Mandatory E-Verify

E-Verify began as a pilot program as part of the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). It began in November of 1997 and has been extended multiple times. The electronic verification process was used to strengthen the process of employment verification that was initially used with the I-9 forms. Since 2003, E-Verify has been administered by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS/USCIS). While it is mostly a voluntary program, certain federal contractors since 2009 have to commit to use E-Verify going forward.

So what is it? Employers collect information on the employee including name, date of birth, social security number, and immigration or citizenship status. The information is sent electronically and compared to the information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) and possibly to DHS to confirm identity and employment eligibility. If the information matches what is in the SSA’s system, then the employee is eligible to work provided that the electronic image of the worker’s ID “reasonably” matches the worker’s actual ID. If there is not a match, a Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) notice is issued. If an employee gets a TNC, the worker has eight federal working days to contact DHS or SSA to figure out the problem. If the worker does not do so, the employee receives a Final Nonconfirmation notice (FNC) and the employer is required by law to fire the employee.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that 8% of employers participate in E-Verify. In FY2012, the number of E-Verify requests were over 21 million according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 52 million nonfarm hires in 2012. E-Verify currently represents a significant portion of nonfarm hires currently in the United States. The point of E-Verify is to limit the number of unauthorized workers working in the United States. Supporters of it point out that it works by being a deterrence for those applying to jobs that do not have proper authorization and that most people receiving FNC’s are, in fact, not authorized to work. It follows that a massive increase in E-Verify would be a bigger deterrent in unauthorized workers and would take those unauthorized workers out of the workforce.

In the past few years, there has been an increased push for mandatory E-Verify for all jobs and hires whether it is on the federal level or at the state level. If implemented without serious reforms, it would be a massive increase in government bureaucracy and place a significant burden on many workers who may erroneously be prevented from working.

An increase in government bureaucracy

Perhaps the most popular policy agenda item of the Republican Party is the idea that the Federal Government is much too large with too large of bureaucracies able to make decisions that affect too many of our daily lives. Currently, neither DHS nor SSA are capable to be handle such an increase in E-Verify. They would have to greatly expand their offices by hiring more employees and more training. In the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) report “Prove Yourself to Work: The 10 Big Problems with E-Verify”, they note that AARP has expressed concern about further expanding SSA’s administrative burdens. The AARP is concerned that a further expansion of the role of the SSA in E-Verify would prevent them from being able to provide timely services to beneficiaries. As our population ages and many Baby Boomers are set to retire and increase the claims for Social Security, taking employees away from helping those retirees to help administer E-Verify seems like a poor choice.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have tried to run on the idea of cutting government spending and stopping waste. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that legislation expanding to mandatory E-Verify would have a significant impact on federal spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. To comply with the increased workload and upgraded computer systems, DHS would need to spend $454 million over the next 5 years. SSA would need to spend an additional $161 million over the first 5 years. Over the 10 years, the CBO projected that direct spending would increase by about $9 billion over a 10 year period. Further, they project that a number of unauthorized workers will leave the normal workforce, the revenues for the federal government would decrease by $39 billion over a 10 year period.

One of the things that we need to think about when we think about government policies, if we are to even consider the idea that we are fiscally conscious, is the cost of programs and whether or not it is worth it. For instance, the cost of E-Verify over the course of 10 years is about $50 billion. What can we for the cost of $5 billion/year? And is it worth the cost to run a mandatory program, especially one that would place a significant burden on businesses and a number of individuals?

A significant burden

Not surprising to anyone who has ever had to work with a data set, a small typo, a mistake, or an extra keystroke can cause information not to show up when it is supposed to. The ACLU tells the story of Jessica St. Pierre in their report. St. Pierre was a U.S. citizen who was told there was a problem with her E-Verify. She was fortunate in that she was able to visit the local SSA office. She was told that everything was correct and received a printout to that effect. The E-Verify representative at the SSA office promised that the he would call the employer.  But the issue was still there. St. Pierre contacted several government offices and eventually was told to contact the E-Verify hotline. She was, again, told that the information in the system was correct.  The E-Verify hotline representative promised to call the employer. St. Pierre was unable to correct the issue in the system and was fired from her job for not being authorized to work. The issue? The employer submitted her information with two spaces after her last name.

According to the USCIS, in 2012, 1 in every 400 cases submitted to E-Verify regarding a TNC determination were reversed upon appeal by the worker. The ACLU is correct to note that while it does not seem like that many people but with over 150 million workers in our country, that would be 400,000 people would have been deprived of their ability to work. While employers are not supposed to be able to take adverse action against those who contest their TNC status, some employers end up doing so. For instance, in the Westat study for the USCIS, 17.1% of employers admitted to restricting work assignments until authorization was confirmed, 15.4% reported delaying training until authorization was confirmed, and 2.5% reported reducing pay during the verification process.  In one survey of immigrant workers in Arizona, a third were immediately fired after receiving a TNC violating the rules that were already in effect. Even worse, since the employee has to take the matter into his own hands to contest the TNC, a worker is often at the mercy of the employer to get time off to do so. Since the hotlines are only open from 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM and the local offices are only open during normal business hours, it is fairly difficult for a worker to do so.

Per the ACLU, “The GAO found that from April through June of 2008, the TNC rate for employees who were eventually authorized to work was approximately 20 times higher for foreign-born employees than for U.s. – born employees.” The Migration Policy Institute notes that “erroneous nonconfirmations will disproportionately affect citizens with foreign names, naturalized citizens, and legal immigrants.” So while it will disproportionately affect people in those categories, the GAO predicted that 164,000 citizens per year will receive a TNC for issues related to name changes. The erroneous thought is that it will only impact those who are unauthorized to work under the false premise that if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But there will almost certainly be an impact on nearly every American.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce often complains about the number of rules and regulations that small businesses have to follow that bury the businesses without a way of getting out to create much needed jobs. The National Immigration Law Center points out the potential impacts on small businesses with mandatory E-Verify.  An Arizona small business owner Mike Castillo stated “the program isn’t user-friendly for small business owners.” Arizona is one of the states that requires employers to use E-Verify. Castillo complained about a technical glitch that took several days to fix made it difficult for him to make a part-time hire taking time away from his core business. According to the National Immigration Law Center, only 12% of E-Verify users are small businesses, noting that many farms and small businesses do not have high-speed internet access. A Bloomberg analysis found that the use of E-Verify would have cost small businesses $2.6 billion in 2010. Bloomberg estimates that E-Verify cost small businesses currently in E-Verify $81 million. One small business in Maryland stated that it would cost $27,000 for the company to use E-Verify for one year.

The National Immigration Law Center estimates that between 50 and 75% of the U.S. agricultural labor force is made up of unauthorized workers. The National Immigration Law Center compiled testimony from Rick Roth, a farmer in Florida who said that he could not get legal residents to harvest his crops and a mandatory E-Verify bill would bankrupt farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that for every 1 on-farm job there are about 3.1 upstream and downstream jobs, that support and are created by the growing of agricultural products.

 

 

 

Virginia Governor 2017

Virginia is a weird state for gubernatorial elections. The Governor is prohibited from serving consecutive terms. So a Governor cannot for re-election at the end of her first term. If a former Governor would want to, he could run for a non-consecutive term later. Of course, that rarely happens. Making it more strange, the elections for Governor are held the year following a Presidential election. So the election for Governor is held in 2017. Because of that, the party that does not hold the White House tends to win the Virginia gubernatorial elections with some notable exceptions. Terry McAuliffe, who was the former Democratic Party chairman, was able to win election in 2013 over Ken Cuccinelli. In a lot of ways, this election was the best case for the 2016 Presidential election. But that is for another day. McAuliffe has governed toward my policy preferences and tackled issues near and dear to my heart so I have been a fan of his tenure. Again, that is worthy of a different post for a different day. All 100 seats in the Virginia House of Delegtates are up for election, as well. Nobody really pays attention to those elections because people feel, wrongly, that they are not as important.

Governor

Democratic Party

The primary election on the Democratic side has devolved into a rematch of the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary for some reason, possibly because we’re all dead and we’re actually in hell. Even though both John Podesta and Bernie Sanders both support the same candidate. The real intraparty fight is between the Virginia Democratic establishment compared to the national Democratic Party. Ralph Northam is the choice of the establishment Virginian Democrats. Northam is the current lieutenant governor of the state. He previously voted for George W. Bush and somewhat flirted with becoming a Republican, although many people believe it was because he was trying to gain leverage in the State Senate. Northam has received the endorsements from Terry McAuliffe, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine.  Tom Perriello is the challenger to Northam in this primary. Perriello was the only House candidate that Barack Obama campaigned for in 2010 for re-election. Perriello won a fairly conservative district and voted in favor of passage of the ACA. Although, he did vote for the Stupak amendment and was endorsed by the NRA in his re-election bid. He ultimately lost and gave a tremendous interview about it later. If Our Revolution had not given an explicit endorsement of Perriello, it seems likely to me he would have been attacked as not liberal enough.

Perriello has been somewhat critical of Northam on the basis of the votes for George W. Bush and has tried to nationalize the race by stating that he would make Virginia a bulwark against Trump. He does not seem certain that a Northam governorship would be able to win or be able to be this bulwark. While most Virginians and Perriello do believe that McAuliffe have done a great job as Governor, Perriello disagrees that he is satisfied with the current status quo. Northam while he represents the status quo has, in recent times, tried to stake out his liberal bonafides as the campaign has gone on. The real question is to what extent the loser of the primary will endorse the winner for the general election. Terry McAuliffe has recently said that while he thinks Northam would be the better option he would gladly support either of the two candidates in the general election saying that they were both better options than the Republican contenders.

The polling that I have seen shows Northam with a sizable lead. But there are still a number of undecided voters who could break and make a sizable contribution either way, depending on how they break.

Republican Party

The Republican Party primary for Governor also had an initial favorite (and still favorite from what I’ve seen) in Ed Gillespie. Gillespie very nearly pulled off an upset in the Virginia Senate race in 2014 which convinced me that the rest of the night was going to go red. He was a former White House counselor to George W. Bush. Upon leaving, he was the chairman of Bob McDonnell’s campaign for Governor of Virginia. He also was a senior advisor to Mitt Romney in 2012. Gillespie is by far the establishment choice in the Virginia Republican primary, such that a definition exists. Much to Northam’s or Perriello’s chagrin, he has not been a warrior in the culture wars like former Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli. Northam seems like a generic Republican which would typically be a good thing for Virginia as it is a purpleish state. But the problem right now for him is a Trump problem. With Trump in the White House, it is especially difficult to separate Trump from Republican politicians running for office. Based on the polling that I’ve seen, he should not have much difficulty in securing the nomination, even if he is running against a potential Trump clone.

Corey Stewart, a Minnesota transplant, who has become the At-Large Chairman of the Prince William County, Virginia. He was also the Virginia chairman of the Donald Trump for President campaign from December 2015 – October 2016. Stewart previously ran for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia but lost to fellow insane candidate E.W. Jackson. Stewart has been trafficking in controversy since his candidacy. Whether it is vigorously defending the Confederate flag and the state from non-Virginians, saying cuckservative in a Reddit AMA (that’s a phrase I just wrote), agreed Bill Clinton was a rapist, among numerous other issues. Peddling controversy and making himself a Trumplike figure seems to be a deliberate strategy. I’m not here to comment on the strategy or the marketing, both of which I think are in poor taste and poor in strategy. But one thing that we will be seeing in the next two years are imitators of Trump who are more interesting in peddling controversy than policy, more likely to say “cuck” than address real policy. Our political structure is all the more poor for it.

