Give Them Hope

First, on a serious note.  Early last Sunday morning, a gunman burst into a popular gay bar in Orlando and opened fire with an AR-15, killing 49 people and wounding 53 others before being killed by the police. This is the worst mass shooting in American history by a single gunman, and LGBTQ people, specifically LGBTQ people of color, were explicitly targeted. All people were struck by the scale of this tragedy, but personally, it has hit me hard. Mass shootings are always more terrifying when you can see yourself in the people who were killed.

It can be hard and scary to be visible. A lot of queer people spend much of their adolescence, and sometimes much of their lives, hiding a big part of their identity. For me, even now that I'm fully and totally out, I'm faced with a lot of daily situations in which I have to make a choice between hiding a part of myself and coming out to a person I don't know very well. Sometimes I don't have the energy, sometimes I genuinely feel it's none of their business, and sometimes I feel I have reason to fear for my safety.

Gay bars are important because they're one of the only spaces where I know for sure that I don't have to feel unsafe being gay. Unlike everywhere else in the world, in a gay bar, my sexual orientation is the default, and I don't really have to explain myself to anyone. That's why this horrific hate crime cuts so deep. Gay people were murdered in a place where they felt safe, and it has just reinforced for me that, as a gay woman, most places in this world are not safe. This danger is further magnified for people of color, trans and gender non-conforming people, and people of different religions.

After the shooting, I was feeling hopeless for a variety of reasons. I was frustrated that people didn't seem to be acknowledging the nature of the hate crime. I was worried that this shooting would be used as another excuse for Islamophobia. I was outraged at Republican politicians tweeting that their thoughts and prayers were with the victims, when their past actions had facilitated the societal homophobia that made a man think it was ok to murder people for being gay.

I was exhausted by the rhetoric calling for better gun control. We've had so many mass shootings in this country that I had no reason to think that this one would motivate Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, or close the gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns at gun shows without submitting to a background check. In fact, I became frustrated that people were talking about gun control because it felt like such a futile conversation.

And then on Wednesday at 11am, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut started speaking on the Senate floor, and with the help of other Senators, specifically Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey, held the floor for 15 hours and renewed my faith in government.

Before I go into the details of this specific filibuster, I am a political process blog at heart, and thus I have to explain what a filibuster is. In Congress, the vast majority of bills can be debated on the floor. In the House, there are time limits for how long people can speak on a bill, usually between one and five minutes. The House is allowed to set time limits for debate overall, limiting consideration on a specific bill to forty minutes total. The Senate, illustrious and elitist body that it is, has no such time limit. Usually, Senators keep their speeches short, and debate can move fairly quickly. But individual Senators have the right to speak "as long as necessary" on any issue.

Yes, I know this is the one we're all thinking about.

Traditionally, filibusters are used as a delaying tactic. In 1957, Strom Thurmond took the record for the longest filibuster, clocking in at over 24 hours when he stalled debate on the Civil Rights Act. Huey Long, a Senator from Louisiana, would routinely filibuster bills he thought hurt the poor, with one of his filibusters reaching 15 and a half hours. But filibusters can also be used by members of the minority party to pressure the majority party into action, as was the case with Senator Murphy's filibuster.

Senator Murphy took the floor a little after 11am, and said he would stand on the Senate floor as long as he could. In order to "hold the floor" or retain his right to speak, there were a couple of rules that Senator Murphy had to follow. The biggest rule is that once you start talking, if you sit down, stop talking, or leave the floor for any reason, you have yielded the floor, and debate can go on without you.

Unlike some places (Texas being a notable example where people cannot stray from the topic of discussion even once) United States Senators can talk about more than just the bill they are delaying, or the cause they care about. Senator Long, in his fifteen hour filibuster, read recipes, analyzed the constitution, and read Shakespeare. Senators can also yield for a question, without losing their right to the floor. While a Senator can yield to anyone for a question, it's common practice to only yield to members in your own party who are on your side, so you know that they won't filibuster your filibuster, and monopolize the floor themselves.

