomeroy-D, seeking a 10^th term, defeated, just two years after he was re-elected by 24 percentage points. 

OH: The defeat of Governor Ted Strickland-D was one of the most painful outcomes of the election forth Democrats after campaigning by the president, vice president and former president Bill Clinton.  Democrats also lost 5 out of the 10 seats held in the House delegation.  Republicans are looking forward to redrawing district boundaries to their favor as well as suing to block health care. 

OK: The state elected their first female governor, Mary Fallin-R.  Voters also approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit “forced participation in health care systems” and another to prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic Shariah law when deciding cases.  A Muslim group has already filed suit.

PA: Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in swing state, but it swings with national trends.  People voted Democratic in all five presidential elections from 1992 to 2008 but swung Republican this year with voters concerned over joblessness, the economy and the health care overhaul.  Republicans won the governorship, Senate seat, five seats in the House, and too control of both state chambers. 

RI:  The state elected its first Independent governor, Lincoln Chafee-I.  Democrats held on to both House seats.  The president withheld his support from Democratic candidate Frank Caprio-D as a favor repaid to Chafee who had endorsed him in 2008.  Caprio announced that the president could “take his endorsement and really shove it.”  In a state where Obama’s popularity is really high, it cost him the election. 

SC: The state elected its first governor who is not a white male.  The election went to an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley-R.  Tim Scott-R will be the first black Republican to represent SC in more than a century.  The election affirmed Republican rule in SC.  All but one successful candidate were Republicans.  SC is now a one-party state. 

SD: The anti-incumbency wave swept the state, voting in all Republicans. 

TN: Republicans gained control of the state legislature and governor’s office for the first time since Reconstruction and gained a majority in the state’s Congressional delegation.  The results underscored a distinct political shift in the state as the Republicans turned the election into a referendum on the economy. 

UT: Although largely Republican, the state shifted sharply to the right.  Senator Robert Bennett-R was defeated in the Republican state convention, leaving a Tea Party candidate, Mike Lee-R who won the Senate seat (61.6%). 

VT: In a razor-thin victory, the state elected Peter Shumlin-D as Governor. The prior governor was a Republican.  The state has alternated governorship parties for nearly 50 years. 

VA: Democrats lost to Republicans in 8 of the 11 Congressional districts.  One district is still undecided. 

WS:  Anti-Incumbent sentiment unseated three-term Senator Russ Feingold-D, defeated by Ron Johnson-R, a first-timer selected by the Republican party, who admitted that he couldn’t be specific on the issues because he hadn’t studied them very well. 

He has been called “the soul of the Senate”

Byrd was West Virginia’s senior senator and the longest-serving member of the U.S. Congress, serving continuously for 56 years. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1953-1958. He served in the Senate since 1959. 

In 2006 and with 64 percent of the vote (he never received less than 64 percent of the vote), Sen. Byrd won an unmatched ninth term in the Senate just months after exceeding South Carolinian Strom Thurmond’s record as its longest-serving member. Another record was his more than 18,500 roll-call votes. 

On Nov. 18, 2009, Byrd surpassed Sen. Carl Hayden, D-Ariz., to become the longest-serving member of Congress in U.S. history. The title now belongs to Sen. Daniel Inouye, 85, of Hawaii, now takes the role of Senate president pro tempore as the person with the most seniority. 

Byrd was president pro tempore of the Senate at the time of his death, which put him third in line to succeed the president and vice president should they have been killed or forced from office. That seat is the second-highest-ranking seat in the U.S. Senate (behind the vice president who serves as Senate president) and the highest-ranking senator. Byrd had been president pro tempore since January 2007.

Byrd’s 51 years in the Senate made him at the time, the longest-serving senator in history, while his white hair, impassioned, oratorical voice delivering colorful speeches citing Roman emperors gave him the presence of a man from a grander, distant time.

In an ever more technology-driven political world, Byrd was seen by some as a person from an earlier time. He often apologized for his early views on race and, in recent years, became one of the most reliably liberal votes in the Senate.  He used his mastery of Senate rules and a taste for tough hard-line tactics to become a passionate and often feared advocate for the state and the Senate he loved. 

