North Carolina Hate Bill #2

North Carolina recently signed a bill into law that prevents cities from passing LGBT non-discrimination ordinances. That's a problem because North Carolina doesn't have any specific statewide protections in place to prevent discrimination towards gay and transgender people. Seeing a gap in protection, the city of Charlotte passed a bill outlawing discrimination towards gay and transgender people. 

Not willing to let city laws be out of step with the state, the North Carolina state government passed a bill that overturned the Charlotte non-discrimination law. The bill also mandated that students use bathrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificate, and prevented cities from raising their minimum wage, which had nothing to do with anything except that the state house does not appreciate when localities try to enact progressive provisions that are counter to state law.

What transgender women really do in the bathroom.

A lack of non-discrimination protections in state, city and federal law is a huge problem for transgender people. In 30 states, people can be denied housing solely because they are transgender. This has real-life consequences, with at least 11% of transgender people reporting that they had been evicted due to their identity. And in those same 30 states, transgender people can be fired just because of their gender identity, and 26% of transgender people have had that happen to them.

In the absence of statewide protections for transgender people, many cities have stepped up to fill in the gaps. The most prominent has been New York City, which recently clarified their 2002 gender non-discrimination provisions to include gender identity. Basically, this means that just as it's illegal to discriminate against women for their gender, it's illegal to discriminate against transgender people because they are transgender. This March, Mayor DeBlasio took an extra step, signing an executive order affirming transgender people's right to use the bathroom for the gender they identify as.

And while New York state does has protections for transgender people, due to an executive order signed by Governor Cuomo, but there is no statewide law explicitly protecting transgender New Yorkers. Even in progressive states, transgender people still lack strong legal protections, which is why many cities, Charlotte included, stepped up to fill in the gaps.

After all, does the Right really want this transgender man using a women's bathroom? Because that's what the North Carolina bill forces him to do.

This is what makes the North Carolina bill much worse that previous anti-LGBTQ bills. The bill signed into law by the governor actively prevents cities and localities from passing certain types of laws, while simultaneously creating transphobic policies.

The fight for equality and non-discrimination has been reduced to baseless fears about transgender people in bathrooms. A completely unfounded fear, since it's far more likely that transgender people will be harassed or assaulted in bathrooms, with over 70% of trans people experiencing some form of harassment when they tried to use a public restroom. 

The hashtag says it all.

I thought I would never have a good defense for the bathroom worries, until my wonderful brother Cosi gave me a great argument against comments like, "I don't want men in the bathroom with women!" His point was that people are worried about men being the bathroom with women because men are attracted to women, and thus could pose a threat. But then, he pointed out, why aren't those same people worried about people who are attracted to women being in the bathroom with women? After all, I'm a pretty strong woman, who is attracted to women, and therefore, by that logic, could pose a danger to them. 

But that's not an issue, as no one is suggesting that we segregate bathrooms by orientation, in addition to gender. To paraphrase a Cesar Chavez quote, the fight is never about bathrooms or dressing rooms. The fight is always about people. And in this case, the fight is about transgender people having their civil rights taken away by transphobic people.

I know my blog readership, and I know I'm preaching to the choir with this post, but I hope that this little collection of links and opinions helps you when you talk to people in your life, or representatives in your state, who may not agree with you about this. Including your representatives in New York, which does still lack some basic protections, crazy as that may seem.

Follow @AlexSBillings on Twitter!

Short List, Long Confirmation Process

Our West Wing, Best Wing episode this week was a topical one, with the recent appointment of Judge Merrick Garland. This episode also marked the first week that we used a new app to record, and as Molly stated "it sounds like we're hiking" so set your techpectations low. 

See? Low techpectations.

This episode, we discussed what happens when a president nominates a candidate to the Supreme Court, and why the Bartlet nomination looks different than the Obama nomination. And boy, are there some big differences.

The similarity is, obviously, that both are nominating a new justice to the court. The president has the power to nominate judges under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. But the President can't do it alone. Judges are subject to the "advice and consent of the Senate, which today means that a majority of Senators have to vote in favor of the judge's confirmation.