 

 

Alabama Senate

Alabama Senate

Jeff Sessions was one of the first elected officials to throw his support behind Donald Trump. Sessions lent the future President his staff and policy making team which led to a number of issues where Trump towed the Sessions line throughout the campaign. After the election in November, it became apparent that Sessions would play a prominent role in a Trump administration, the real question was to which spot Sessions would be nominated and confirmed. After the confirmation of Sessions to the post of Attorney General, it fell to the Governor of Alabama to appoint a successor.

The only problem with that was Governor Robert Bentley was facing a sex scandal, a possible investigation, and an eventual resignation. Attorney General Luther Strange who would nominally be in charge of the investigation of Bentley failed to announce whether or not he was investigating the Governor. Bentley appointed Strange as the Senator. After Strange’s appointment to the Senate, it came out of the Attorney General’s office that there was an active investigation into Bentley. Bentley did eventually resign. To many people, there was an appearance of impropriety to the whole affair.

Kay Ivey, the former Lieutenant Governor, backtracked on Bentley’s decision to push out the special election to replace Sessions to the 2018 midterm elections. Since there is an appearance of impropriety to Strange’s appointment to the Senate, there was a few candidates who decided to challenge him in a special election. Two of the more notable challengers are Rep. Mo Brooks and former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore.

It seems unlikely to me that Strange would be defeated in a primary challenge but we should still provide information as best we can on this election.

Luther Strange

Strange was elected in 2010 defeating the incumbent Troy King for Attorney General. Strange was endorsed by both Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby. That may have had to with what seemed like improprieties between King and gambling in Alabama. King had apparently been on the wrong side of the issue of electronic bingo.

He was elected as Attorney General in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. Following the election of Donald Trump, it was pretty obvious that Jeff Sessions would play a prominent role in a Trump administration. Sessions was, of course, nominated to be Attorney General. The task of finding a new Senator for the state of Alabama went to the Governor, Robert Bentley. Bentley was facing his own problems. During the Robert Bentley scandal, Strange would not confirm nor deny that he was investigating Bentley. This may have been because Strange was on the shortlist to be appointed as Senator and did not want to appear as if he was acting inappropriately. After Strange’s appointment to the Senate, it came out that the Attorney General’s office was, in fact investigating Bentley.

Kay Ivey, who ascended to the gubernatorial mansion after the resignation of Bentley, scheduled a special election for 2017 after initially Bentley agreed to have the election coincide with the 2018 statewide election. Mitch McConnell has made it fairly clear that he would like Strange to win, to avoid the trouble of having sitting Senators primaries, I assume. But Strange will have to win in 2017. His first ad was more than a little misleading including a fake newspaper and fake headlines to help reintroduce himself to Alabama voters.

 

Tenure as Attorney General

Strange was the coordinating counsel for Louisiana and Alabama over the Deepwater Horizon spill. He also signed onto a lawsuit suing the Obama administration over the ordinance to allow transgender students to use the bathroom or locker rooms that match their gender identity.  Strange also argued in the Supreme Court in Lane v. Franks in which he argued that the government employee who was a whistleblower had protections under the First Amendment.

Roy Moore

Moore is probably best known for the Ten Commandments controversy.  He made plans to build a large monument to the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Supreme Court building. He was almost immediately sued for the monument. After his removal of the monument, he was suspended from the bench. He ran for governor in 2006 and 2010. He flirted with a 2012 Presidential run before deciding to run, again, for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He won election but was suspended from office for ethical violations. He resigned from his seat in order to run for the Senate seat.

Moore was targeted, in part, because he told state employees to refuse to marry same-sex couples. He is hoping to run an outsider campaign. This should be easy for him as he is typically seen as outside of the traditional Republican orthodoxy. For instance, he has defended his actions that led to his suspension invoking God’s will, saying “what I did, I did for the people of Alabama. I stood up for the Constitution. I stood up for God. The great majority of the people of this state believe in God.”

He announced his campaign with the idea that he is on board with Donald Trump to make America great, again, but that to do so we need to make America “good, again.” He has accused Strange and the Super PACs in Washington of trying to buy the Senate race.

Other candidates

Strange and Moore are the two most likely candidates to advance in the runoff. If there was another candidate that seemed likely to be able to advance, my bet would be on Mo Brooks. Brooks is a Congressman since 2011 in the Huntsville, AL area. He is a favorite of the TEA Party and has been fairly gaffe-ridden regarding a number of issues. Govtrack has him on the far right of their ideology score. In theory, this would help him in a special election with low turnout, if he has a motivated base. But unfortunately for him, Moore seems to be the one taking support away.

Typically in special elections like this, I tend to believe that the religious right candidate will outperform. The reasoning is that this candidate will have a high floor because he has a motivated and committed base. But, again, the problem is that Moore is the one who is able to pick up most of this support. His anti-establishment credentials also include a strong following within the religious right.  This bumps up Moore’s floor, in my opinion.

We will revisit this post once there are some debates or other noteworthy events that happen in Alabama.

The unicameral scorecard

One of the ways that we can keep our politicians accountable is to keep scrupulous notes on how they vote. Luckily, we live in the age of internet where such a thing is fairly easy to accomplish if you have the motivation and a strict sense of what is important to yourself as a voter. I like to keep track of the legislators in my community the best I can.

The problem is, if you are keeping track of such a thing, what you think is important may not be as important to another person trying to research the information. So while public scorecards are important, in my opinion, they may not be all together as helpful as those calculating the scorecards think. Beyond that, there is the inherent bias from those calculating the scorecard. For instance, when you see the scorecard that I put together, I have a bias in choosing what bills that I think are important and how I score those bills. It may not be of the most importance to you whether or not your state legislator supports E-Verify for all businesses in the state of Nebraska or you may think it’s very important and disagree with my grading. That’s fine. I’m hoping to be fairly transparent with what I am presenting to give you the best incomplete information out there.

A few notes. I provided a score of +3 if the legislator either sponsored, co-sponsored, voted in favor of legislation, or voted in favor of advancing the legislation for legislation that I think is favorable. If a legislator voted against the legislation or against advancing the legislation, the legislator received a score of -3.

If the legislation was unfavorable, I provided a score of -3 for sponsoring, co-sponsoring, voting in favor of advancing the legislation, or for voting in favor of the legislation.

I placed a premium of trying to override a governor’s veto. For legislation that I deemed favorable, if a legislator voted to override the veto, they received +5. They received -5 if they voted to sustain the veto.

For those who voted present or were excused from voting on legislation, they received a score of 0 regardless of how I feel about the legislation. But if they voted present on an override, they received a score of -2. They would receive this score, regardless of how I feel about the legislation.

I am going to try and write some more about a number of these bills at a later time but I thought I should provide this, first.

Scorecard can be found here

 

A redo of the 2014 Nebraska gubernatorial primary

One of the most exciting statewide races in Nebraska over the past 10 years was the 2014 Republican Gubernatorial primary. Our state simply does not have competitive elections. While the 2nd Congressional district in Nebraska has a competitive election every two years, the statewide elections have not been competitive. So we have to look toward the primaries for a competitive statewide election. The primary in 2014 is something that I’ve wanted to look at in more depth for some time.

There were four main candidates trying to be the Republican nominee and for such a conservative state (and a conservative year) would virtually guarantee their election as governor of Nebraska. The candidates were Jon Bruning, Mike Foley, Beau McCoy, and Pete Ricketts. Bruning had been the Attorney General of Nebraska since 2003. He had previously been defeated by Deb Fischer in 2012 in the Republican Senate primary. Mike Foley had previously been the State Auditor of Nebraska and prior to that was in the state legislature. McCoy was a state legislator from Omaha, NE. Ricketts had previously been the Republican nominee for Senate in 2006 before he lost by nearly 30 points to incumbent Ben Nelson.

Spoiler: Ricketts won the nomination in 2014 to be Governor and later won the general election. At some point, Ricketts went from unacceptable to the majority of voting Nebraskans to acceptable. This is interesting in its own right. What is more interesting is that he barely won the nomination in 2014. He won primarily because of a strong showing in Douglas and Sarpy counties allowing him to win two of the largest counties in the state and gain a lot of votes. He won the statewide primary by a little more than 2,000 votes. He won Douglas County by over 4,600 votes. Bruning came in second place.

So, let’s see what would have happened if we employed a county electoral college system similar to one that I proposed in my last post. 

Because Ricketts was able to win Douglas County and Sarpy County, he was able to post wide margins in our county electoral colleges. Mike Foley who won Lancaster County (Lincoln) among a few others so he outperforms in our electoral college system compared to the popular votes. Bruning goes from losing by 2,000 votes to not even garnering 20% of the electoral college system that we set up.

In the system that I created to establish to mirror the U.S.’s system that we currently have, we have the worst performance for Ricketts and Foley. This is not surprising as it was intended to try to decrease the importance of larger counties similar to lessening the amount of electoral votes of New York or California

  Carlson McCoy Bruning Foley Ricketts
% of electoral votes 0.48 9.53 18.26 20.84 50.89

I didn’t talk about Tom Carlson. Carlson was a state legislator who decided to run for Governor. He won the county of Phelps which accounts for his electoral votes in such a system. Foley who finished in 4th place in the popular vote is able to surge to 2nd place in our electoral college creations. He did so by doing well in relatively large counties and winning them, such as Lancaster.

In the modified US system and the other systems that I created, we have essentially the same results. The differences are mainly in rounding differences.

  Carlson McCoy Bruning Foley Ricketts
Modified US System (%) 0.48 9.01 16.75 21.33 52.43
Even split (%) 0.48 8.95 16.78 21.32 52.47
Direct proportional (%) 0.49 8.88 16.80 21.34 52.48

For greater explanations, please go to the previous post.

The largest issue is that since 3 counties in Nebraska contain the majority of the population in Nebraska, there is an outsized importance on those three counties, Douglas, Lancaster, and Sarpy. The other 90 counties in Nebraska account for 48% of the population, with only two other counties even accounting for more than 2% of the population. If we were to redo the primary or create a more fair system, we’d have to consolidate counties to limit the influence of Douglas, Lancaster, and Sarpy county.

Nebraska’s county electoral college

This is parroting off of the work of Xenocrypt. If you are not following Xenocrypt on Twitter, you are really missing out on a number of insightful things. Xenocrypt’s work includes a county electoral college system. The idea is that since there is not really an argument that can be made that the President should be elected with the electoral college but the states should not be decided the same way. I am rather sympathetic to the argument, in general, because most of the arguments that I am told for having an electoral college can be easily applied to having every state holding a county level electoral college system. It especially is true in Nebraska. For instance, you do not want candidates to be elected just because of Douglas and Lancaster county (Omaha and Lincoln), right? Just like you do not want a President elected solely because of California and New York.

But the electoral results really change based on how you create such a system. I created a few different electoral colleges for the state. What is important to remember is that Hillary Clinton only received 34% of the vote statewide in Nebraska and Donald Trump received 59.89%. Clinton was only able to win 2 of the 93 counties in the state (Douglas and Lancaster).

Somewhat mirroring the US

The first way that I decided to divide the votes was to try to mirror the electoral college system of the United States. It’s not entirely the same. But most of the small counties in Nebraska receive 1 electoral vote. Then it is based on population from 2,700 people until we reach 80,000 people, then it goes to 1 electoral vote for every 3,000 people until you reach 175,000 people where it is 1 electoral vote for every 4,000 people. This is intended to mirror the divide that we see in larger population states such as California or New York.  It’s not a perfect mirroring of the system, obviously, but it gives us a good approximation. So with this system, we have the following results with 621 electoral votes.

  Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Electoral votes 373 248
% of electoral votes 60.1 40.0

In this situation, Douglas County which accounts for about 29% of the population of Nebraska makes up roughly 25% of the electoral votes in the state. Lancaster county makes up about 16% of the population of Nebraska and makes up about 15% of the electoral votes. Sarpy County which accounts for 9% of the population is able to account for about 10% of the electoral votes. Seward County which is about 0.9% of the population receives about 1% of the electoral votes awarded. But it is a fairly proportional system, all things considered. The biggest beneficiaries of such a system are smaller counties, just as smaller states are a bigger beneficiary of the US electoral system.