Byrd always carried a pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution in his suit pocket.  Brandishing his copy, he resisted any attempt to diminish the role of the Senate. 

Robert Carlyle Byrd was born Nov. 20, 1917, in North Wilkesboro, N.C., as Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr., the youngest of five children. 

Before he was 1, his mother died and his father sent him to live with an aunt and uncle, Vlurma and Titus Byrd, who renamed him and moved to the coal-mining town of Stotesbury, W.Va. He didn’t learn his original name until he was 16 and his real birthday until he was 54. 

His parents inculcated Byrd in “the typical southern viewpoint of the time.” 

He belonged to the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but he went on to endorse the nation’s first black president. An orphan child who rose from West Virginia poverty, he became a master of pork-barrel politics, and his name graces federal buildings throughout his home state. 

Byrd became popular for his fundamentalist Bible lectures and the Klan suggested he run for office. He first ran for the West Virginia state House of Delegates in 1946, and in his first campaign he lured voters to his speeches by singing and playing mountain bluegrass tunes on his fiddle. 

His fiddle became a fixture.

Byrd graduated valedictorian of his high school class in 1937 but could not afford college. In a measure of his persistence later in life, he took a decade of night courses to earn a law degree in 1963, and completed his undergraduate degree in 1994 with correspondence courses.

After taking night classes while in Congress, he graduated from American University’s Washington College of Law in 1963. This was the first time in history that a sitting member of either House of the Congress has accomplished both beginning and completing the courses of study leading to a law degree while serving in Congress.  Byrd was awarded his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science, summa cum laude, by Marshall University in 1994.

Married in 1936 for nearly 69 years, to his high school sweetheart Erma Ora James, with whom he had two daughters, he pumped gas, cut meat and during World War II was a shipyard welder.

Sen. Byrd entered Congress as one of its most conservative Democrats. He was an early supporter of the Vietnam War, and his 14-hour plus filibuster against the 1964 civil rights bill remains one of the longest ever.

His views gradually restrained, mainly on economic issues, but he always sided with his state’s coal interests in confrontations with environmentalists.

Byrd’s love of Senate traditions inspired him to write a four-volume history of the chamber.

His latest cause was the abuse of filibuster and secret holds on legislation for personal agendas. 

“During this 111^th Congress in particular the minority has threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for Senate consideration.   I find this tactic contrary to each Senator’s duty to act in good faith.”

“Because this once highly respected institution has become overwhelmingly consumed by a fixation with money and media.”

“Now every Senator spends hours every day, throughout the year and every year, raising funds for re-election and appearing before cameras and microphones.  Now the Senate often works three-day weeks, with frequent and extended recess periods, so Senators can rush home to fundraisers scheduled months in advance.”

But Sen. Byrd’s driving purpose was protecting the Constitution. In 2004, he persuaded Congress to require schools and colleges to teach about the Constitution every Sept. 17, the day the document was adopted in 1787.

Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said “… he never forgot where he came from nor who he represented, and he never abused that power for his own gain.”

The passing of Sen. Byrd will not affect the balance of power in the Senate. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, a Democrat, intends to appoint a replacement senator to serve out the remainder of Byrd’s term, which ends in 2012.  At issue with the state’s succession law, is whether the appointment will last through the end of this year (with a special election for the seat this year) or through 2012 (when Byrd’s term expires).

 Sen. Robert C. Byrd’s legacy is immense but what many don’t know is his musical background as an avid fiddle player.  He performed at the Kennedy Center, Grand Ole Opry and on the television show Hee Haw!  In 1978 he even recorded an album.

Just a few years ago he donated his favorite fiddle to the West Virginia Music Hall of Fame.

 ”I ran the Senate like a stern parent,” Sen. Byrd wrote in his memoir, Child of the Appalachian Coalfields.

“There are four things people believe in in West Virginia,” Byrd once said. “God Almighty, Sears Roebuck, Carter’s Little Liver Pills and Robert C. Byrd.”

“Mountaineers are always free”

Note:  Robert Byrd is of no relation to Harry F. Byrd and Harry F. Byrd, Jr., both former U.S. Senators from Virginia.