The Texas rules are hardcore, and merit a separate post, but we don't have time for that so enjoy Wendy Davis.

In this case, Senator Murphy often yielded for questions, allowing other Senators to speak about their views on gun control and the Orlando shooting. Almost every Democratic Senator, and a few Republicans, came to the floor and spoke for extended periods of time, finally phrasing a question at the end of a marathon speech, usually something like "what will it take for the Senate to pass common sense gun reforms?" These long questions would give Senator Murphy a break from talking, and allow him to drink and eat.

During a filibuster, the only things you can drink are water and milk (I'm really not sure why you can drink milk, but this post is already so long, that's going to have to be a question for another day). You can't eat anything, except the candy from the candy desk on the Senate floor. Yes, that's right, there is a desk on the Senate floor that is full of candy, but you have to walk all the way over to Senator Mark Kirk's (R-IL) desk to get it.

This is a real desk in the real Senate.

You don't want to drink too much though, because you cannot leave the Senate floor for bathroom breaks. And here's the most fun thing I learned about filibusters this week. Elected officials have all kinds of ingenious ways for avoiding nature's call. Wendy Davis wore a catheter. A St. Louis Alderwoman had her aids set up sheets around her lower half while she relieved herself in a bucket. Strom Thurmond set up a bucket in the Senate cloakroom and peed into it while keeping one foot still on the floor. And if you think that's an unprofessional thing to put in a semi-serious blog post, then you will be dismayed to know that I shared these facts with my boss as soon as I learned them.

When does a filibuster end? Some end when the person can't talk anymore. Some can end when other Senators get 60 people together for a cloture vote, to end debate on the subject, effectively killing a filibuster. Or they can end when the Senator gets what they want.

Senator Murphy brought his filibuster to an end close to 2am, with a newly secured promise from leadership that they would hold votes on universal background checks and preventing people on the terrorist watchlist from buying guns. The final seven minutes of the filibuster is one of the most emotionally powerful things I've seen in politics. To editorialize, I can feel how much Senator Murphy cares about this issue, and his passion makes me believe that the government can step up and do something to combat the huge, complicated, terrifying issues that we are facing that seem to be impossible to tackle. 

The actions of Senator Murphy, Senator Booker, many members of the Democratic caucus, and Senator Tammy Baldwin, the only LGBTQ Senator, who gave a moving tribute to the victims of the attack, gave me hope that had been lost in the wake of the devastating hate crime in Orlando. 

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) during the filibuster

Hope alone can't do everything, but nothing can be done without hope. I know that now, just as sure as Harvey Milk knew it in 1978 when he delivered a speech motivated by tragically familiar actions, and a message that is as relevant and important for LGBTQ people today as it was in 1978.

"After Dade County, I walked among the angry and the frustrated night after night and I looked at their faces. And in San Francisco, three days before Gay Pride Day, a person was killed just because he was gay. And that night, I walked among the sad and the frustrated at City Hall in San Francisco and later that night as they lit candles on Castro Street and stood in silence, reaching out for some symbolic thing that would give them hope. These were strong people, whose faces I knew from the shop, the streets, meetings and people who I never saw before but I knew. They were strong, but even they needed hope. 

And the young gay people in the Altoona, Pennsylvanias and the Richmond, Minnesotas who are coming out and hear Anita Bryant on television and her story. The only thing they have to look forward to is hope. And you have to give them hope. Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right."

As we all, but specifically we in the LGBTQ community, work for a better world and fight for what's right, we must also try to find the symbolic things that will give us hope. They won't be the same for everyone, but for me, someone who has put a lot of energy and faith in the government, watching this filibuster, watching my Senators speak so passionately in favor of gun control and in support of LGBTQ people, and watching the first openly lesbian Senator speak about the pain she was feeling from the attack, gave me hope. I hope it does the same for all of you.