Modified US system

The next system that I looked at would be a modified US system. This system gives counties an electoral vote for every 1,000 people (rounding up). For instance, Dundy County with 1,886 people would receive 2 electoral votes compared to Rock county with 1,443 people would receive 1 electoral vote. All counties with less than 1,000 people receive 1 electoral vote. There is no crazy math to get there the rest of the way. So we have 1,882 electoral votes overall, with the following result.

  Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Electoral votes 1037 845
% of electoral votes 55.1 44.9

In such a system, Douglas County accounts for 29% of the vote and 29% of the electoral votes, Lancaster receives 16% of the electoral votes for 16% of the population. Rural areas such as Arthur County with 0.02% of the population receive 0.05% of the electoral votes. This is a much more proportional system, overall. The counties are better represented in the electoral college. But the overall election is a lot closer than what the election with a statewide result seems to indicate. Is that a problem that we should be considering?

Even split

So this is a  little bit difficult to explain. The way I calculated the number of electoral votes per county is by taking the lowest population county and using that population number as the benchmark to calculate the total number of electoral votes. So, for instance, Lancaster which has a population of 301,795 would receive 666 electoral votes. Arthur County would receive 1 electoral vote. There is a total of 4,151 electoral votes in such a system. This is how the 2016 results would look.

  Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Electoral votes 2286 1865
% of electoral votes 55.1 44.9

This is a very similar result to the modified US system. It is around the same concept so it is not surprising that this is roughly the same result. The counties have roughly the same amount of electoral votes as their population would dictate.

This is somewhat a modified version of a reform that is out there where you have a direct proportional based on how many people are in each congressional district and state.

Direct proportional

This one is probably the easiest to explain. It is just a set percentage of the population by county divided by a set number of electoral votes. I am guaranteeing each county to get at least 2 electoral votes in such a scenario. The final results with 9,864 electoral votes are as follows. Again, we see roughly the same result as we have been seeing

  Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Electoral votes 5433 4431
% of electoral votes 55.1 44.9

 

The direct proportional system has the same end results as the even split and the modified US system.

I think if we are to move away from awarding states’ electoral votes away from the popular vote winners in each state either the direct proportional or the even split are probably the best ways to do it.

I’m not really advocating for such a system. I am doing a little bit more research and will do a few more posts with this framework but I did want to introduce it, here.

 

One easy trick to help our electoral process

The Nebraska unicameral passed LB75 this week. This was a priority bill from State Senator Justin Wayne. This bill would eliminate the 2 year waiting period for felons in Nebraska to be able to vote in Nebraska. Prior to 2005, felons were required to apply for a pardon from the State of Nebraska Board of Pardons. Based on the report for the Vote Nebraska Initiative Report, they found that “[the] process can be so lengthy and overwhelming, that many ex-offenders do not apply for a pardon.” At the time of the report, they estimated that 9,427 Nebraskans were disenfranchised based on their felony convictions. According to a 2003 study, 13% of the Latino population was ineligible to vote due to disenfranchisement. In a 1998 study from Demos, they found that 10.2% of African American men in Nebraska were disenfranchised. Seantor DiAnna Schimek introduced LB 53 in 2005 to restore the rights of felons to be able to vote.

The bill was passed with a supermajority able to withstand a gubeneratorial veto. However, despite not having a single witness in opposition to the bill in testimony, there was a compromise made to get out of committee. The compromise would only restore a felon’s right to vote after a two year waiting period. Despite it being a decade after this bill was signed into law the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nebraska found that only half of the counties in Nebraska were able to provide the correct information that a former felon could register to vote after two years.  Since the ACLU’s report came out in 2016,  the Nebraska Secretary of State has included a FAQ that includes the language that you can register to vote if it has been two years or more.

The ACLU ultimately concludes in their report that the simplest way to make sure these ex-felons can vote is to automatically reinstate the right to vote at the conclusion of the sentence. They argue that the rules of reinstating after 2 years serves as de facto disenfranchisement if not all the counties know the actual rules.

Why it matters

But why do we care if ex-felons get their civil rights restored? Throughout the country, more than 6 million Americans are unable to vote because of a felony conviction, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Going further, the Brennan Center for Justice notes that one in every 13 voting-age African Americans have lost their right to vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued in a 2002 Senate Debate that “states have a significant interest in reserving the vote for those who have abided by the social contract that forms the foundation of representative democracy…those who break our laws should not dilute the votes of law-abiding citizens.” This argument is premised on the idea that voting is a privilege rather than a right. There are a number of people who advance this argument who really believe that voting should be only held by a select few. This is undermined by civil rights, women’s suffrage, etc. that have been fought for the last 140 years. Not to mention, the Constitution has generally expanded the right to vote since the Constitution was adopted. The authors of various amendments have done quite a bit of work to expand the right to vote and to take down previous impediments to vote. There are 4 Amendments added to the Constitution that expanded the right to votes, covering the race, gender, and age while also prohibiting poll taxes.

The goal of these Amendments have been to greatly expand who can vote in elections and to give protection for those people. There is not an affirmative right in the Constitution to vote; however, the right to vote is mentioned multiple times in the Constitution as one can see if he looks at the text of the amendments. The idea of voting as a privilege is simply incompatible with our Constitution.

One of the equalizing and underlying principles of our society is the idea of “one person, one vote.” Regardless of how much money you may have or your status in society, your vote is just as equal as any other person’s vote. Denying franchise to ex-felons undermines this principle.  As the Brennan Center for Justice writes “a strong, vibrant democracy requires the broadest possible base of voter participation, across all sectors of society.”

When prisoners leave prison, we are hopeful that they will reintegrate themselves into society. We ask them to clean up their lives, to find a job, to work to become productive citizens. We have long held, in our country, that we are a country of second chances for those willing to change. Christy Visher and Jeremy Travis found that the identity of a responsible citizen is important to proper rehabilitation into an ex-prisoner’s new life.  The Brennan Center for Justice noted that ex-prisoners viewed themselves as not full citizens until they had their rights to vote had been given back to them.

Revoking the right to vote from felons has a ripple effect on urban and minority communities. Many children learn their civic engagement from their parents. The parents might take their children to vote or watch political news together. Going further, parents can provide information such as how to register to vote, how easy it is to vote, and where to vote. According to Eric Plutzer in Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood, “the parent’s political participation had the greatest effect on the child’s initial decision to vote.” Plutzer goes forward to argue that voters and non-voters develop habits that help determine whether or not they will vote based on habits.  By preventing ex-felons from being able to vote, we are robbing future generations from being able to form good civic habits and to develop “inertia” to vote in future elections. This lack of inertia hurts families and communities alike. As young voters are unlikely to form the habits to vote, the community loses political power and their voice in the political process.

Beyond that, with the loss of political voice and power, the impact of ex-felons losing their right to vote can be seen on who will run for office. One of the biggest factors in someone running for office, is the belief that she can win an election. In a 2013 article, Luke Keele, Paru Shah, Ismail White, and Kristine Kay note that “serious black candidates do not enter races where they expect to lose.” They study whether or not the race of a candidate impacts the turnout rate. In their research of who will run as a candidate, they write “black candidates for mayor might not only attempt to run in places with large African American populations, but might also choose to run in places with above average turnout in that black population.” The disenfranchisement of ex-felons disproportionately affect the black population and as a result may prevent strong black candidates from running for office. Not only may it prevent some black candidates from running, it may be an impact on whoever does run. People bemoan the idea of bad candidates running for office but one of the many ways that we can push back and have better candidates is to give back the right to vote for ex-felons.

The path forward

LB75 has passed the Nebraska Unicameral with a vote of 27-13. Governor Pete Ricketts has announced that he will not sign the bill into law. If he does not veto the bill within 5 days, the bill will have the same effect as if he does sign the bill. If the bill is vetoed, there are three state senators who will need to vote to override the veto, assuming nobody defects. This may be problematic as Governor Ricketts has handpicked challengers to those who have voted to override his vetoes in the past. According to Nebraskans for Civic Reform, there are 7,069 Nebraskans who have completed their sentences and are disenfranchised who will receive their civil rights back if the bill becomes law. If you have not done so already, I urge you to contact your Unicameral representative to ask for their support.

Nebraska is certainly not the most onerous of the stats out there to prevent ex-felons from voting.  Governor Terry McAuliffe has restored the rights of thousands of ex-felons in Virginia.  The biggest offender of this type of law seems to be in Florida, where 1 in 5 African Americans are disenfranchised. 1.6 million Floridians are denied their rights. This is the highest rate in the country. Floridians are collecting signatures to put this issue on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky signed an executive order giving the right to vote back to thousands of ex-felons. Matt Bevin signed an executive order one month later reversing this decision. Notably Republican Senator Rand Paul does support restoring of the rights of ex-felons. The Democracy Restoration Act was introduced in 2016 by Rep. John Conyers do do this on a federal level.  I have not seen it introduced in this session of Congress and will update as soon as I do. If you are interested in this issue, I do urge you to contact your representative to support similar bills going forward.

 

 

 

 

A precinct level look at Douglas County: Northwest Omaha

Northwest Omaha

The last area in Douglas County that I spent a lot of time has been Northwest Omaha. There’s not any significant difference between most of West Omaha and Northwest Omaha. The main difference is that large portions of West Omaha are in the Millard School District and many of the high school graduates continue onto Millard University (University of Nebraska – Lincoln).

For the most part, I’ve designated Northwest Omaha as West of I-80 which is roughly 108th St and North of Dodge St. I tried to not go too far north or west in order to not to run into Bennington or Elkhorn.

There were 37,771 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.

  Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 19,228 16,327 1,818 398
% of votes cast 50.9 43.2 4.8 1.1

 

This is a pretty conservative area with the Presidential votes. But even still, there were a number of voters in the area that did not want to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, but would still want to vote for a Republican for Congress. There were 38,253 votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates. So there were about 500 voters in the area who could not find it within themselves to vote for one of the four Presidential candidates. As we’ll see from their Congressional votes, there’s even more voters who did not feel comfortable voting for Trump at the top of the ticket. Here is their Congressional votes with the net votes.

  Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +1,037 +533 -690

 

There were a number of Ashford supporters who could not find it within themselves to vote for Clinton. The largest section, though, by far, was non Trump supporting Republicans.

There were a number of precincts in the area that Clinton won. Most of her victories were in the more Eastern part of the precinct. She won precincts 07-19 (120th-125th Dodge-Parker); 07-18 (104th-118th Dodge-Parker); 07-15 (104th-122nd Parker-Maple); 07-05 (108th-120th Hilltop-Fort); 07-09 (102nd=108th Maple-Fort); 07-02 (106th-109th Military-Newport); 07-25 (120th-125th Ohio-Maple); 07-10 (108th-120th Maple-Hilltop); 07-23 (90th-96th Maple-Boyd); 07-11 (120th-132nd Maple – Fort) and 07-03 109th-120th Fort-Redick). It is simply amazing to see the divide crop up between the Eastern part of NW Omaha compared to the rest of the precincts. There is a clear line between about 125th and the rest of the area. Those areas have a high population of African-Americans. This area primarily goes to Burke High School. Even still, there is one precinct that also voted for Don Bacon.

These precincts cast 13,192 votes for one of the four Presidential candidates and 13,369 votes for one of the three Congressional candidates:

  Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 5,675 6,624 717 176
% of votes 43.0 50.2 5.4 1.3

 

  Bacon Ashford Laird
# of votes 5,901 6,932 536
% of votes 44.1 51.9 4.0
Net votes +226 +308 -181

 

07-02: This precinct is located in the Northeast part of the precinct from 106th-109th Military-Newport. There were 1,278 votes cast for one of the four presidential candidates:

  Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 578 624 68 8
% of votes cast 45.2 48.8 5.3 0.6

 

There were a few voters who could not bring themselves to vote for one of the four presidential candidate but who still voted for one of the three Congressional candidates. There were 1,298 votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates. Here is how they voted with the candidates’ net votes.

  Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +64 -4 -32

 

Trump may not have been acceptable to a number of the voters there. But Bacon only won the precinct by 22 votes.

One of the nicer parts in all of Douglas County includes the neighborhood of Huntington Park. Houses in this neighborhood have an average list price of $375,000 and range from $275,000 – $500,000. When I think of the rich suburbs of NW Omaha, I think of Huntington Park. It is roughly west of 156th and Blondo. The precinct that best encapsulates this area id 07-34 which is located from 156th-162nd Parker- Maple.

There were 1,002 votes cast in this precinct for one of the four Presidential candidates.

  Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 585 367 43 7
% of votes cast 58.4 36.6 4.3 0.7

 

As we see, this is a pretty conservative area. There were 1,030 votes cast for one of the three candidates running for Congress.

  Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +80 -10 -25

 

In the nicer parts of Douglas County, time and time again, we see that the areas are very conservative but still have a problem voting for Trump. Maybe there is a social stigma with voting for Trump but they feel comfortable supporting Republicans, anyway. For many, party id simply outweighs social stigma.

A precinct level look at Douglas County

This is the meta post with all of the parts somewhat organized into one post that will be updated as I go forward. 

Since the election in November, I have been working intermittently on a project to look at how the various precincts in Omaha voted.  My goal was to try to find information that would help explain what I thought was going to be a certain defeat by Donald Trump in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District.  I thought that in Douglas County (the main portion of the district), it would be around a 10,000 vote victory for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.  It ended up being around 6,000.  I thought with this lead, Rep. Brad Ashford would certainly get over a 10,000 vote to help get him re-elected.  He ended up getting around a 9,000 vote lead.  And I certainly thought “retain” would be closer than a 14,000 vote defeat in the county.  All of these stack on each other.  At the end of Election Day, the people and policies I had supported ended up losing, thanks in part to more conservative Sarpy County.  I wanted to know why.  This analysis and report has taken way too much of my time and has become an obsession of mine in the last few months.  I hope that it gives you some insights going forward.

What this isn’t is a replacement for actually meeting and talking with voters.  Rep. Brad Ashford lost his election by a little over 3,000 votes.  If 16 voters in each of the precincts in Douglas County switched their votes to Brad Ashford instead of Don Bacon, he would have won re-election.  That’s how close it was.  Hopefully, what this gives us is a blueprint going forward.  Hopefully, we find precincts or areas that we were ignoring, previously.

Regions

Douglas County for those not intimately aware has a number of distinct regions in it.  Separated by class and race, the county seems often that it is several distinct cities.  There are a few towns in Douglas County outside of Omaha but they don’t seem as different as North Omaha compared to West Omaha.  Omaha has been described as one of the most segregated cities in America.  The western part of the city resembles white flight.

South Omaha: South Omaha is typically defined by many in Omaha as being the more heavily Latino area of the city.  There is not a great definition of the region that is uniform in every person’s mind.  I think there is a very distinct difference between South Omaha, east of around 72nd St compared to what many people consider to be West of there.  I did go through the precincts that Tony Vargas and Mike McDonnell represent in the unicameral and included all of his precincts as South Omaha.  For the most part, for the city proper (outside of Elkhorn, Waterloo, and Valley), I will be using street line boundaries as best I can to define the area.

North Omaha: North Omaha is typically viewed as the black area of Omaha.  Again, there is not a uniform definition to explain what many mean when they refer to North Omaha.  I cut my boundaries around 48th St and East.  I went through and included the precincts that Ernie Chambers and Justin Wayne represent to include North Omaha.

Old Northwest Omaha: Thanks to the nature of Omaha and the annexation of many smaller towns for years, there are distinct regions throughout the city beyond the typical north-south boundary lines.  I drew the boundaries of Old Northwest Omaha from about 72nd and Maple – 108th Fort including the streets West and North inbetween.

Northwest Omaha: While it does not have a distinguishing racial or class breakdown, Northwest Omaha that we refer to now, seems very different than what we would look at when we refer to the Old Northwest Omaha.  West of 108th seems to refer to a different part of town, in my mind, at least.  This also goes to the boundary lines around Pacific.  So this extends 108th and Dodge – 180th and Maple encompassing the streets inbetween.

Millard: This is the large suburb in Douglas County.  There are some arguments over what Millard encompasses.  I include Millard from 96th and Harrison – 159th and Dodge, in my mind.  There is a bit of an overlap in the North area with Northwest Omaha.  Some parts of Millard are in the lower middle class to the upper extremes of higher middle class.  While it does not necessarily follow, the area tends to get nicer as you go more West (towards the higher numbers).

West Omaha: I did kind of arbitrarily draw a line separating out Millard and what I consider West Omaha.  I see West Omaha as beginning at around 160th and going west to 192nd.  I believe it starts at Harrison and runs up to about Dodge.  You can certainly argue that parts of Northwest Omaha should be included in my definition of West Omaha and I wouldn’t argue too hard.  West Omaha is typically seen as the richer parts of Omaha and they are not wrong.

Midtown: I’ll be honest, I don’t have a good grasp of what people consider to be midtown.  I went through and added all of the precincts that Sara Howard represents in the unicameral.  I believe that midtown is around 48th-72nd L St – Maple St. But I’m open for more.

The rest of the towns and outlying areas like Ralston, Bennington, Elkhorn, Waterloo, and Valley have fairly set definitions.  I consider Elkhorn to be west of 192nd and north to Fort.  Waterloo is out Northwest there, as is Valley.  Bennington is North of Fort beginning around 156th in my mind.

I have Ralston on its defined boundaries – Precinct 08-01, 08-02, 08-05, and 08-06.

As I have said, outside of the outlying areas of Douglas County, I will try my best to give the street boundaries when I talk about a precinct, as best I can, to give people a visualization of where they are.

The Trump areas

For the most part, the areas of Douglas County that most heavily voted for Donald Trump are in the Western areas of Douglas County that are typically considered out of Omaha.  There are 33 precincts that gave 60% or more of the four party vote share. Of those 33, 26 are west of 160th St.  Of the other 7 precincts, only two are east of 108th St.

In these 33 precincts, 36,750 votes were cast for one of the four political parties running.  Here were the results:

  Republican Democratic Libertarian Green
Votes cast 23,630 11,397 1,466 257
% of votes 64.3% 31.0% 4.0% 0.7%

 

There were clearly areas of these 33 precincts that either did not feel comfortable voting for Donald Trump as President.  There were 262 more votes cast for Congress than for the Presidential candidate of one of the four parties.  Even more startling if you begin to look at it, is that that there were another 600 voters or so who came home from either the Libertarian Party or who crossed Presidential lines.  Somewhat surprising is that there were about 500 voters for Democrat Brad Ashford who did not vote for Hillary Clinton for President.  Perhaps this is not so surprising if you believe that these two Presidential candidates were the two most disliked candidates in history.

Here were the results of the precincts at the Congressional level.  There were 37,012 votes cast for the three parties running for Congress.

Republican Democratic Libertarian
Votes cast 24,234 11,875 903
% of votes cast 65.5% 32.1% 2.4%

 

Donald Trump was an outspoken supporter for the death penalty.  In Nebraska, we had a referendum on whether or not we should follow through with the legislature’s repeal of the death penalty or if we should reinstate the death penalty.  The language on the ballot was not confusing if you read through the referendum on the ballot but was slightly confusing to explain to someone who hadn’t looked at it.  Retain would be a vote to keep the repeal of the death penalty.  Repeal would reinstate the death penalty.

Retain Repeal
Votes cast 13,607 22,239
% of votes cast 38.0% 62.0%

 

These are all pretty high margins and seems unlikely to be able to be overcome in all of the precincts.  But, again, that is not my goal.  My goal is to simply cut margins where we can, even if it is as small as 16 votes/precinct. So we will look at individual precincts if there is a way for us to cut into the margin going forward.

Precincts where Trump outperformed Don Bacon

There are four precincts where Trump was able to outperform Republican Congressional candidate Don Bacon by 3 or more points in these precincts where he got 60% or more of the four party vote share.  They were with the difference in parentheses 08-41 (6.9); 08-09 (5.2); 08-40 (4.1); and 08-14 (3.6).

08-41: This is on the Northwest side of Douglas County.  I refer to it as Waterloo, even if it may be incorrect.  This would play on one of the more popular narratives that Trump was able to do extremely well in areas with more rural areas or areas that were out of the way of the typical suburban community and do well with white voters with lower education levels.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
Votes 791 274 40 6
% of votes cast 71.2% 24.7% 3.6% 0.5%

 

Trump was able to get a number of voters who crossed party lines to vote for him and then went back to vote for Ashford in the Congressional races.  There were 5 voters in this precinct who did not vote for one of the four parties running for President but voted for Congress:

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -74 +94 -7

 

So we need to figure out why so many of those voters went for Trump and then were able to vote for Ashford.  This may or not be repeatable without Trump on the ballot for the Democratic challenger in 2018 to replicate what Ashford was able to do.  It seems probable to me that the Trump/Ashford voters are on their way to shifting their allegiances from Democratic candidates to Republican.  The only problem with this idea is that Lou Ann Linehan, former chief of staff for Chuck Hagel, defeated Democratic candidate Bill Armbrust 54.05% – 45.95%.  Linehan ran slightly behind what she did in the rest of her legislative district in this precinct.  This is one of the precincts, in particular, where I would like more data to see the trends.

08-09:  This is one of the precincts that stick out like a sore thumb for the precincts that gave Trump so much of the four-party vote share.  This precinct is primarily located from 48th-72nd St and from Sargent-Northern Hills.  This is one of only two precincts with the majority of it east of 108th St.   This precinct only had 660 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
Votes 426 209 24 1
% of votes cast 64.5% 31.7% 3.6% 0.2%

 

There were only 3 voters who voted for one of those Presidential candidates who did not vote for Congress.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -36 +33 +1

 

Again, we have a precinct where Trump managed to convince a number of voters that voted for Ashford to vote for him in the Presidential portion of the ballot.  There is not a good explanation to this precinct.  Jill Brown, who is probably more liberal than Justin Wayne, won the precinct 54.86% -45.14% of the vote, even though there were only 53 less votes for legislature compared to the Presidential election.

08-40: I have this listed in my spreadsheet as Valley.  Valley was 95% white in the 2010 census.  22% of the residents of Valley have a bachelor’s degree or higher.  The unemployment rate in Valley is 3.8%.  The average of residents in Valley is just over 42 years old.  There were 1,407 votes cast in the Presidential election for one of the four candidates:

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
Votes 986 363 49 9
% of votes cast 70.1 25.8 3.5 0.6

 

Again, we see voters choosing Trump at the Presidential level but reverting back to giving Ashford a vote at the Congressional level.

There were 1406 votes cast at the Congressional level in this precinct.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -58 +68 -2

 

With 179 votes being lost from the Presidential ballot to the Legislative ballot, Lou Ann Linehan won the precinct 54.72% – 45.28%.  Armbrust received nearly 200 more votes than Clinton did in this precinct.