Unrelated to the court, this is the first introduction of Gail the Fish, because Danny is a loveable dork.

That's where Fake President Bartlet diverges from Real President Obama. Fake President Bartlet is counting on an easy confirmation for his judge, and it's looking more and more unlikely that Real President Obama's nominee will receive hearings at all. This is all discussed more in depth in a previous post.

Laying current politics aside, the most surprising thing we learned while researching for this episode was that there are no actual constitutional requirements for the Supreme Court justice. Technically, you don't have to be a citizen or even a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court. However, every Supreme Court justice in history has been trained in the law. In fact, every judge that sits on the current court went to either Harvard or Yale law school, all are either Catholic or Jewish, and all but one are from "coastal states."

This is your reminder that there is an opera about Scalia and Ginsburg. This is a still from said opera. We live in the best of all possible worlds.

Merrick Garland is no different. He went to Harvard and is Jewish, though he was raised in the middle of the country. And much like the fictional judge, Peyton Harrison III (by the way, the WASPiest name ever. That name for sure owns a yacht) Merrick Garland has never written an opinion on abortion.

But that's where the similarities between these situations end, and to hear more about our thoughts on that, as well as who I think the nominee should have been, listen to this week's episode. Or catch up on past episodes here, and follow us on Twitter for up to the minute information (and by information, I mean "links we find interesting").

And finally, on a somber note. Ken Howard has a guest appearance in this episode as Judge Peyton Harrison III (human boat shoe). Ken Howard is best known in our generation for playing the CEO of Kabletown on 30 Rock, and also known for playing Jefferson in the movie version of 1776. He passed away last week, and will be missed.

Thomas Jefferson, or Peyton Harrison III? You decide.

Contested Contest

No one, not even me, thought Trump would last this long. I was sure that he would have dropped out of the race by now due to boredom, or lost a fair amount of states. But that has yet to happen, and I, like most of the country, am freaking out about the possibility of Trump actually winning the Republican nomination, which is why I, along with the rest of America, am hoping and praying for a contested convention.

Sort of wish I could ignore party politics and have a Geena Davis vs. Hillary Clinton election

A contested convention occurs when no candidates have the 1,237 delegates needed to win. This number only applies to the Republicans (the Democrats have a much higher number of delegates needed) but the rules of a contested convention are similar for both parties. 

In the first round of convention voting, delegates are "bound" to follow their states results. So for the first round of voting, all Ohio delegates have to vote for John Kasich, and all Florida delegates would have to vote for Donald Trump. But if no candidate has the 1,237 delegates, a second round of voting starts.

In that second round of voting, more than half the delegates become "unbound" and can vote for whoever they want. If no one reaches the 1,237 delegates in the second round of voting, even more delegates become unbound. This continues until one candidate receives the majority of delegates.

I'm also using this blog post to raise awareness of the fact that Commander in Chief is like THE ONLY media featuring a female president, because even Fake Politics is sexist.

According to the number crunchers at 538, none of the candidates are currently "on track" for the nomination, though Donald Trump is close. It is also becoming more and more clear that, rather than focusing on getting enough delegates to win the nomination, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns are focusing on wooing Trump's delegates in case of a contested convention.
 

The craziest things about these nominating conventions is that the rules can kind of change at any time. If a majority of the RNC Rules Committee agrees on a rule change, they can drastically change the proceedings of a convention, even allowing delegates in the first round to become "unbound" and not vote how the states voted. While this is highly unlikely, is is an allowed and understood power of the Rules Committee, but that surely won't stop people from complaining about it if it does happen.

Not even Geena Davis saw Trump's candidacy coming.

Regardless of what eventually happens in Cleveland in July, all you faithful blog readers get to see something special and rare right now: me admitting I was wrong. I never thought Trump would make it this far, and apparently my prediction skills are not what I thought they were. But, I could still be right about the Democratic nomination, so stay tuned!