Thanks, Federalism

My friend Jason recently messaged me requesting a post on electors, the people who make up the electoral college. My first response was "silly Jason, the electoral college isn't actually made up of people who vote for a nominee. That would be insane, and could possibly lead to the electoral college voting for someone who did not win the popular vote. Our country would never let that happen."

Wow, was I wrong. It only took a couple of Google searches for me to go from "the electoral college is just a way of easily showing who won the election" to "THERE ARE NO LAWS GOVERNING ELECTORS WHY ARE WE NOT RIOTING IN THE STREETS?!" So let's follow that trajectory, shall we?

Yeah, you'll hear wailing in the streets when I'm done with this.

When explaining the electoral college to people, I usually just hit the high points. There are 538 electors, the sum total of each state's Congressional Representatives and Senators, plus three votes for DC. A candidate needs 270 to win the election. More populous states have more electors, and even the smallest states are guaranteed three, because each state has one Congressperson and two Senators.

What I didn't know was that there are actually people who are selected to be electors who actually vote for a candidate. The system of 538 votes is based on the actual votes of living, breathing people. There's no standardized method of selecting electors, and States are left to their own devices (thanks a lot Federalism). Usually, someone is chosen to be an elector as a reward for service to their political party, and can be state elected officials, party leaders, or others at the state level. Even though the number of electors are determined by how many Congresspeople a state has, members of Congress and employees of the Federal government cannot be electors.

Treasury or State, it doesn't matter, you still can't be an elector.

It's still a little unclear to me how many electors there really are. That's because all the official paperwork makes it clear that party loyalty matters a lot in picking electors. This lead me to think that each political party has a full set of electors for each state. For example, there are three Democrat electors in Wyoming AND three Republicans, and the candidate that gets the most votes in their state is awarded the three electors from their party, not a mix of electors with a variety of different political affiliations.

There used to be a custom where electors were listed on the ballot with the candidates, and people could vote for individual electors. Those of you who voted in New York saw a similar set up on your primary ballots. Candidates were listed, and then had six delegates listed next to them who you could vote for. In the presidential election, this caused some problems, where people would vote for electors of both parties, leaving the electorate split. Kind of like when my friend voted for only female delegates in the New York primary, which means she voted for three Clinton delegates and three Sanders delegates.

And if the electors are split, it's up the delegates. It's up to Hamilton.

Today, individual electors are not listed on the ballot, and in 48 states, candidates receive the full amount of electors (Maine and Nebraska split electors based on the percentage of the vote each candidate received). What I have found in researching this blog post is that it's very unclear whether or not there are two slates of electors, one for each political party. It's unclear because everything written on the Internet about electors is either taken from the National Archives, or a paper from the Federal Elections Commission written in 1992. My educated guess is that there is a slate of electors for each candidate, and when the candidate wins, only the electors from their party vote.

I guess that because it turns out there is no Federal law mandating electors to vote a certain way. Some states have laws preventing electors from voting contrary to the popular vote, and some state political parties have electors sign a party pledge, promising that they won't vote outside of the party. In total, 25 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring that electors follow the popular vote, and some of those states have party pledges as well.

Practice the law, practically perfect it, because it is different all across the country because of federalsim.

For those of you playing along at home, that means that HALF the states in this country do not require their electors to follow the popular vote. This results in the possibility of something called "faithless electors" who cast their votes outside of the popular vote or the party line. Since electors are chosen for their party loyalty, this happens very rarely. The most recent example was 2004, when an elector in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards instead of John Kerry (which, come on, really?). The last time an elector actually crossed party lines was 1972, when a Republican elector voted for the Libertarian candidate. This was also the year that every state but Massachusetts voted for Nixon, so I'm sure that the President wasn't too mad about this one faithless elector.

But just because it hasn't happened often doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Once again, thanks to Federalism, our country has no specific laws governing electors. This could mean that if there's a supremely unpopular racist who, oh I don't know, owns a chain of hotels and crappy steaks, and insists he's going to bring manufacturing back to America, and is the presidential nominee, electors in 25 states can legally ignore that and vote for whoever they want. Again, these are people chosen for their party loyalty so that's unlikely, but so was the entire candidacy of Donald Trump, so who knows what could happen.