08-14: In the Northwest area of Douglas County, if you go far enough North you reach Bennington.  And you run into this precinct.  This precinct is only a part of what I classify as Bennington.  There were 876 votes cast in this precinct for the four party Presidential vote.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
Votes 582 252 36 6
% of votes cast 66.4% 28.8% 4.1% 0.7%

 

And again, what we see is Trump was able to convince a number of voters to choose him and allow them to vote for Ashford at the Congressional level.  With 1 more vote cast at the Congressional level than with the four party Presidential ballot, we see just how successful Trump was able to be over Bacon.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -31 +42 -4

 

A somewhat conclusion of the Trump precincts

I’ll be honest about what I thought I was going to find.  I thought what I was going to find was that the Trump voters simply did not show up to vote at the Congressional level and that was what was causing him to overperform relative to Bacon’s numbers or even Linehan’s numbers.  I was also expecting a small swing of voters deciding to vote for Trump/Laird.

But that is not what we’re seeing.  We’re seeing a number of Trump voters deciding that they didn’t want to vote for Bacon in Congress and wanted to support Ashford.  This can be true for a number of reasons.  My guess is that there is not an insignificant amount of voters who simply wanted a split ballot.  They could not pull the ballot trigger for Clinton but did not think that the Republicans should pick up a seat there.

I think there are some voters out there who were upset about voting for Clinton and seeing that they are in a roughly safe area to vote, decided that they could vote for Trump and then Ashford.   But I do not know this for certain.

One of the more likely explanations is that Trump was able to connect at some level with these voters who may have lower education and are white in a way that Clinton was not able to.  The reasons may range from they think Trump is a secret liberal, they want a crackdown on immigration, they believe he will get things done, or simple dislike for Clinton.

The organizing principle of the Democratic Party is that we are all in this together.  The goal should be to engage these voters.  They may range from slightly misinformed to openly hostile to Democratic principles.  But we do owe it to ourselves to see if they can be reached.  Cutting into margins in areas where we performed the worst at the Presidential level can provide significant results.  A number of these voters are willing to vote for Democratic policies and we must figure out why, if we want to remain competitive.

One thing I will reiterate throughout this series is the need for positive engagement with voters in every area by the Democratic Party and staff.  We need to be going out into these communities and figure out why they can reconcile a vote for Trump/Ashford.  And what we can do to vote Democratic on each line.  But more importantly, we need to engage them to figure out what is important to them and highlight how we either have the best solution to the problem or how we are working on it.

West Omaha

While it is not completely true that West Omaha is the area of the upper middle class citizens of Douglas County, it is a good enough starting point.  I arbitrarily made a decision to divide Millard from West Omaha at 160th St and separated Northwest Omaha from West Omaha inbetween Pacific and Dodge St. So what can we figure out by the way they voted?

For the Presidential share of the vote, we have the following with 24,631 votes cast in this region:

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
Number of votes 14,361 8,920 1,159 191
% of votes cast 58.3 36.2 4.7 0.8

 

There were a number of people in West Omaha who could not vote for Trump or Clinton but managed to find their way to vote for Congress.  Based on the numbers that we are going to see in the next table, it seems fairly clear that the people unable to vote for one of the Presidential candidates, they were less likely to be able to vote for Donald Trump.

There were 24,850 votes cast for the three candidates for Congress.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Number of votes 15,266 8,994 590
% of votes cast 61.4 36.2 2.4

 

Trump was simply unacceptable to nearly 1,000 voters in West Omaha.  That’s certainly not enough to be able to win the district for Hillary Clinton or make a dent in the statewide race.  But it’s enough to give us a starting point to how to make West Omaha more competitive.  Ashford was unable to run too far ahead of Clinton’s numbers only netting about 75 votes over her, despite her seeming unpopularity.

What could Ashford or another Democratic challenger do to be able to make this area of Omaha more competitive?  Why is Trump unacceptable for nearly 1,000 voters but they can turn around and vote for a Republican who deleted his press release where he denounced him?

This is where we need to look at individual precincts to see what we can do and if there’s any hope going forward.

Overperformance of Bacon

In nearly all of the precincts in West Omaha, Don Bacon ran ahead of Donald Trump by more than 2 points (15 out of 21 precincts).  Bacon ran ahead of Trump by more than 3 points in 12 of 21 precincts.  In 4 of these precincts, Bacon was able to run ahead of Trump by 5 points.  Let’s look them, shall we?

08-31: This precinct is roughly located from 174th-180th L-Center.  This was not the best precinct for Trump.  Out of 766 votes in the precinct, this is what we have.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes cast 407 299 56 4
% of votes cast 53.1 39.0 7.3 0.5

 

While the voters here didn’t skip the Presidential election or write in a candidate (for the most part), they did voice their displeasure by voting for Gary Johnson, it would appear.  There were 772 votes cast for the three candidates running for Congress.  This is how they shook out with the net votes compared to their respective Presidential candidate.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +52 +2 -44

 

This still looks like a fairly heavily Republican area.  Don Bacon managed to get 59.46% of the vote for Congress and Ashford was unable to crack the 40% mark.

Even on the referendum, nearly 60% of voters in the precinct wanted to reinstate the penalty.  40% of the voters wanted to keep the repeal the death penalty.

But there was some hope and why I think this area may be prime for targeting.  State Senator Rick Kolowski.  Kolowski is the former principal for Millard West High School and has primarily focused on building relationships throughout his legislative district.  He consistently outperformed the expected numbers in his legislative district.  I hope to have a meeting with him and his staff soon, which will make me sound like a gushing fanboy.

Kolowski supported Nebraska’s ENDA; he supported the repeal of the death penalty; he supported giving professional licenses to immigrants affected by DACA.  He ran against a candidate that was more or less hand-picked by the Republican establishment, Ian Swanson.  Swanson was endorsed by Lee Terry, Pete Ricketts, if you can name a Republican, he supported Ian Swanson.

Swanson’s campaign was very similar to what you would consider from a Republican trying to run in a Conservative area.  I wrote more about his website and campaign somewhere else.  Swanson’s ideological differences between Bacon are infinitely small.  Kolowski and Ashford are also kindred moderate spirits.

Kolowski won 57.7% of the vote in the precinct over Swanson’s 42.3%.

How did Kolowski do it?  I’d like to meet with his staff before I write a definitive account but I have an idea.  In politics, as in life, we often use heuristics to make sense of our world.  When we look at the ballot, we see that someone has our preferred political party next to their name and we are more likely to vote for them.  We see that another politician is with a different political party, we begin to demonize him or her.

All of a sudden, we don’t really care what their ideas are.  If they are aligned with the correct political party, it does not really matter if they do not seem like a good person for the most part.  As you discover their political party or their policy beliefs your opinion of them might change.  But if you have developed a relationship with them or if you have strong bonds with them, it does not change very much.  All of a sudden you are voting for that person instead of voting for a party.

Kolowski’s strength, in my opinion, is based around the idea that he is able to build relationships with people.  They don’t see themselves as voting for a moderate Democrat but for Rick Kolowski, their kids’ former principal or neighbor.

08-37: This is one of my favorite precincts in all of Douglas County.  So is 08-31, to be honest.  This precinct is roughly 174th-180th St Harrison-Q.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 613 437 57 7
% of votes cast 55.0% 39.2% 5.1% 0.6%

 

There were a number of people who could not pull themselves to vote for Trump on Election Day.  There were 1,114 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.  There were 1,125 votes cast for the three candidates for Congress.  Bacon was able to get a larger vote total than Trump

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +76 -22 -36

 

Bacon was able to consolidate a number of the voters who voted Johnson as part of some form of protest and a number of what I assume are Republican leaning voters who voted Clinton.

But this is another area that Democrats could target with relationship building.  This is another Kolowski precinct.  Kolowski was able to win the precinct with 647 votes garnering more votes than Trump and fairly close to Don Bacon’s vote total.

08-35: This precinct is located roughly on 156th-163rd St and Y St – Q St.  This is yet another precinct that Trump underperformed what you would think.  There was not a lot of votes cast in this precinct, 482 for the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 250 189 34 9
% of votes cast 51.9% 39.2% 7.1% 1.9%

 

Again, what we see is Trump being unacceptable but Bacon able to pick up the struggling Republicans who could not find it in themselves to vote for Trump.  With 480 votes cast for the three Congressional candidates, we have the following net votes:

 

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +26 -6 -13

 

And this is the third Kolowski precinct that we’re looking at.  There were 430 votes cast in the Legislative race.  Kolowski was able to receive 247 votes or 57.4% of the votes cast in the race defeating Swanson 57.4-42.6.

This is also on the list of potential targets where new votes can come from.

05-20:  This precinct is different than the rest of the ones that we looked at for a couple of reasons.  It’s more North and West of the other 3 precincts.  It’s located from 180th – 192nd St and B-Cedar. First, this is not an area where Trump really struggled.  There were 1,143 votes cast for the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes cast 750 355 36 2
% of votes cast 65.6% 31.1% 3.1% 0.2%

 

While Trump was very successful in this precinct, there were still a few voters who couldn’t find it in theirselves to be able to vote for Trump.  There were 1,138 votes for the Congressional candidates in this precinct.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +54 -35 -22

 

Bacon was still able to convince a number of voters to vote for him instead of voting for Trump.  Second, this is not a Rick Kolowski precinct. Lou Ann Linehan, a Republican, defeated Bill Armbrust, a Democrat 62.8% – 37.2% in the precinct.  That’s with a number of voters not voting in the state legislature race.  The area is still very conservative but even then we see that there are a number of voters who could not vote for Trump for President.

If we are serious about reaching new voters, we have to figure out why voters were willing to not vote for Trump on the Presidential line but vote for candidates who supported them in all other ways.

Ralston

There is a town in Douglas County that is surrounded on most sides by Omaha located around 72nd and Harrison St.  This town is Ralston.  The median household income in 2015 was $57,453.  The median gross rent was $772 and the mean price of housing units was $171,015.  From the census bureau, 85% of the town is white.  10% of the population is Hispanic and 2% of the Ralston population is black.  For the population of Ralston that is 25 or older, 29% of the population has a Bachelor’s Degree or higher and nearly 88% of the population has high school education or higher.  The unemployment rate in the town is 2.5%.

There are six precincts in the town.  Donald Trump won all six of the precincts.  Gary Johnson got considerable support in the town.  In three of the precincts, we have a very close election between Trump and Clinton. Here are the totals for the town for the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Green
# of votes cast 1484 1233 158 24
% of votes 51.2 42.5 5.5 0.8

 

Like most of the precincts that we’ve looked at, there are more people voting for the three Congressional candidates over the Presidential candidates.  This seems odd, since in general, there are more votes for President than there are for Congress.  This is typically true, even if we exclude write-in votes, like we are doing here.

There were 2937 votes cast for one of the three candidates running for Congress compared to 2899 votes cast for the four presidential candidates.  Here is how they voted with the net votes for the Congressional candidates compared to their Presidential candidate.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -55 +172 -55

 

Ashford lost the town of Ralston by 24 votes overall.

So why did Ashford do so much better in Ralston than Clinton?  I think there’s something to the explanation that Trump was able to do well with the white working class voters or middle class voters.  For some reason, Trump was able to connect with these voters in a way that Clinton was not able to.  This is another time that I wish I had more data to compare this to.  I would love to see how they voted in a previous election.

There are quite a bit of Trump/Ashford voters in the town.  I would love to talk to them to see why they voted the way they did.  Perhaps, they believe that Ashford will help get things done in Washington in a way that they don’t think Bacon could.  Or if they simply believe that we should have a split government.  This is a belief that is fairly pervasive in Nebraska, in my experience.  But certainly not the best explanation.

Ashford was able to win three of the precincts.  He received over 50% of the vote in two of them.  He ran ahead of Clinton in all of the precincts.  His worst precinct there was him only running by 1.8 points ahead of Clinton.

The Democratic Party of Douglas County and of Nebraska should probably set a goal of winning Ralston in the next Congressional election.  There seems to be distrust of Bacon in this area, so it should be a way to communicate to them, compared to areas where they have to link Bacon to the unpopularity of Trump.