Got a Lot of "Enemies"

This week on the West Wing Best Wing podcast, Molly and I discussed "Enemies," the eighth episode of season one. And no, we didn't just pick it because I have a minor crush on Fake VP John Hoynes, to go along with my major crush on Real VP Joe Biden.

Look at young Joe Biden though!

No, we picked this episode because there was a complicated political issue that Aaron Sorkin didn't really explain. In the episode, Congressional Republicans attach a land-use rider to a banking bill that the White House has been working hard to pass. But what is a rider? And what can the president do when faced with a rider?

A "rider" is an amendment that representatives attach to an unrelated bill. For example, Representatives could write an amendment saying that private funds couldn't be used to pay for abortions, and attach it to a bill that works to prevent human trafficking, as Congressional Republicans did last spring. More about the fight for that bill in this blog post.

Not that kind of rider, though Teddy Roosevelt is relevant to this podcast.

When a president is sent a bill with a rider, they can either veto the entire bill, to ensure the provisions in the rider don't become law, or they can pass the bill and accept the rider. It sure would be nice if presidents could just veto the rider, and accept the whole bill though. Has anyone thought about that possibility?

Why yes, phantom reader! That's called a "line item veto" and Congress gave the president power to do that in 1996. This no doubt ensured the balanced budget of 1997, because instead of accepting the entire budget, stuffed with special programs and potentially odd riders, President Clinton could veto certain parts of the bill, but still pass a balanced budget.

But all good things must come to an end. The Supreme Court declared the line item veto unconstitutional in 1998, because a line item veto violates the “constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.”

Oh, how did this picture of Angry John Hoynes get in here?

The lack of a line item veto is why I get angry when John Kasich touts his experience balancing the budget. John Kasich balanced the federal budget with the benefit of a line item veto, and I don't believe he could replicate that today.

This episode also features Molly and I nerding out about National Parks and the Antiquities Act. The fact that we care so much about National Parks, National Monuments, and National Forests was a surprise to us, but beneficial to all of you listeners.

At least Molly and I are in good company!

Go to our SoundCloud to listen to our latest episode, or catch up on ones you missed! And, you can follow us on twitter, @BestWingPodcast, for real-time updates, and articles we find interesting. Next week, we're talking about Supreme Court nominations, so make sure to tune in!

AP Wizardry

Back in February, I settled in to watch the New Hampshire primary, thinking it would be a long evening of political pundit cross talk while I waited for the results to come in. Imagine my surprise when, at 8:01, every news station called the race. I know we are living in a technological golden age, where all the information we could ever want is at our fingertips, but it was shocking to me that with 3% of precincts reporting, the news could declare who won a race.

I even made cookies for the occasion!

The most effective election callers in the business are the good people at the Associated Press. The AP employs over 5,000 people to get the vote count from precincts, which they give to the national AP "vote entry clerks." Vote entry clerks will ask the "vote stringers," or the people on the ground, questions to ensure the accuracy of the results. If there's been problems at the polling site, or the results seem "suspect," the vote clerk has to know. The total number of votes entered in by the vote clerks are sent to the national office, where the AP higher-ups use them to call elections.

Before the polls even close, other members of the National Elections Pool, a network of the AP and other major news channels, will conduct exit polls. They interview a random sample of people as they leave the poll sites, and have them fill out questionnaires about their votes and opinions. I've only had the chance to vote in person a couple of times, so I'm hoping that I'll be part of an exit poll in one of New York's four primaries!

Not sure who I'm gonna vote for yet...

In statewide races, especially statewide races where there is one clear winner, these exit polls are often enough to call the race. Oftentimes, the AP might know who won before the polls have even closed, due to the exit polling, but politely refrains from calling the race until everyone has had a chance to vote. But that's why races sometimes get called immediately after the polls close, when few precincts are reporting.

Munch on a Joe Biden cookie (?) while you wait.

Otherwise, races are called when the AP determines that "the trailing candidate can’t catch up, given the number of votes still outstanding and the voting history of the locations that have yet to report totals." If that sounds like weird, Nate Silver magic to you, you're right! But the AP has an accuracy rate of 99.9%, so they must be doing something right.