They saw our two-house legislature as reflecting the will of the people, but with checks and balances to prevent “the tyranny of the majority” (James Madison). 

While the House with its 435 members representing the popular opinion of the nation’s voters, the Senate, with its two members per state, was visualized as a thoughtful and reflective body, like a modern think tank, where heated issues could cool somewhat and consequences could be considered before new laws were enacted. 

The Constitution provides for both houses to pass legislation with a simple majority vote of those present.  To prevent the “tyranny of the majority,” it also provides a method for the minority to delay a majority vote and gather support for its point of view.  That method is called the ‘filibuster.’ 

The Constitution allows each house to set its own rules.  Each piece of legislation allows a debate on the subject.  Senate rules allow a Senator, or series of Senators (each yielding the floor to the next), to speak for as long as they wish on any subject they choose.  The filibuster can be ended by a 3/5 or 60-Senator vote for cloture (end debate). 

The 60-Senator vote is known as a supermajority. 

It is also possible to end debate through a legal maneuver known as the Nuclear Option, where a Senator brings up a point of order, reminding the Senate that its rules are not being followed with the filibuster.  If the presiding officer makes a ruling to uphold the point of order, and if a simple majority of the Senators vote to uphold the ruling, the debate is ended and a vote on the issue is held immediately.   

Without the threat of filibuster, the Senate needs only a simple majority of 51 votes to pass legislation and uphold rulings.  But when filibuster is threatened on major bills and issues, 60 votes are needed to move past debate to the vote. 

The party-line divisiveness of the modern Senate has made almost all legislative issues require a supermajority to pass.  Although the supermajority vote to end debate is not a bad thing, its use as a weapon in the trench warfare between parties has left the voters as victims. 

An additional use of the 60-Senator vote is used to modify budgeting, authorization, as well as appropriation guidelines and restrictions. 

Each year by October 1, Congress must construct a budget it can stick to, considering government income as well as expenses.  It must authorize new and ongoing programs and agencies that come into being as the result of bill passage or already exist, with non-binding recommended spending levels to carry out the program’s policies.  And it must pass appropriation funding bills, providing the legal authority to use funds from the U.S. Treasury.  

The annual Congressional budget is simply an outline of anticipated federal spending for the coming year, setting limits on discretionary spending if everything works out according to plan.  It also allows procedural points of order for bills that exceed their spending caps.   

When a bill, chugging its way through the enactment process, generates a program or agency budget that will violate its Congressional appropriation, a Senator may raise a point of order.  That appropriation point can be waived by a 60-Senator vote. 

On the saving side of the government ledger, the Congressional budget resolution may include a “reconciliation” figure.  This is assigned to a congressional committee with directions to produce legislation that lowers spending by that amount. 

Passage of a reconciliation bill is an express train with a limit of 20 hours of debate and only a majority of Senate votes for enactment. 

We may learn more about reconciliation in the near future, with pressure building in Congress to pass a health reform bill and the recent upset in Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown was elected to serve out the remainder of Senator Ted Kennedy’s term, ending in 2012.  Although a proponent of health care reform, Brown has come out against President Obama’s health care plan in its present form as fiscally unsound. 

With the health care reform bill now in the merging process between House and Senate, we can be sure the 60-Senator rule will be in place, and the Democrats are now one Senator short of the necessary 60 votes for their plan.   

Options for passage of the health care reform bill in some form include

• convincing at least one Republican to vote their way
• scaling down or revising the plan to make it more agreeable to opponents
• requesting the House to pass the Senate bill intact
• using the reconciliation process to pass budget item portions of the bill (that will expire in either five or ten years)

As aggravating and as slow as the Senate process is using the 60-Senator hurdle, perhaps James Madison was right.  Perhaps it does protect us.

Always intent on having the last word, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich named Roland Burris, an African-American political pioneer to Barack Obama‘s vacated Senate seat.  Burris had suggested himself as a possible caretaker for the Senate seat, promising not to run for election.

Blagojevich’s surprise move put his opponents in the awkward position of trying to block his choice from becoming the Senate’s only African-American member.