It’s possible that in this area what will sell is the fact that Bacon is not a resident of Omaha and is more of a carpetbagger.  At the end of the day, what is going to convince people to vote against a President and his or her party if they like him will be if their lives are not improved in 20 months.

I can tell you an issue that will not move the needle in Ralston – the death penalty.  There were 2,862 votes on Referendum 426.  They voted to reinstate the death penalty by a wide margin.  For the next table, retain is keeping the repeal of the death penalty.  Repeal is reinstating the death penalty.

Retain Repeal
# of votes cast 1217 1645
% of votes 42.5 57.5

 

What issues will reach out to Trump/Ashford voters?  Which way are they headed?  Are they headed TOWARD the Republican Party by breaking party lines by voting for a Republican for President?  Or are they headed TOWARD the Democratic Party by breaking party lines by voting for a Democrat for Congress?

That is what we need to find out to net more votes.

South Omaha

South Omaha is typically referred to as the heavily Latino area of Omaha.  There’s a bit of confusion when I asked people for their definition of where South Omaha really is.  I went through the precincts that are represented by Tony Vargas and Mike McDonell in the unicameral and added them into my definition of South Omaha.  Even still, I think I may have gone too far west in saying where South Omaha is on the map (which sounds like a paradox if you are not familiar) by including some areas all the way to 72nd St and Harrison.  I also may have gone too far North stretching to Douglas St. But I will be fairly upfront with the problematic areas in this analysis and let you know where the areas are that I had problems identifying.  I think it is critical for us to have a shared definition of regions if we are going through this exercise.

What we will refer to as North and South Omaha are two of the areas that gave Hillary Clinton the most of her margin in Douglas County.  The 24 precincts that I’ve highlighted as South Omaha had 21,798 votes cast for the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes cast 7,288 11,956 949 372
% of votes cast 35.4 58.1 4.6 1.8

 

Trump won two of the precincts there.  It is debatable whether or not you would either consider these two precincts as part of South Omaha.

04-12: This precinct is located from 48th-60th St from about Harrison to Q St.  This could be too far west for a number of people to really consider it South Omaha but it is represented by Mike McDonnell, so I included it here.  But Trump still managed to win the precinct.  There were 1,043 votes cast for the four presidential candidates there.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 558 429 36 20
% of votes cast 53.5 41.1 3.5 1.9

 

In the Congressional race, there were about the same number of votes cast for the three person Congressional race, 1,039.  Ashford was able to run well ahead of Clinton.  While this was his worst precinct in South Omaha, he still managed to win.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -80 +78 +18

 

It’s not immediately obvious to me how Trump was able to win in this area. My assumption is that the more West you go in this precinct the whiter the area is.  But unfortunately, I do not go in this area too often.  The reason why I say it is not immediately obvious to me why he won is because we have Democrat Mike McDonnell winning the precinct with just under 58% of the vote.  Of course, there were about 300 less votes in the state legislature race.  Gilbert Ayala who ran a very conservative campaign for the state legislature had a poor showing.

But then, again.  There were 1,006 votes cast on Referendum 426.  693 votes were cast to reinstate the death penalty.  Only 313 votes were cast to keep the repeal of the death penalty.  There were a number of fairly conservative votes in this area.

04-05:  This is the other Trump precinct in this area.  This is another area that was added to my spreadsheet with South Omaha as the region as it is represented by Mike McDonnell.  This precinct is located around 42nd-50th St G St – Oak St.  This is a really strange precinct on their vote totals.  There were 1,322 votes cast in the precinct for the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 653 600 53 16
% of votes cast 49.4 45.4 4.0 1.2

 

There are a number of Trump-Ashford voters in this precinct.  There were 1,348 votes cast in the Congressional elections for the three candidates with the net votes.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -61 +112 -9

 

It just gets a little stranger.  This was Mike McDonnell’s best precinct.  He got 964 votes in this precinct.  Ayala only received 243 votes.  But it was also a precinct that voted to reinstate the death penalty by a 52.7-47.2 margin.

This is an area that can be improved upon for 2020 and could be an area that could be improved upon for 2018, as well.  The question that we have to answer is why did Trump resonate in this area to such a degree and why did Mike McDonnell do the same.  To my untrained eye, as Trump did better, McDonnell should have done worse.  But it simply did not happen, here.

Death penalty repeal

One of the things I am most fascinated by was how poor the death penalty referendum performed in Douglas County.  Douglas County has a fairly sizable Catholic population.  Traditionally, Catholicism has been linked to the abolition of capital punishment.  In 1974, the U.S. Catholic conference voted to declare its opposition to the death penalty.  Pope St. John Paul II wrote in the 1990s that to narrow the death penalty.  He wrote that the cases in which a prisoner must be executed “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”  Pope Francis wrote in 2015 to state the case for the abolition of the death penalty.  He wrote that capital punishment “contradicts God’s plan for man and society.”  But the Catholic Church has not necessarily called for the statewide abolition of death penalty even if there is opposition to the death penalty.  Catholic teaching usually leaves no question that the right to the execution of prisoners is a right left to state.  Pope Francis went further, writing, in 2015 that “today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.”

Beyond the Pope, a number of American Catholic publications including America Magazine, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, Our Sunday Visitor, and Patheos Catholic came out together to support the abolition of the death penalty in 2015.  I am not sure of the popularity of Catholic publications in traditional Catholic families especially here in Omaha.

I want to preface something before this next paragraph.  I’m not Catholic, myself.  I don’t know how much weight I would give what the Pope says either in his writing or his speeches, especially if it contradicts my already held belief.  In other denominations, it is more common for people to already arrive at a political belief and then use their religious beliefs to provide support to it.

One of the interesting things that I think gets overlooked is how opposition to abortion spread.  Evangelical and protestant Christian groups did not originally view abortion as such an important issue for a while.  In the 1970s, the consensus in the Evangelical community was that abortion was warranted in many circumstances.  In 1979, Christianity Today, published an article that concluded that the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.  In the 1970s the biggest defender of pro-life issues was Ted Kennedy.  Richard Nixon and even George H.W. Bush were pro-choice.  For most people, they simply did not think about abortion.  If they did, they primarily saw it as a Catholic issue.

Pat Buchanan argued in a memo to Richard Nixon that Nixon should try to peel off Catholic Democrats by appealing to them on abortion and switching to pro-life.  The argument was basically that Nixon would force Ed Muskie to choose between Catholics and liberals if Nixon came out in favor pro-life policies.  Soon after, Nixon spoke of his “personal belief in the sanctity of human life-including the life of the yet unborn.”  As we have seen, it did not take root for a while.

Republican strategists Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich recruited Jerry Falwell to lead a coalition around economic and social conservatives.  The idea was to focus on abortion as the most important issue.  They viewed it as a way to divide the Democratic Party.  Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979.  But even then, the voting patterns in Congress and the voters themselves were not as partisan until the late 1980s.  Political scientist Greg Adams demonstrated that “Republicans were more pro-choice than Democrats up until the late 1980s.”

But if you ask any pro-life voter Protestant or even Catholic, they will tell you that the reason that they are pro-life is because the Bible tells them that the fetus has a soul and the Bible tells them that it is murder.  The Bible hasn’t changed in the last 30 years.  What has changed is people’s personal beliefs and their own partisan beliefs.  For many, Republican politicians are seen as pro-life and Democrats are pro-choice, regardless of their actual stance.  They use the partisan divide and then dress it up with religious connotations.

I say all this to say this.  People are complex and have many different ideas floating around their head at a given time.  People use flawed reasoning to explain answers to complex questions.  It’s not to say who is right or wrong on a given issue, just highlighting how people’s views changed on an issue like abortion with the backdrop of their church.

Anyway, one would think in a Catholic area that they would be more likely to oppose the death penalty.  But we don’t necessarily see that.  In the Elkhorn area, which is over 25% Catholic, they overwhelmingly voted to reinstate the death penalty on Referendum 426.  According to Pew Research, 54% of White Catholics favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder.  39% of White Catholics oppose the death penalty.  43% of all Catholics support the death penalty compared to 46% who oppose it. Elizabeth Bruening uses a Pew study from 2013 to show that only 37% of Hispanic Catholics support the death penalty.  She argues that it is white Catholics who are the ones not supporting the abolition of the death penalty contra the Catholic church teachings.

But this isn’t exactly what we see when we look at the precincts that are predominantly Latino and what, I’m presuming, is Catholic.  In the South Omaha area, that I’ve identified, as a whole, we find that the community is evenly split between reinstating the death penalty to keeping the repeal of the death penalty.  There were 19,671 votes cast for this referendum in this area.  Remember, retain would be to keep the death penalty repeal and repeal would be to reinstate it.

Retain Repeal
Votes cast 9,298 10,373
% of votes cast 47.3 52.7

 

This does not fall upon party lines or is necessarily caused by lack of voters.  There are 800 less voters on the referendum than for the 4 party Presidential vote or for Congressional vote.  Hillary Clinton received 7,337 votes and 58.9% of the vote.  Brad Ashford received 7,758 votes or 62.1% of the votes for Congress. Pew Research found that 36% of Latinos support the death penalty compared to 50% who oppose.

South Omaha remains to be a very Democratic stronghold but it is worth looking into the way Latinos respond to the death penalty and by extension how Catholics view the death penalty.

Millard

The great suburban area of Omaha is Millard.  Known for its nice schools and because of it, nice property value, these mostly lily white neighborhoods make up a large chunk of the population in Omaha.  There’s a bit of a difference between Millard and what is more or less known as West Omaha.  One of the things that I’ve been thinking about while I’ve been researching this, is that the idea of West Omaha or large chunks of how Omaha is laid out is based on class and is based on race.  For many people, if you are in a nice neighborhood west of 72nd Street will announce that it is part of West Omaha.  If you are not in a nice neighborhood and you are east of about 144th St, they’ll say it’s not really West Omaha, yet.

I tried to separate out what would be considered West Omaha and Millard by drawing a line around 160th St.  This is not totally accurate because, for instance, Millard West (a high school) is located at 180th and Q.  So I also did another run with the numbers that included West Omaha, West of 160th.  The one area that I tried to leave intact without including it in this data is the Westside area.

There were 33 precincts in my initial run with Millard (it’s still a little problematic but we’ll get there).  Out of those 33, Hillary Clinton won three precincts.  She did not receive more than 50% of the four party Presidential vote in any precinct. Brad Ashford won four precincts in the area, receiving 50% or more in three of the precincts. Four precincts voted to hold the repeal of the death penalty.

The three precincts that Clinton won may not be considered a part of Millard by everyone.

05-04: This is the main one that I would not necessarily consider as part of Millard but it doesn’t really fit into any other classification.  The precinct is located from 72nd-90th St L St – F St and U St – F St.  It is basically just North of Ralston.  By vote percentage of the four party presidential vote, this was Hillary Clinton’s best precinct.  There were 916 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 412 451 41 12
% of votes cast 45.0 49.2 4.5 1.3

 

Somewhat surprising, considering what we have seen in other places where we have Republican voters who were not willing to vote for Trump but followed through downballot, we have basically the same amount of votes cast downballot and not a big swing for anybody.  There were only 5 more votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +4 +10 +3

 

Without trying to contact each individual voter on who they voted for, it seems fairly intuitive how people voted.

05-05: This precinct is located around 90th-108th St and Q-Center.  It’s a little bit East of where most people consider to be Millard.  But I still think it’s a good example of Millard.  And again, we don’t see Republican voters who are just not voting for Trump but voting downballot for Republican voters.

We just have two fairly unpopular candidates going against each other.  If anything, we have more reluctant Democratic voters who did not want to vote for Clinton but would vote for Ashford.  There were 904 votes for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes cast 398 444 45 17
% of votes cast 44.0 49.1 5.0 1.9

 

There were 6 more votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates.  Looking at who was able to benefit the most, we see Brad Ashford.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -4 +27 0

 

It looks like there were 4 Trump/Ashford supporters and then he was able to pick up the Stein voters and the 6 voters who decided not to vote for one of the four options.  Of course, I could be sorely mistaken.