Alexander, I have to ask, DID YOU INTEND THIS?

Looking into the Future

If you know me even a little, you know that I hold the website 538 in the absolute highest regard. Maybe it's because I've never been good at math so I'm easily convinced by statistics and models that I don't fully understand, maybe it's because the site predicts elections correctly the vast majority of the time, or maybe it's because I'm widely known as the Nate Silver of Oscar Predictions, so I feel a certain kinship.*

So when a journalist from 538 tweeted that Clinton would probably secure the nomination before the polls even closed in California, I had a vision of the future where people were complaining that she "stole the election" because they called if for her before the people of California even decided. This blog post is here to explain why that's not the case.

The tweet that started it all.

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate needs 2,383 delegates. Right now, Clinton has 1,769 pledged delegates and Sanders has 1,501. Seems like neither candidate is that close to the nomination, especially when you factor in the 694 delegates at stake in the primary on June 7th. However, the 538 Delegate Tracker doesn't count superdelegates, as they have the ability to change their mind right up until the convention in July. 

But if you do count superdelegates, it places Clinton far closer to the nomination. Clinton has 544 superdelegates, for a total of 2,313 delegates overall, and Sanders has 45, for a total of 1,546. With superdelegates, Clinton needs around 70 pledged delegates to secure the nomination, and with the Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands votes this weekend, where over 60 delegates are in play, it's highly likely she will make a dent in that number.

Ah, bold claims and that math to back it up

So going into the June 7th contest, Clinton will have picked up more delegates. The majority of polls show her winning New Jersey, where 126 pledged delegates are at stake. With the pledged delegates from Puerto Rico, and the pledged delegates in New Jersey, she may very well secure enough delegates (super and regular) to win the nomination, without even counting California. That means that at 8pm Jersey-time (5pm California time, before the polls close) news networks may call the nomination for Clinton.

"But Bella!" you say. "She's not really that close to winning the nomination because she's relying on undemocratic superdelegates! Regardless, we're headed for a contested convention!" To you I say, that's not what a contested convention means. A contested convention is when no one has a majority of delegates in any way. It would be like if both Sanders and Clinton had 2,000 delegates each, and the rest of the delegates couldn't pick a side. That's a contested convention. Just because someone doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates doesn't mean it's a contested convention. And Clinton isn't the first person to clinch the nomination by relying on superdelegates.

Thanks Harry!

"BUT BELLA!" you say again. "If Sanders wins in a landslide, some superdelegates will surely support him! They all want to support him anyway, and if he proves he's a winner they will switch from Hillary to Bernie and he will have enough delegates to win!"

You're not wrong, hypothetical friend. A strong showing on June 7th may compel superdelegates to support Sanders. And laying aside the fact that you now want to rely on something you previously considered undemocratic, this would be enough for him to win the nomination. But hundreds of superdelegates changing their support is a Hail Mary pass, not a likely outcome.

Harry, keeping it real.

Is it "voter suppression" to call the election for Clinton before the California polls have closed? I'll be honest, I wish that the media would wait until the California polls have closed before doing anything, but I wish that the media did a lot of things differently. And voters in California should remember that even if the media calls the election, their vote still matters, and they can still make a difference with their vote. But I don't think you can say that the media declaring Clinton the winner is voter suppression. If, by 5pm California time she has more than 2,383 delegates, then mathematically, she is the presumptive nominee, and people have the right to report that fact.

This is all to say, should the primary election be called for Clinton before California voting has happened, it's not a plot by the Clinton camp to stop Sanders from winning California. It's a reflection of the fact that, mathematically, she won the election, independent of any result in California. But if you have any questions or opinions on Tuesday, you know where to find me!

I'm not looking forward to the Internet yelling, but it is inevitable.

*I mean "widely known" in the sense that I hope it becomes widely known, as I am the absolute best at Oscar Predictions.