Burris was the first African-American elected to major statewide office in Illinois, previously serving as comptroller, then Attorney General for Illinois, and vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  According to Illinois campaign finance data. Burris has been a donor to the Friends of Blagojevich fund in recent years, donating $1,000 in 2004, 2005 and 2008, and $1,500 in 2007.

Illinois Democratic Representative Bobby Rush, who was invited to speak at Blagojevich’s news conference, urged Senate leaders not to block Burris, almost daring them to try to stop the appointment.

“There is no rhyme or reason why he should not be seated in the U.S. Senate,” Rush said. “I don’t think any U.S. senator … wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.”

He told reporters that Senate Democrats should not “hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer.”

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the appointment, ‘declined’ to do so “because of the current cloud of controversy surround the governor.”

Illinois law gives the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy. Legislators tried stripping Blagojevich of that power after his arrest but could not agree on legislation wording.  The governor said he would support a bill calling for a special election.

Blagojevich was arrested December 9 after federal prosecutors allegedly recorded conversations in which he discussed appointing someone Obama favored in exchange for a position in the new president’s Cabinet or naming someone favored by a union if he got a high-level union job.

The Illinois House has begun impeachment proceedings. Blagojevich maintains his innocence, and has vowed to stay in office.

Senate leaders avowed they would not accept anyone appointed by the embattled governor.  “Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic caucus.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded to the announcement by saying that the Senate will not seat Burris, citing Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, which states that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

President-elect Barack Obama, looking to distance himself from the Blagojevich allegation, said he was disappointed that the Governor had appointed Roland Burris to fill the vacancy.

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision,” the president-elect said in a statement.

“I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place.”

***Update: January 5:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, appearing on ‘Meet the Press’ was asked about telephone conversations he had with Governor Blagojevich, in which he named three African-American candidates that would not be acceptable to him, yet named white females who were. 

Reid replied with the ‘Enron defense’ of “This is part of Blagojevich’s cloud.  He’s making all this up … I don’t remember …”  Reid became noticably nervous when reminded those conversations were most likely on tape and would be reviewed by the U.S. Attorney General as part of the Blagojevich investigation.  It could result in a conflict of interest charge against Reid.

Reid backpedaled strongly from his previous position on Roland Burris and said he plans to meet with Blagojevich’s choice. Asked if there was room for a possible settlement, Reid said, “I’m an old trial lawyer. There is always room to negotiate.”  Denying Burris is entirely a political move by Reid.  Under Reid’s leadership, the Senate has repeatedly taken action not because of the rule of law, but rather because of the perceived political outcome.

Start saying your farewells to Harry Reid in the Senate. This is a political move that will end his career. He is starting down the path to becoming an old trial lawyer again.

***Update: January 15:

Roland Burris presented himself and his appointment letter to the U.S. Senate on January 6, the day of swearing in new Senators, and was turned away due to his credientials lacking the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Governor Blagojevich’s appointment to the U.S. Senate was valid and required only the signature of the sitting governor.  It ruled the Secretary of State’s signature was not a requirement on the appointment form.  Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State had already signed and filed a separate statement registering the appointment and Burris retrieved a copy of that form complete with the state seal to present to the U.S. Senate Secretary.

The Illinois Supreme Court also ruled that the form contained in rule II of the Standing Rules of the U.S. Senate was only a recommended form, and no rule of the Senate ” … could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution”

Burris delivered his appointment form and a certified copy of the registration to the Secretary of the Senate, and in concert with the Senate Parliamentarian on January 12, declared the credentials valid.

Senator Roland Burris was sworn in as the junior Senator from Illinois on January 15 by Dick Cheney, President of the Senate and Vice President of the United States. 

The Analysis

Let’s take things one at a time. 

1. Governor Blagojevich was arrested after federal prosecutors allegedly recorded conversations …

Of course, allegations look pretty bad for the Governor, but every one of the public officials involved, seem to have forgotten the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.

• Fifth Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; forbids punishment without due process of law.
• Sixth Amendment: guarantees the accused the right to know the charges against him, a speedy public trial by jury for criminal offenses, the right to legal counsel, and that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify before the accused.
• Seventh Amendment: assures trial by jury in civil cases.
• Eighth Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, that:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. … “ 

Innocent until proven guilty.  This is what we fought England about.  This is what the Constitution is about.  And the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

Governor Blagojevich may be totally guilty, but let’s not hang him until the verdict says guilty.  There was an arrest.  There hasn’t yet been an indictment, a trial or a conviction, so the Governor is still the elected head of the Illinois government until then. 

1. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the appointment, said he will not do so “because of the current cloud of controversy surround the governor.”

There is a dereliction of duty there.  Jesse White doesn’t get to choose on his own what he will certify or not certify.  He can and perhaps should be fired if he doesn’t do his job.  The Illinois Attorney General should instruct him of his sworn duties. 
 

1. Illinois law gives the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy. Legislators tried stripping Blagojevich of that power after his arrest but could not agree on legislation wording.  The governor said he would support a bill calling for a special election.

According to Illinois law, the Governor still has the power to appoint whomever he chooses.
 

1. President-elect Barack Obama, looking to distance himself from the Blagojevich allegation, said he was disappointed that the Governor had appointed Roland Burris to fill the vacancy.  “I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place.”

Big mistake on Obama’s part.  He thinks he is still a Senator.  He is the President-elect and not even in office yet.  The President doesn’t get involved in legislative laundry.  President-elect Obama should perhaps review separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, especially due process under the law.  Obama’s approval rating is now 82% according to a recent national poll.  Flipping out comments is the fastest way to push that down.
 

1. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded to the announcement by saying that the Senate will not seat Burris (in the Democratic caucus), citing Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, which states that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

Harry Reid thinks he is running the country, and only uses the Constitution for his own purposes.  He thinks he doesn’t have to research precedent or go by the Constitution.

In the United States Supreme Court ruling of Powell v. McCormack, the issue was with a House of Representative member who was stripped of committee assignments, fined, censured, and had his seat declared vacant.  The Representative sued various officers of the House for refusing to administer the oath office to him, refusing to perform duties due a Representative, withholding his salary and barring him from the meeting chamber.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in Article I Section 2, Clause 1-2.

The Supreme Court ruled that under Article I, Section 5, that expulsion was the only method to determine the qualifications of members.  That means that a Congressional representative elected or appointed by the rules of the Constitution must have the oath of office administered, and be enrolled into the legislative body before qualifications can be examined, and the member expelled. 

The Senate could vote for expulsion, but it would take two-thirds to expel.  Democrats have only 58 seats (now that Minnesota went Democtratic) and may have a hard time rounding up 66 votes after they meet Burris.

Qualification of Senators in Article I Section 3 Clause 3 states the Senator must be at least 30 years old, been a citizen for nine years, and a resident of his home state.  No other qualifications named. 

I would think the Senate would have to have a reason for an expulsion vote, more than I didn’t like the person who appointed you.

When news of Burris’ appointment was announced, a conference call went out to all the Senators.  Many did not want to offer an opinion or even have their names mentioned because they might be labeled ‘racist.’ 

In my opinion, they will not have the courage to stand up when their names are called, look at the only African-American in the Senate, and with full coverage by CNN and other news agencies, vote for expulsion.

For reference:

Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch of the United States government, known as Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Section 3: Senate  Clause 2: Vacancies

Section 5: Procedure

Seventeenth Amendment vests in the State Legislature the authority to allow the Governor to appoint a temporary replacement until the special election is held.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Minnesota runoff election finally over.

***Update January 5:

Democratic candidate Al Franken has been declared the winner by 225 votes in Minnesota over incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman after a two-month absentee ballot reexamination, recertification and recount.  The state Canvassing board will certify Franken as the junior Senator from Minnesota. 

Republican Norm Coleman will probably take the issue to the state Supreme Court, where they will appoint three judges to investigate the claims. 

The argument centered around the counting (or not counting) of some ballots in both parties’ mainstay areas.  Some absentee ballots had initially been rejected by election officials due to minor errors such as signatures not exactly like the one on file with the county, or dates on the outside of the envelope. 

The number of mistakenly rejected ballots was around 1,350 and Coleman’s team is looking to add another 654 to that number.  Each of the 87 counties receives local absentee ballot names agreed upon by both campaigns for recount, then decides whether they will comply with recounting or not. 