There has not been a great example that we’ve looked at so far where we have seen non-Hillary Democratic voters.  This is probably the best one that we’ve seen, so far.

05-08:  This one is on the edge of my demarcations for Millard in both the East direction and is necessarily on the southern border as Harrison is the dividing line between Douglas and Sarpy.  It is 96th – 102nd St Harrison – Q St.  Here we see a bunch of voters who could not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. They found a home with Gary Johnson. There were 1,056 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes cast 429 512 97 18
% of votes cast 40.6 48.4 9.2 1.7

 

Ashford and Bacon both got more raw votes than the Presidential candidates despite there only being 6 more votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +20 +45 -40

 

The question going forward for the Democratic Party is, is this sustainable?  Can a Democratic challenger in this precinct win by more than 120 votes (Ashford won by 108)?  Can a Democratic candidate for President reach and get a number of those Johnson voters to vote for them in a year when the candidate is not so unpopular?  What can we do to ensure that to happen?  Those are the questions we need to be asking and answering if we want to net more votes.

Stony Brook

In my mind, one of the better examples of the working class area in Millard is the Stony Brook neighborhood.  This area is mainly located from about 144th-156th Harrison-Q.  I guess I don’t really like the concept of working class neighborhoods because so much of what we consider to be working class is based upon income or house prices.  There are those who make a lot of money doing more blue collar type of labor and those who do white collar work who are highly educated and do not make much in terms of income.  Maybe this is just me.  The houses in this area are not terribly large or expensive which would tend to indicate that it is a working class neighborhood.  But who really knows these things.  I also think of this neighborhood area, rightly or wrongly, as an area where there are older white voters who have lived there for a while.

One of the questions that I wanted an answer to when I started this project or had this idea was to investigate areas that I think of as working class areas and see if Trump had unique appeal in those areas because there were a lot of thinkpieces about this phenomenon.

The precinct in this area is 05-18.  While Donald Trump easily won the precinct, there were quite a few libertarian-curious voters and there were a number of voters who could not find it in themselves to vote for Clinton, as we’ll see.

There were 1,367 total votes cast for one of the four presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 732 544 73 18
% of votes 53.5 39.8 5.3 1.3

 

It does not seem once we get to the Congressional vote that Trump had a unique way of appealing to these voters.  Rather, this was just a more conservative area. There were 1,380 votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +9 +40 -18

 

This was a conservative precinct and would have voted for the Republican candidates for federal office, pretty much regardless if this is any indication.

Just to further drive this point home, voters in this precinct overwhelmingly voted to reinstate the death penalty for the state of Nebraska.  63% of the 1,325 voters who voted on the referendum voted to reinstate the death penalty.

Millard Oaks

This is my old neighborhood area.  It’s not an exact match for the precinct.  But we’re looking at the area from 156th-163rd from Harrison-Q St. The area is more of the area of Millard that would be considered upper middle class portion of the region. There are other areas that are a better description of upper-middle class of Millard but this is one I’m more familiar with.  In addition, this area is home to a number of families that move to this area to be able to attend their choice of the Millard High Schools. Also, this area once had me playing hide and seek as a 20 year old being interrogated by someone just a few years my senior about what I was doing to his house. The answer was nothing but it did not satisfy him.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, based on all of that information, we have a fairly conservative area for the three precincts – 05-19; 05-33; and 08-35. These three precincts cast 1,829 votes for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 1000 711 98 20
% of votes cast 54.7 38.9 5.4 1.1

 

There’s a fairly common thought that has been shown in these precinct looks that Trump does worse with what we think of as higher income areas. This idea was fairly prevalent when you looked at Congressional districts that were more highly educated in the suburbs of other cities.  Some of the ones that were more interesting was Georgia’s 6th Congressional District where Trump only managed to win by 1 point. There is a clear mark where Trump fails with voters. Unfortunately, there is not many journalists going to these suburbs to talk to voters to determine why they could not vote for Trump. And we have another precinct here where there was quite a few number of voters who could not vote for Donald Trump and there are some Trump/Ashford voters, as well.

08-35: The first one that I want to look at is precinct 08-35. This is located from about 156th-163rd St and located Y St – Q St. There were 482 voters who cast a vote for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes cast 250 189 34 9
% of votes cast 51.9 39.2 7.1 1.1

 

Johnson outperformed his overall numbers for Douglas County and even in these three precincts. This would be understandable. Libertarianism is overrepresented by white more affluent citizens. But when we look at their votes for Congress, we see that there are a number of them who are not willing to vote for a libertarian at the Congressional level. There were two less votes for one of the Congressional candidates.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +26 -6 -13

 

While this is a conservative precinct there are a few voters in the area who were not willing to vote for Trump when it came to Election Day.

For those of you who have read thus far, you may in your mind trying to construct if this is a precinct represented by Rick Kolowski. And it was. As I’ve talked about before Kolowski was able to outperform in a number of precincts where conservatives were more able to succeed. This precinct was one of his best. He was able to get 57.4% of the votes over Ian Swanson who received 42.6% of the vote.  This, again, was not entirely a product of voters simply not voting at the state legislative level. There were only 50 less votes cast for legislature than for President. He only received 3 less votes than Trump did in this precinct.

05-19: This is the heart of Millard Oaks. This is also the best of the three Trump precincts.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 581 384 49 5
% of votes 57.0 37.7 4.8 0.5

 

There were 14 more votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates. Brad Ashford outperformed Clinton in this precinct. Trump was able to do better than Bacon, as well. There were quite a few of the Trump/Ashford voters. I’ll be honest, Trump/Ashford voters fascinate me.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes -28 +54 -7

 

Even more surprising, this area was also represented by Kolowski.  He won the precinct pretty handily garnering 54.4% of the vote over Ian Swanson.

The area is not a great example of “working class” based on the income of the area or with their house values. It simply does not seem like an area that anybody would really assume that it is a “working class” neighborhood. This is yet another example of an area that I would like to see data for more than just this election data. Unfortunately, I do not have this data.

Trump – retain voters

When I first started to look at this data, I made a little comment that there are quite a few Trump supporters who also voted to keep the repeal of the death penalty. I initially thought that there were quite a few Catholic Trump supporters who thought that they could follow the Church’s teachings by voting for Trump and then voting to keep the repeal of the death penalty. This would require actual investigation by someone who gets paid to do this to determine why these voters could vote for Trump who was an avowed supporter of the death penalty but also could vote to keep the repeal of the death penalty. Overall, in Douglas County, keeping the repeal of the death penalty outperformed Trump by 1 point.

So what I wanted to do was look at the precincts that Trump was able to win and then look at the precincts where “retain” outperformed Trump. There were 9 such precincts in Douglas County.  I’m ignoring one of them because there simply was not very many voters in the precinct.  That precinct is 08-27 which is located from 144th-156th Center-Pacific. There were 107 votes for one of the four Presidential candidates and only 102 votes for Referendum 426.

06-26: This precinct is located from 114th-132nd and Harney-Dodge.  It is actually located next to 08-27 which is interesting for what we’re going to talk about in a little bit. This is labeled in my spreadsheet as the Jewish Community Center area. Beth Israel Synagogue is located just south of this precinct, closer to Pierce St. The Jewish Community Center is located just west of this precinct. I bring this up because as I began to look at the precincts who voted for Trump and wanted to retain the death penalty repeal, they were focused in this area. The areas that were around this area were 08-27; 06-04; 06-28; 06-10; 06-26; 06-03; and 06-09.  The next table is how the precincts voted for Trump and then for retain on Referendum 426 and then if retain was able to overperform and by how much (essentially retain minus Trump).

Precinct Trump Retain Retain – Trump
08-27 50.5 60.8 +10.3
06-04 50.7 53.0 +2.3
06-28 55.0 46.4 -8.6
06-10 50.9 45.6 -5.3
06-26 47.4 52.1 +4.7
06-03 54.2 49.0 -5.2
06-09 51.3 50.6 -0.7

 

It’s not perfect if you just have those precincts but it’s rather interesting that these precincts were able to stomach voting for Trump and for retaining the repeal of the death penalty. If we were able to segment these areas from the precincts down to the street level analysis. I would be willing to bet that the areas that were closer to be able to walk to Beth Israel Synagogue would be more likely to vote to retain on Referendum 426.

06-06: This precinct is located a little to the South and a little to the East of the precincts (at least the Western portion of this precinct). There’s not a good explanation of this precinct. It is located from 72nd-78th St and I-80 – Oak St. I have it listed as Midtown but not exactly what I would describe it as that. Trump won the precinct by 5 votes over Hillary Clinton.  He happens to be the most popular of the candidates listed on the ballot. Don Bacon lost this precinct to Brad Ashford. It seems to indicate that in this area there were a number of people who could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton but were leaning Democratic. There were 20 more votes for the three Congressional candidates than for the four party Presidential candidates.  Ashford got 55 more votes than Clinton did in the precinct and won it outright. But even still, retain did not win in the precinct. It got 49.1% of the vote.  It lost by 16 votes. This is a precinct where I would want to talk to the voters. They did not vote on ideological lines.

06-08: This precinct could have easily been listed in the table above. It is located from 108th-114th St Center-Pacific. So it is just outside of the tabled precincts I looked at. It just strengthens my idea that the voters who voted for Trump and then voted to keep the repeal of the death penalty were clustered.  Trump won this precinct by 4 points or 50 votes out of 1,330 cast. Bacon got 682 votes in the precinct as there were 31 more votes cast in the precinct for Congressional candidates compared to the four party Presidential vote. Even with all of that, there were a number of voters who crossed party lines to keep the repeal of the death penalty.

06-02: This is yet another one of the areas that could have easily been considered in that table I have of the Jewish Community Center area. It is located from 96th St – 108th St Pacific – Dodge St. Unlike a couple of the precincts that we have been looking at, it wasn’t particularly close. Trump got nearly 54% of the vote compared to Hillary’s 42.5%. Bacon won by 3 points, as well. And retain was not very close either. There were 55% of voters in this precinct who voted to keep the repeal of the death penalty compared to only 45% who wanted to reinstate the death penalty.

05-23: I could even consider this precinct as part of the same are. It’s a very narrow precinct located from 104th -108th St F St – Pacific St. This was a very close precinct in the Presidential vote where Trump defeated Clinton by a mere 8 votes out of 1,165 votes cast. This is another one of the precincts where we have Democrats who were unwilling to vote for Clinton. Brad Ashford got 50.6% of the Congressional three party votes. But then they crossed the line again to vote to reinstate the death penalty. Although, 48.5% of voters wanted to keep the repeal of the death penalty.

So why are all these voters who supported Trump but also wanted to keep the repeal of the death penalty? There are a couple of different possible explanations. My favorite one based on the table above is heavily influenced by religion. Judaism, at least some denominations, oppose the death penalty. Shabbot observant Jews need to live within walking distance of their synagogues to be able to attend services and be able to walk home.

The other explanation is one that we should consider, as well. Voting is inherently a social phenomenon. We kind of ignore this, to some extent. If your family or your friends support a particular cause or candidate and are passionate about it, they will talk to you about it. If you end your friendship with them or sever ties with your family over it, you are the ones that are considered a jerk. If you start arguments at get togethers, people will not invite you back. Overall, it is polite to just allow for the ones who are passionate to express their beliefs. These beliefs extend to a certain point where they are saturated by an area. Friendships, by and large, are not chosen because of ideas or shared interests, they are largely formed and cultivated because of proximity. What good is it if you are a Democrat living in a fairly conservative area to express support for a Democratic candidate that you don’t feel passionate about? You may lose friends, lose invitations to neighborhood get togethers, or family get togethers. It is easier to just accept it. And to a certain point, you may bring that baggage in with you when you vote. You may not feel comfortable, necessarily, voting for Trump but you may just choose not to vote for Clinton. If that same area is heavily invested in the idea of keeping the repeal of the death penalty, you may accept it, too.