Wizardry aside, some elections aren't called as soon as the polls close. Sometimes, we have to wait until the AP actually inputs all the vote totals to know who won the race. This wait is sometimes as short as an hour, or in the case of Bush v. Gore, a month after the original election. Of course, in today's primaries, a month long, Bush v. Gore style recount is highly unlikely. But I'll have a lot of snacks on hand, just in case the results happen to drag on all night!

#EatTheBern

NYC Elections Guide

My number one fan, Elyse, suggested I write a post about the upcoming elections in New York, and create a comprehensive guide to when they are, and why they're important. Many of my readers are in New York, but if my New Mexican friends want a similar guide, or anyone else is confused about elections, you can let me know by putting your state in the comments of this post!

April 19th is the Presidential Primary in New York, but that isn't the only thing on the docket that day. The governor has also scheduled special elections for three Assembly districts and one state Senate district. So if you live on Long Island, you have a chance to potentially elect a Democrat to fill a Republican's old seat. The Assembly districts of lower Manhattan, Staten Island, and eastern Brooklyn. Only the Manhattan district is contested, the others are Republicans or Democrats running unopposed.

Joe Biden thinks it's smart to schedule special elections on the presidential primary day. Boosts voter turnout.

Why is it important to vote for your state elected officials? So many reasons! For one, state elected officials control the state budget, which helps New York City out a lot. The city has its own budget, but key services like the MTA. The state also makes laws that affect all of our lives. Bills like the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, which ensures equal rights for transgender people, a bill to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars, and a bill to give paid family leave to New Yorkers.

Those are three examples of bills that I personally hold dear, but which have yet to pass both houses of the New York State legislature. The best way to ensure that things you care about are turned into law is to vote for people who care about them as well. There's such a perception that New York is all one party, but the State Assembly is controlled by Democrats, while the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Your vote matters more than you think it does, and it's critical you go out to vote in all elections.

I know Obama, we're all upset those bills haven't passed.

But the presidential primary and the special elections aren't the only elections coming up in New York! There are Congressional primaries on June 28th, and local primary elections on September 13th. Much like presidential primaries, these elections let you choose between two people of the same party, to represent the party in the general election in November. A lot of local representatives are likely running unopposed, especially in the primaries, but if you're unsatisfied with your current representation at the state or local level, this is one great way to address it.

Finally, the general election is on November 8th. On that Tuesday, you go vote for the president, your Congressional representatives, the one New York Senator up for re-election (Senator Schumer), your state senators, your Assemblyperson, your councilperson, any judges, and give your opinion on a variety of ballot issues yet-to-be-released. Don't cast your vote against President Trump and stop! Vote down the entire ticket, and have a stake in who is representing you at every level.

Congressman, I'm sorry, you're just not up for election in New York.

That's a lot of elections, and I know we all have to work too much to afford rent in this city. Thankfully, the state government knows that, and in New York, you're entitled to take time off to vote! If you don't have four hours between the opening of the polls and the start of your work, or four hours between the end of work and the closing of the polls, you can take 2 hours off to go vote. Basically, if the polls open at 8am and close at 7pm, and you work from 9 to 5, you can tell your employer that under New York State election law 3-110, you are legally entitled to time off to vote.

Plus, all employers have to post a policy like this ten days before the election. Make sure to keep your employers honest, and help your fellow employees!

How do you know who is representing you? Do you mean your Congressperson? Your State Senator? Your Assemblyperson? Your Councilperson? Your two Senators? It's all there, so do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with your elected officials, before you go out and vote four different times between now and November 8th!

I leave you with the greatest photo of Senator Schumer ever taken.

Crackpots

My lovely friend, former roommate, and current West Wing fan Molly, and I recently started a podcast where we summarize West Wing episodes with a focus on the actual policy involved. The name, appropriately enough, is West Wing Best Wing, and the second episode is out now! 

This week, we discussed Episode 5, The Crackpots and These Women, which introduced the famous Big Block of Cheese Day. Well, technically Andrew Jackson introduced this practice, by putting an actual 1,400 pound block of cheese in the lobby of the White House for everyone to eat.