The Minnesota Supreme court had told both candidates to agree on which rejected absentee ballot names will be counted.  The new challenge, in my opinion, will certify the election to Franken.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***Update: February 6:

Illinois:

Roland Burris was sworn in January 16, 2009 as the junior Senator from Illinois.  Rod Blagojevich was impeached and convicted by the Ilinois legislature and removed from office as governor of Illinois. He has still not been charged or indicted of any crime.

Although prior to his appointment as junior Senator from Illinois,  Roland Burris had promised not to run for election for the Senate seat, Senator Burris signed a statement of candidacy for the 2010 election and filed it with the Federal Election Commission.

So much for promises.
 

Minnesota:

Norm Coleman and Al Franken are still slugging it out in the Minnesota Supreme court.  Three judges have been appointed and are investigating claims from both sides.  Until the issue is resolved, Minnesota will have only one Senator.

The U.S. Senate could use an extra Democratic vote as it tries to pass a stimulus bill to get our country moving again.
 

U.S. Senate

The republicans are acting like “cry-babies”, impeding every move and voting against every issue the Democrats bring up for a vote.

The single-minded Republicans who insist their “tax cuts will solve anything” plan will still work will continue to hold this country for ransom by delaying the stimulus bill rather than give in. 

It is one thing to vote as a bloc against the other party because they took more seats, but the Caucasian male bloc of senators voted in unison against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,  which means they voted against equal pay for women, minorities, disabled and older workers — unforgivable in our society.  Every one of them should be un-elected out of office.

The Republicans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my mind at least, that they do not care what is good for the people of this country, they care only that their party will get it’s demands. 

The U.S. Senate score is:
Democrats         58
Republicans       41
Contested            1.

As the results of the 2008 elections solidify into historical facts, a big news item is the 60-seat majority the Democrats are seeking in the Senate. Currently, the score of the 100-seat council is:
· Democrats   57
· Republicans 40
· Undecided    3.

The Democratic 57 is made up of 55 elected Senators and the two Independent Senators, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, who caucus (coordinate group policy) with the Democrats.

With 60 seats going to the Democrats, they would be able to limit debate on any subject, preventing the minority Republicans from delaying a vote by filibustering (under Senate Rule 22) on any legislation they do not agree with.

A supermajority of 3/5 of those present and voting can end the filibuster. An absolute supermajority is based on total membership, and that is where the 60 seats come in.

Years ago, I used to be confused between stopping a filibuster and overriding a veto. Overriding a filibuster takes 3/5 of the Senate body, is a Senate rule, and the contest is within the Senate. Overriding a veto takes 2/3 of both Houses, is dictated by the Constitution, and is between the legislature and the executive.

Of course, the Democratic champion, President-elect Barack Obama has already won the top spot in the country and will sign anything sent to him by House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid (who think they are the ones who really run the country).

I don’t think so.

There are three Senate seats that MUST be won by Democrats to claim filibuster-proof voting power, and one wild card. The probability of collecting all three cards is virtually zero. Let’s take them one at a time.

Alaska. Senator Ted Stevens is losing. As the votes are counted, the opponents switch leads. First, Senator Stevens pulls barely ahead, then his opponent Anchorage Democratic mayor Mark Begich pulls ahead. This is the Kentucky Derby of politics.

Mark Begich led Ted Stevens by just 814 votes after about 57,000 additional ballots were counted on Nov. 12. So far, about 279,000 votes have been counted and about 45,000 more remain to be counted.

As of Nov 18, Mr. Begich leads by 3,724 votes.

Alaska allows 15 days following the election to receive absentee ballots mailed by Election Day from outside the U.S. and 10 days if mailed by Election Day within the U.S. Wednesday, November 19 is the final day for absentee ballots to arrive and be counted.

Sure, Senator Stevens is the pork barrel king, famed for bringing the bacon home to Alaska, but Alaskans can read, and know that earmarking and pork barrel legislation will be severely diminished (but never disappear).

The race is close partly due to Senator Stevens’ convictions on seven felony counts of failing to report gifts. The convictions came a week before Election Day. There has never been a convicted felon elected to Congress, and for good reason. Would you want a felon representing your state?