But it’s definitely worth exploring this area to see if it can be flipped. It’s certainly interesting.

Northwest Omaha

The last area in Douglas County that I spent a lot of time has been Northwest Omaha. There’s not any significant difference between most of West Omaha and Northwest Omaha. The main difference is that large portions of West Omaha are in the Millard School District and many of the high school graduates continue onto Millard University (University of Nebraska – Lincoln).

For the most part, I’ve designated Northwest Omaha as West of I-80 which is roughly 108th St and North of Dodge St. I tried to not go too far north or west in order to not to run into Bennington or Elkhorn.

There were 37,771 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 19,228 16,327 1,818 398
% of votes cast 50.9 43.2 4.8 1.1

 

This is a pretty conservative area with the Presidential votes. But even still, there were a number of voters in the area that did not want to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, but would still want to vote for a Republican for Congress. There were 38,253 votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates. So there were about 500 voters in the area who could not find it within themselves to vote for one of the four Presidential candidates. As we’ll see from their Congressional votes, there’s even more voters who did not feel comfortable voting for Trump at the top of the ticket. Here is their Congressional votes with the net votes.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +1,037 +533 -690

 

There were a number of Ashford supporters who could not find it within themselves to vote for Clinton. The largest section, though, by far, was non Trump supporting Republicans.

There were a number of precincts in the area that Clinton won. Most of her victories were in the more Eastern part of the precinct. She won precincts 07-19 (120th-125th Dodge-Parker); 07-18 (104th-118th Dodge-Parker); 07-15 (104th-122nd Parker-Maple); 07-05 (108th-120th Hilltop-Fort); 07-09 (102nd=108th Maple-Fort); 07-02 (106th-109th Military-Newport); 07-25 (120th-125th Ohio-Maple); 07-10 (108th-120th Maple-Hilltop); 07-23 (90th-96th Maple-Boyd); 07-11 (120th-132nd Maple – Fort) and 07-03 109th-120th Fort-Redick). It is simply amazing to see the divide crop up between the Eastern part of NW Omaha compared to the rest of the precincts. There is a clear line between about 125th and the rest of the area. Those areas have a high population of African-Americans. This area primarily goes to Burke High School. Even still, there is one precinct that also voted for Don Bacon.

These precincts cast 13,192 votes for one of the four Presidential candidates and 13,369 votes for one of the three Congressional candidates:

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 5,675 6,624 717 176
% of votes 43.0 50.2 5.4 1.3

 

Bacon Ashford Laird
# of votes 5,901 6,932 536
% of votes 44.1 51.9 4.0
Net votes +226 +308 -181

 

07-02: This precinct is located in the Northeast part of the precinct from 106th-109th Military-Newport. There were 1,278 votes cast for one of the four presidential candidates:

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 578 624 68 8
% of votes cast 45.2 48.8 5.3 0.6

 

There were a few voters who could not bring themselves to vote for one of the four presidential candidate but who still voted for one of the three Congressional candidates. There were 1,298 votes cast for one of the three Congressional candidates. Here is how they voted with the candidates’ net votes.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +64 -4 -32

 

Trump may not have been acceptable to a number of the voters there. But Bacon only won the precinct by 22 votes.

One of the nicer parts in all of Douglas County includes the neighborhood of Huntington Park. Houses in this neighborhood have an average list price of $375,000 and range from $275,000 – $500,000. When I think of the rich suburbs of NW Omaha, I think of Huntington Park. It is roughly west of 156th and Blondo. The precinct that best encapsulates this area id 07-34 which is located from 156th-162nd Parker- Maple.

There were 1,002 votes cast in this precinct for one of the four Presidential candidates.

Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 585 367 43 7
% of votes cast 58.4 36.6 4.3 0.7

 

As we see, this is a pretty conservative area. There were 1,030 votes cast for one of the three candidates running for Congress.

Bacon Ashford Laird
Net votes +80 -10 -25

 

In the nicer parts of Douglas County, time and time again, we see that the areas are very conservative but still have a problem voting for Trump. Maybe there is a social stigma with voting for Trump but they feel comfortable supporting Republicans, anyway. For many, party id simply outweighs social stigma.

LD31

State Senator Rick Kolowski represents this legislative district. It is located in Millard and parts of West Omaha. As I’ve mentioned a few times, Kolowski is a moderate in the unicameral who often takes progressive positions there. Thanks to the Daily Kos’s election team, we have some numbers about how this district voted in 2012. Based on my own research, I have the numbers for how this area voted in 2016.

According to the Daily Kos’s findings, they found that there were 19,579 votes cast in this legislative district. There were only 231 votes cast for one of the non two party candidates for President.

2012 Romney Obama
# of votes 12,734 6,614
% of votes 65.0 33.8

 

There were more votes cast in 2016 in this legislative district despite what people assumed. There were 20,067 votes cast for one of the four Presidential candidates.

2016 Trump Clinton Johnson Stein
# of votes 11,525 7,410 943 189
% of votes 57.4 36.9 4.7 0.9

 

There were a number of voters in this legislative district that did not feel comfortable voting for Trump after voting for Romney in 2012. Gary Johnson had a significant increase in his vote share, as did Jill Stein.  Despite what we were told about Hillary Clinton’s extreme unpopularity, the one who seems to be hurt the most by their unpopularity was Donald Trump. Some journalists need to write about suburban voters who couldn’t find it in themselves to vote for Trump in November.

A precinct level look at Douglas County: Trump-retain voters

Trump – retain voters

When I first started to look at this data, I made a little comment that there are quite a few Trump supporters who also voted to keep the repeal of the death penalty. I initially thought that there were quite a few Catholic Trump supporters who thought that they could follow the Church’s teachings by voting for Trump and then voting to keep the repeal of the death penalty. This would require actual investigation by someone who gets paid to do this to determine why these voters could vote for Trump who was an avowed supporter of the death penalty but also could vote to keep the repeal of the death penalty. Overall, in Douglas County, keeping the repeal of the death penalty outperformed Trump by 1 point.

So what I wanted to do was look at the precincts that Trump was able to win and then look at the precincts where “retain” outperformed Trump. There were 9 such precincts in Douglas County.  I’m ignoring one of them because there simply was not very many voters in the precinct.  That precinct is 08-27 which is located from 144th-156th Center-Pacific. There were 107 votes for one of the four Presidential candidates and only 102 votes for Referendum 426.

06-26: This precinct is located from 114th-132nd and Harney-Dodge.  It is actually located next to 08-27 which is interesting for what we’re going to talk about in a little bit. This is labeled in my spreadsheet as the Jewish Community Center area. Beth Israel Synagogue is located just south of this precinct, closer to Pierce St. The Jewish Community Center is located just west of this precinct. I bring this up because as I began to look at the precincts who voted for Trump and wanted to retain the death penalty repeal, they were focused in this area. The areas that were around this area were 08-27; 06-04; 06-28; 06-10; 06-26; 06-03; and 06-09.  The next table is how the precincts voted for Trump and then for retain on Referendum 426 and then if retain was able to overperform and by how much (essentially retain minus Trump).

Precinct Trump Retain Retain – Trump
08-27 50.5 60.8 +10.3
06-04 50.7 53.0 +2.3
06-28 55.0 46.4 -8.6
06-10 50.9 45.6 -5.3
06-26 47.4 52.1 +4.7
06-03 54.2 49.0 -5.2
06-09 51.3 50.6 -0.7

 

It’s not perfect if you just have those precincts but it’s rather interesting that these precincts were able to stomach voting for Trump and for retaining the repeal of the death penalty. If we were able to segment these areas from the precincts down to the street level analysis. I would be willing to bet that the areas that were closer to be able to walk to Beth Israel Synagogue would be more likely to vote to retain on Referendum 426.

06-06: This precinct is located a little to the South and a little to the East of the precincts (at least the Western portion of this precinct). There’s not a good explanation of this precinct. It is located from 72nd-78th St and I-80 – Oak St. I have it listed as Midtown but not exactly what I would describe it as that. Trump won the precinct by 5 votes over Hillary Clinton.  He happens to be the most popular of the candidates listed on the ballot. Don Bacon lost this precinct to Brad Ashford. It seems to indicate that in this area there were a number of people who could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton but were leaning Democratic. There were 20 more votes for the three Congressional candidates than for the four party Presidential candidates.  Ashford got 55 more votes than Clinton did in the precinct and won it outright. But even still, retain did not win in the precinct. It got 49.1% of the vote.  It lost by 16 votes. This is a precinct where I would want to talk to the voters. They did not vote on ideological lines.

06-08: This precinct could have easily been listed in the table above. It is located from 108th-114th St Center-Pacific. So it is just outside of the tabled precincts I looked at. It just strengthens my idea that the voters who voted for Trump and then voted to keep the repeal of the death penalty were clustered.  Trump won this precinct by 4 points or 50 votes out of 1,330 cast. Bacon got 682 votes in the precinct as there were 31 more votes cast in the precinct for Congressional candidates compared to the four party Presidential vote. Even with all of that, there were a number of voters who crossed party lines to keep the repeal of the death penalty.

06-02: This is yet another one of the areas that could have easily been considered in that table I have of the Jewish Community Center area. It is located from 96th St – 108th St Pacific – Dodge St. Unlike a couple of the precincts that we have been looking at, it wasn’t particularly close. Trump got nearly 54% of the vote compared to Hillary’s 42.5%. Bacon won by 3 points, as well. And retain was not very close either. There were 55% of voters in this precinct who voted to keep the repeal of the death penalty compared to only 45% who wanted to reinstate the death penalty.

05-23: I could even consider this precinct as part of the same are. It’s a very narrow precinct located from 104th -108th St F St – Pacific St. This was a very close precinct in the Presidential vote where Trump defeated Clinton by a mere 8 votes out of 1,165 votes cast. This is another one of the precincts where we have Democrats who were unwilling to vote for Clinton. Brad Ashford got 50.6% of the Congressional three party votes. But then they crossed the line again to vote to reinstate the death penalty. Although, 48.5% of voters wanted to keep the repeal of the death penalty.

So why are all these voters who supported Trump but also wanted to keep the repeal of the death penalty? There are a couple of different possible explanations. My favorite one based on the table above is heavily influenced by religion. Judaism, at least some denominations, oppose the death penalty. Shabbot observant Jews need to live within walking distance of their synagogues to be able to attend services and be able to walk home.

The other explanation is one that we should consider, as well. Voting is inherently a social phenomenon. We kind of ignore this, to some extent. If your family or your friends support a particular cause or candidate and are passionate about it, they will talk to you about it. If you end your friendship with them or sever ties with your family over it, you are the ones that are considered a jerk. If you start arguments at get togethers, people will not invite you back. Overall, it is polite to just allow for the ones who are passionate to express their beliefs. These beliefs extend to a certain point where they are saturated by an area. Friendships, by and large, are not chosen because of ideas or shared interests, they are largely formed and cultivated because of proximity. What good is it if you are a Democrat living in a fairly conservative area to express support for a Democratic candidate that you don’t feel passionate about? You may lose friends, lose invitations to neighborhood get togethers, or family get togethers. It is easier to just accept it. And to a certain point, you may bring that baggage in with you when you vote. You may not feel comfortable, necessarily, voting for Trump but you may just choose not to vote for Clinton. If that same area is heavily invested in the idea of keeping the repeal of the death penalty, you may accept it, too.

But it’s definitely worth exploring this area to see if it can be flipped. It’s certainly interesting.