If you've been to DC in the summer, you can imagine how bad this must have smelled.

We found out that this wasn't just a block of cheese that sat there for days, it was actually used for a public party, which gave me peace of mind, since there weren't any refrigerators in the Jackson White House.

On the show, Leo McGarry, the fake chief of staff, institutes Big Block of Cheese Day so that the senior staff in the White House can meet with people they wouldn't otherwise hear from. This takes the form of C.J. Cregg, fake press secretary, and Sam Seaborn, fake communications director, taking meetings with fringe environmental groups, and UFO believers.

I can confirm that crackpots don't need any help from cheese.

What many people don't know is that there is a Big Block of Cheese Day in real life! Every so often, real White House senior staff and cabinet secretaries use social media to take questions from ordinary people and hear concerns. This gives the White House and the executive branch a chance to connect with their constituents, and allows staffers to make a variety of cringe-worthy cheese puns. 
 

To learn more about the real Big Block of Cheese Day, as well as where the President actually goes in a nuclear attack, and a crash course on Senator Joseph McCarthy and 1990s basketball attire, listen to the full episode of West Wing, Best Wing!

And if you have any episodes you want us to address, put them in the comment section of this post!

An Undue Burden

I know Super Tuesday just happened, and we all want to talk about how well Donald Drumpf is doing, and Clinton's impressive victory, and Sanders' win in Colorado, but right now I want to talk about something more important.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which is challenging a Texas law that, if it goes into effect, would close clinics across the state. The law would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles away, and mandate that clinics meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center. 

This week, in lieu of silly pictures, you get pictures of me advocating for safe and legal abortion.

In Texas, the requirements for an ambulatory surgical center are extensive. Clinics would need to buy new equipment, and sometimes change the design of their clinics, to meet the requirements to be a licensed ambulatory surgical center. All these requirements for a procedure that's far safer than pregnancy.

According to one study, 1 in 11,000 women in the United States died in childbirth between 2005 and 2008, but we don't force women to have children in ambulatory surgical centers. By contrast, only 1 in 167,000 women died from complications from abortion between 2005 and 2008, so if politicians really wanted to protect women's health, they would focus on the dangerous act of giving birth to a child.

The cake doesn't lie.

The legal question before the court is whether or not these laws, like HB2, place an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion. HB2 has already closed clinics in Texas. 20 closed after abortion clinics were required to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, because nearby hospitals wouldn't give the clinics those privileges. Another 10 could close if the ambulatory surgical center portion of the law was to be upheld, leaving only 10 clinics open.

Some women in Texas already have to drive over 125 miles to reach an abortion clinic. Should the last clinic in West Texas close, women will have to choose between driving 500 miles to another clinic in Texas or crossing state lines to go to a clinic in New Mexico (the biggest of shout-outs to Southwestern Women's Options). Either women face the burden of a 500 mile trip, or another state is forced to provide healthcare for people who do not pay taxes in that state. With HB2, Texas is placing a burden on both its citizens and on neighboring states that have their own residents to look after.

It's hard enough to access these clinics, what with the protestors everywhere.

With an eight person court, this case could play out in one of several ways. It's highly unlikely that Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will flip and vote with the Republicans, so either Kennedy will vote with the four liberal justices to strike down these medically unnecessary regulations, or there will be a tie.

As I mentioned in a previous blog post, a tie means the lower court decision would be upheld. In this case, the lower court voted to keep the laws in place, so a tie could mean that clinics in Texas are forced to close. However, the justices can also choose to hold the case over until the next term, when a new justice is on the court.

That's a vintage Planned Parenthood shirt, circa 2004.

There's precedent for holding a case over to the next term when the court has fewer than 9 people. In fact, Roe v. Wade was first argued in 1972, for a court with 7 justices, but the case was postponed until a full court could rule on the important case. As with many of the landmark decisions in recent years, it appears that this will come down to Justice Kennedy, so if anyone sees him in the next couple of days, feel free to share the knowledge you just learned about the safety of abortion, and the medically unnecessary regulations currently in place.