Senator Stevens’ attorneys are planning an appeal in December.  Stevens said that if he were to lose his appeal, he would resign rather than face expulsion from the Senate (protecting his sizeable pension of about $129,400 per year). A Presidential pardon will be required to keep the 85-year old out of prison. Sentencing is February 25, 2009.

I think people are ready for a fresh face in Alaska. And for the undecided voters, the only other choice in fresh faces was a Democrat.

Governor Sarah Palin can get on with governing Alaska, and maybe run for Senate later. The next Senate race is 2010, when Senator Lisa Murkowski the state’s junior senator’s term is expiring.

Let’s put Alaska down as a Democratic win.

November 20 update: Fresh from his defeat in his reelection bid, Senator Ted Stevens gave his last ever Senate floor speech today, bidding farewell to his colleagues and the chamber he has served in since 1968.  His final speech prompted a standing ovation, tears and a stream of farewell speeches from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

“My motto” Stevens said, ”has always been ‘to hell with politics, just do what’s right for Alaska.’  And I’ve tried every day to live up to those words. I bear no ill will toward any member of this body.” 

April 1, 2009 update:  The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday moved to dismiss charges against former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens amid accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, according to a motion filed in federal court.  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reviewed the case himself and decided not to continue to defend the conviction in the face of questions of prosecutorial misconduct.  The age of Stevens, 85, and the fact that he is no longer in the Senate also influenced Holder.

Score:
· Democrats   58
· Republicans 40
· Undecided    2.

Minnesota. Wednesday, November 19 is the day a statewide hand recount will start. Incumbent Republican Norm Coleman is currently 206 votes ahead of his Democratic challenger, comedian and former radio talk show host Al Franken.

There are 2.9 million votes to be counted. To give some perspective, if I counted by ones to 2.9 million, a number every second without stopping, it would take more than 33 ½ days to reach that number.

There are still many votes (estimated at 25,000) where people voted Democratic but the ballot optical scanning machines may not have picked up the vote if the voter indicated their preference with other than a filled-in oval.

The State Canvassing Board will meet on December 16th and provide an update. There is a strong possibility that this close race will wind up in court, so let’s leave this one as undecided.

Georgia. Both incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and challenger Democrat Jim Martin fell short of winning the 50 percent of the vote required for election under Georgia law, even though Senator Chambliss led Martin on Election Day by 109,671 votes. As a result, there will be a runoff election on December 2nd.

Historically, Georgia runoffs draw significantly lower turnout than the general election, perhaps due to the holiday timing.

Allen Buckley of the Libertarian Party is not a part of the runoff, but garnered 3.4% of the electorate on November 4. Both parties have solicited his support.

Buckley has made it clear at this time that he is not prepared to endorse either of the candidates, but has reponded to questions that suggest a discontentment with Senator Chambliss. This one could also go either way, so we’ll leave the score alone.

Connecticut. Senator Joe Lieberman is the wild card in the filibuster-proof majority. He has been a Democrat since he was first elected to the Connecticut Senate in 1970, through his elections to the U.S. Senate starting in 1988. In 2006, he lost the Democratic Party nomination, but won re-election as an “Independent Democrat” and caucus’d with the Democratic camp.

Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention, and campaigned for his longtime friend, Senator John McCain.

Displeasure over his “traitorous” conduct, Democrats looked to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, and banish him from the Democratic caucus. Lieberman said that action would be “unacceptable” to him.

That type of reaction by the Democrats fits in with the vicious in-fighting, threats, and punishment that is so typical of our national legislative bodies, that has put our country into the dark economic situation we now find ourselves.

President-elect Obama communicated to the Democrats that he did not want Senator Lieberman thrown out of the Democratic caucus, since that might prompt him to move to the Republican camp.

Until recently, Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid’s tone had been chilly when discussing Senator Lieberman. Sources report that President-elect Obama urged Senator Reid to let it go and look forward.

Today, November 18, the Democratic caucus met and voted to allow Senator Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee and relinquish his position on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Next month, the Connecticut Democratic Party is considering a resolution to censure Senator Lieberman and ask him to change his Party affiliation to Democrat.

After the meeting, Senator Harry Reid, said of Lieberman, “He’s part of this caucus. We are not looking back. We are looking forward.” Quite a change in attitude. Thank you, Mr. President-elect. It reminds me of Lincoln speaking to Seward as related in the book, “Team of Rivals.”

Nevertheless, as the Democrats called for “a spirit of reconciliation,” they couldn’t resist a final shot at the Republicans, blaming them for the “extreme partisan environment” created by President Bush.

So the score remains:
· Democrats   58
· Republicans 40
· Undecided     2.

Perhaps it is a good thing there are some restrictions on the new Congress. Look at the world economy to appreciate what removing regulation can do.

What happens (and can happen) if BOTH candidates get the SAME number of electoral votes, and the decision goes to Congress to elect a President?

In my research, I found that the Constitution of the United States of America is the oldest and shortest constitution of any major sovereign state. I didn’t know that. Even so, it has twenty-seven amendments, modifying the document written in 1787.

• It is a contract that provides the entire framework for the organization of the United States Government.
• It is the supreme law of our United States.
• It carefully outlines the unique powers of each of the three branches of government and yet reserves many rights for the individual states.

The Constitution was written mostly by James Madison, and emphasizes the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. 

It was written to define process that allows change.  The authors looked to strike a balance between rigid and easy, to prevent hasty and ill-conceived actions.

The original draft favored the federal government, with House of Representative members being elected by the people, and the Senators elected by the House members. Representation was based entirely on population, which favored large states, so a compromise was reached to set House membership on state population, and Senate membership on an equal number for each state.

The original draft provided that the members of the legislature elect the President.  After the compromise, it was written into the Constitution that state electors would elect the President.

The entire document consists of a Preamble and 7 Articles handwritten across four pages.

The founding fathers realized that if the Constitution were to endure, revisions would be necessary to reflect changing times.  The original 7 Articles are followed by the 27 Amendments that have made it through a proposal and ratification process described in Article Five that requires approval by three-fourths of the State legislatures.

Since 1789, there have been more than ten thousand Constitutional amendments introduced in Congress; one to two hundred are introduced in a typical Congressional year. In all that time, Congress has proposed only 33 for ratification, and 27 have succeeded.

Of course, the first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights.

Once ratified, new Amendments to the Constitution are added onto the existing document without removing or altering any previous Amendments.  There is no procedure for deleting repealed provisions.  Even when new Amendments directly contradict prior Amendments or parts of Amendments, both are left in place.

Here’s something I didn’t know. There are currently six Amendments still outstanding and unratified.

Two of those six unresolved Amendments have passed their ratification deadline, but the remaining four have no expiration date.  The oldest, proposed by the First Congress in 1789 became of little or no practical value after the country’s population reached ten million. The others date from 1812, 1861 and 1924.

The parts of the Constitution concerned with the election of the President are as follows:

Article II describes the process and power of the President and Vice President, describing the qualifications of candidates and process of election and succession.  It also provides for the removal if necessary of any officer of the government.

The Twelfth Amendment (1804) changed the method of presidential elections so that members of the Electoral College cast separate ballots for President and Vice President.  It modified the electoral procedure established in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, due to problems in the elections of 1796 and 1800.

The Twentieth Amendment (1933) specifies the end date and time of Congressional and presidential terms and of presidential succession by the Vice President.

The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) limits the President to two terms, after Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four elected terms and died in office (succeeded by Harry S. Truman).

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967) partially replaced the unclear wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which deals with succession to the Presidency, altered details of presidential succession, provided for temporary removal of the President, and provided for replacement of the Vice-President.

In case of a vacancy, the Constitution mandates that the Vice President is to be the President’s successor.  If both the President and Vice President are unable to serve for any reason, the next officer in the presidential line of succession, currently the Speaker of the House, becomes acting President, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, followed by every member of the Cabinet in a set order of succession, all the way down to Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Members of the cabinet not Constitutionally eligible to be President, through age or place of birth are bypassed.  There are currently two.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

The Table of the Presidents shows political parties and term dates of each President in the history of the United States, as well as links to each individual President for his biography.

Next: Election of the President